This is so so so freaking cool: the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites!
 |
Holy Haleakala!
 |
| LM diagram from Wikipedia |
That’s EXACTLY how I pictured it would look. That picture shows the lower half of the Lunar Module, the part that stayed behind on the Moon when Armstrong and Aldrin blasted back up off the surface. It was essentially dead weight, so the LM was designed to split in half, with the top half (the aptly-named Ascent Module — click on the diagram on the right for details) going back up into orbit to meet with Michael Collins in the Command Module. From there they returned to Earth.
The Descent Module is about 4 meters or so across, and the image, above taken when the Sun was low on the horizon, clearly shows the DM and its shadow cast across the lunar surface. The region where they landed was fairly smooth, so the module is the only thing large enough in the image to cast an appreciable shadow.
Wow. Look at that! Physical, tangible evidence that human beings walked on the surface of the Moon. And not just that: we did it again and again. Behold!
 |
That’s the Apollo 14 landing site, and you can see where the lunar surface was disturbed by the astronauts bootprints! Some of that may also be tracks from a wheelbarrow-like device called the Modularized Equipment Transporter which Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell used to help them carry equipment and samples to and from the lander.
Oh man oh man oh man! And mind you, these pictures are not even the highest resolution LRO can provide; future observation will have twice this much detail!
I love this. Not because I needed proof we went, of course. But there is just something about seeing new pictures after all these years. Apollo may seem like ancient history, but those artifacts on the Moon are still sitting there, in many ways as fresh as the day they were placed there.
In all of human history, there are many dividing lines we can arbitrarily assign. Before and after the use of atomic weapons, before and after the invention of the light bulb, before and after this war or that.
But there is one dividing line that can inspire us, fill us with wonder, make us dream of bigger goals, higher aspirations, better ways to live our lives for the future. And that is the dividing line between the time we were a race shackled to the ground, confined to a single planet… and the time a human being stepped foot on another world.
And there it is, in pictures and in fact. This is what these pictures mean. We humans spend a lot of time looking around, looking out, looking down. But sometimes, for just a brief moment, we look up. We did it once before, and it’s time to do it again.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:53 am
NOW can we send all the Moon hoax idiots to the Moon and leave them there. PLEEEEEEZ
July 17th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I’m sure this will shut up the hoax believers once and for all.
I mean, they’ve shown themselves to be a rational bunch who consider all the available evidence, right?
July 17th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Thanks for posting these Phil. Great great stuff.
Hey is anyone else following the “realtime” communications feed from the Apollo missions on Twitter?
@AP11_SPACECRAFT
@AP11_EAGLE
@AP11_CAPCOM
July 17th, 2009 at 10:55 am
BABY, BABY, BABY! I hope those aren\’t faked!
July 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Take THAT @joerogan!
…oh of course… NASA did it. They are after all IN on the hoax… REALLY REALLY in.
Sigh…
July 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
To bad people will still claim we never went there.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Wow! Won’t stop the conspiracy nutjobs, but the rest of the world will be impressed! I can’t wait to see the Apollo 12 site and Surveyor. That will be even more cool.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am
@John.. You are so funny.
They will just say the images are doctored.
I love these images. And LRO isn’t in it’s optimum orbit yet. NASA’s page says Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.
I can’t recall where I was reading it (might have been on here), but there were bets that NASA would get LRO to image the Apollo 11 site in time for the 40th Anniversary. Way to go!
Oh yeah… Phil and this blog are mentioned on CNN’s website, in an article about the hoax believers.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:58 am
That is truly awesome, in the original sense of the word. Thanks so much for posting these pictures.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:58 am
These are great — can’t wait for the higher resolution ones yet to come.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Seriously cool! But how long before someone claims these were photoshopped?
July 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
The footprints are my favorite bit. I get chills thinking about the insane imagination and effort it took to make those tracks.
One thing I’ve always wondered, since these were missions to the moon and all, why wasn’t the program called Diana?
July 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Kevin – no, LRO is not in it’s 50 km mapping orbit yet. That doesn’t happen until the end of August.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Awesome pictures!
July 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I call photoshop. You can tell because the shadows are all wrong
Sorry, couldn’t resist upstaging the hoaxer idiots.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Oh, that is so awesome!
Of course it won’t do anything to the hoaxers’ steadfast beliefs in hoaxism, but to us rational-brained beings, it’s amazing stuff!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Oh thank God….finally. Time to watch the photoshop claims and conspiracy theorists whine and cry. “But now we don’t have anything to DO all day!!!!”
Maybe they could look into the Russian Phobos thing?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
That is exciting beyond belief!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
And couldn’t they have taken some higher resolution images than those? :-/
July 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am
It’s all fuzzy. I don’t believe they exist.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am
This only confirms what those of us with any good sense knew all along.
Thank you, NASA, for revisiting the sites as important to human history as those of Columbus, Zheng He or Leif Ericsson.
Question, however, where are 12′s photos?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
All these pictures have been faked! FAKED I TELL YOU!
The proof is here at my website:
http://geocities.com/looniemoondenierscumbag.html
Look, you’ll see the truth! It was all a cover-up! Don’t you find it suspicious that Gerald Ford, the last surviving member of the Warren Commission recently died….on a day the Bush administration ADMITTED polar bears were endangered due to GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?
They are all connected! Look you’ll see? Why did Ford die if he didn’t have something to hide?
And what about the polar bears?
2012 — the rise of BEAR CITY!!!!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
@Zero – those are extremely high resolution images. The lunar landers are only a few meters wide. The fact that they’re visible as more than a single pixel, imaged from high altitude, is extremely impressive.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
That’s exactly why we don’t feed trolls and moon hoaxers: because real evidence is never clean or pretty, real science is blurry, pixelated and easy to photoshop. In fact, if those images were picture perfect and showed everything up to cm then I would be the first to call it fake.
But looking at it, doesn’t it seems like looking at the remainings of an ancient civilization? It’s less like looking at an ancient aircraft and seeing how it evolved into the things we are usually seeing everyday and more like seeing the great sewer system of the aztecs.
More and more I am convinced that WE never went to the moon. Someone else in some other era did it and the sole descendants of those people are like old WWII veterans, with plenty stories to tell about the past, but unable to repeat any of those now.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Thats a simply awesome picture…..waiting for the next giant leap for mankind.
Agree with John: the moon hoaxers seem especially well trained to teach scientific method. (cough…pukes involuntarily)
July 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I’m old enough to remember the landing like it was yesterday – not ancient history. It’s a shame that the shuttle program, despite all of its successes, diverted us from manned exploration.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Does this mean we can’t punch Bart Sibrel any more?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:13 am
@ John
I meant couldn’t they have zoomed in instead of having to crop the image?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Truly moving. Thank you, NASA.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Very cool pix.. they came online just as I was editing my daily blog entry… easily added! What a cool way to finally see evidence of our missions to the Moon. Of course, the deniers will be spewing their usual vomitous crap about fakes, hoaxes, etc. It’s to be expected among those for whom doing actual thinking would be too hard.
Alexandre: WE WILL go back to the Moon. Exploration is never the province of one generation –it benefits all the generations that follow the original explorers.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Just beautiful – and not the best imagery we’ll have, either.
Between this, SpaceX successfully performing a fully commercial satellite shot, and Burt Rutan’s work … it’s a wonderful time to be alive. The second leg of the Space Race has started.
Here’s a big damn salute to everyone who worked on Apollo!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:14 am
FAKE! There is no moon! And where are the sled dogs they brought!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Absolutely brilliant. What a great week this is shaping up to be.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Brilliant. Those ~100m of footprints in the Apollo 14 photo are amazing. Those had to be some lonely lonely paces from the lander.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:19 am
@Myron you mean the site that returns 404?!
let’s get Conspiracy #FAIL and LRO APOLLO NASA trending on twitter!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Astounding images… Very impressive. These need to make the Digg front page!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Has anyone seen Virgil?
Awesome Phil. Super Awesome.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:22 am
This is fantastic!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am
And on the CNN main page, no coverage. But this: ” Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so.”
July 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Is this technically archaeology now?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am
This is moving. It really is. It’s nice to see our traces on another world.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Holy cats. Look how close the Eagle came to landing in one of two LEM-swallowing craters. Big salute to Armstrong.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
That’s stunning in its own right. And THEN I remember just how freakin’ far away the moon is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Speed_of_light_from_Earth_to_Moon.gif
…and just how terrifying it would be to be trapped in a tin can above what you hope is a dead alien world, how hospitals and other amenities are unreachable… and how thrilling it would be to know you’re taking the first baby steps in mankind’s journey out into the universe beyond our safe little blue spherical home.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Oh sure, a very clear face is seen on Mars, and the scienticians say its fake. But a few random white specks and dark lines on the moon (if their even real pictures of the moon) and some arrows makes everyone believe it’s PROOF of the moon landing. Whatever! This is just more false information released and doctored becasue the moon hoax TRUTH is getting out there and the government is worried about the TRUTH being heard! It reminds me of the “WMDs” and “chemical factories” in Iraq that the satellite pictures showed were there.
——-
How did I do? Was that believable? I even put in terrible grammatical and spelling mistakes to add to the authenticity. Actually, I’m surprised that it’s over 30 comments and there are no “serious” moon hoaxers yet. Great shots! Now I can’t wait for the higher res versions.
But can we send another mission there to clean up our junk already? It’s been 40 years!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Great images!
And about hoax… “The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth” – Edith Sitwell. They’ll just “create” a new hoax
July 17th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Myron brought up a good point. Many loonies have Geocities websites. I got an email from Yahoo the other day saying the Geocities will be closing and all the websites will go away in October. I dunno if the conspiracists have the chops to move their websites. Probably half the nutjob websites on the intertoobs will go away.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Really cool. Why did we stop, again? Oh right, shortsightedness. Big shocker. Well, enough people want to go back, and so we will, and this time to stay. Then Mars and the asteriod belt.
Oh, and these images will not convince those idiots who weren’t convinced by the mountains of evidence that the Lunar landings really happened. These images mean nothing to these people, whatever that tells us about then…
July 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I had forgotten how close Apollo 16 was to landing in an “unfortunate” place. Of course, having avoided the crater wall, it was a good place.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:35 am
OK so when do we go back and clean up our mess we left behind? Why do we have to litter every where we go? I think its really cool the whole space thing…. but to leave so much junk around ……. its like throwing beer can’s on the ground at Yellowstone !! IF YOU PACK IT IN …. PACK IT UP AND BRING IT BACK! P. S. Myron …..NO, sorry you got it all wrong!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
This is so amazing, and you say we have even better to look forward to?
How long before some buffoon pipes up that these are obviously fakes created in Photoshop do you think?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I really like that you can still see the tracks after all these years. No wind or rain to wipe them out. Also interesting to see where the tracks wind back and forth between the craters.
Was expecting to see rover tracks from 15, 16 and 17 though. Different lighting conditions?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Very cool pictures, indeed!
As for the artefacts being as fresh as the day they were placed there, I’m not so sure about the flag. Forty years of high-energy radiation and extreme temperature variations must have worn it quite a bit.
Also, I do believe this will convince some people who previously had doubts that we really did go to the moon. However, it’s probably not a concious process for them. The “true believers”, though, will never sway. The only thing we can hope for is that they lose interest and move on to another branch of lunacy.
PS. Brock, thanks for that link, very instructive.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
And I will add without any hint of embarrassment that I choked up reading your last two paragraphs.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Amazing. Coincidentally I just met Alan Bean today at his gallery at the smisthonian Very very cool.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:42 am
[...] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/ [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 11:45 am
@1 NO!!!!!!
Make them stay here while the rest of us get to take a trip like that
July 17th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Way cool! Won’t shut up the deluded hoaxers, but then nothing will. I just think that’s pretty cool that we finally have something that is able to do that particular task though.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am
totally awesome pics! i have been waiting for these! now i can’t wait for even better ones when the LRO is in its final orbit.
one question: how come we can’t see the shadow from the Starbucks that the astronuats got their lattes from?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Not that the romance and thrill of the Moon landing is lost on me, quite the contrary. It was an amazing feat that shows how fast we can achieve an extremely difficult technological goal. It’s too bad that it took a Cold War to create the competition between empires that made the space and race to the Moon happen.
As a species were absolutely tethered to the ground. The tiny fraction of humanity that has orbited this planet, let alone gone to the Moon is so tiny that it’s irrelevant. What’s not irrelevant is that billions of humans have been able to see the planet from a different perspective. That may not be enough to keep us from trashing this planet, but it’s a big influence in the right direction.
Do we need to return to the Moon? No, at least not in any big way. More humans can experience space travel and visit other planets via telepresence on robotic craft than will ever join that vanishingly tiny few who will do it in reality.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am
So when does the Google truck drive by and give us the view from the ground?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Those astronaut footprints gave me goosebumps! Amazing.
I feel sorry for those conspiracy theorists blathering on and on about the moon landings being a hoax – they’re missing out on a lot. Of course, they brought it on themselves, so…
July 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I certainly didn’t just think to myself for a moment, “Hey, what happened to 13?”
Oh, yeah…
That is so cool. Look at what we did!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Even a neophyte _could_ do this with photosh*p, but I kinda trust NASA.
@Aggrazel… Al Bean almost ran me off the road near Memorial park in Houston about 10 years ago, I just thought it was an old fart with a duffers cap driving a rambler (REALLY) but before flipping him off, I looked at his vanity plates ‘Al Bean’. I caught up to him and saluted!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Simply awesome…oh, and WOOHOO!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
So where are the pictures from a different country or organization? I thought this was a blog about being skeptic.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I just did a post on this, too: The Apollo Moon Hoax: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Images Apollo Landing Sites. I think it’s awesome that you can see the tracks from the astronauts of Apollo 14, and I can’t wait for more detailed photos!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I’ve been waited for these images ever since LROC was successfully launched…. and hoped they would be amazing, but WOW they really, REALLY are so AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
@sgiffy,
You misunderstand, the Moon hoaxers would get a first class ticket to the moon to see the landing sites, but there wasn’t any return trip planned. I’d love to take a trip to the Moon, but only if a return trip was planned. Actually, I’d settle for a spacewalk above the Earth. I’ve heard that it is an amazing experience: The Earth fills your entire field of vision and though you are floating, part of you keeps screaming that you’re falling. (Yes, I know that technically orbiting is “falling without ever hitting the ground” but you know what I mean.) Sadly, I don’t think I’ll be achieving orbit anytime soon. I’ll have to settle for amazing photos like these.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Oh that is BEYOND cool. Actual, NEW pictures of Apollo. I’d like to think this would make the Moon Landings more “real” for people of my generation (people in their 20′s right now). Sadly, It’ll get drowned out in John and Kate and Michael Jackson news.
But HOLY! We actually WENT to the MOON! The !@#$%^& MOON! How awesome is that.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
@Naked Bunny with a Whip
LOL! Good one.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Now, go back to the pictures and look very carefully at the images of the Apollo 16 and 17 landing sites.
Go to the top of the Apollo 16 image, just to the right of the large crater.
Go to the left edge of the Apollo 17 image, about 8 o’clock from the lunar module.
What do you see in each case? Are they lunar rovers?
July 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Woot!
I sense much disturbance in conspiracy field.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I can’t believe I was 7 years old when the first of these things touched the lunar surface. I need to break out the Saturn V and LEM models I built back then and put them in a place of reverence. This was such an exciting time in our history. I truly hope we can go back soon. Those photos and those of the astronauts in the LEM on the moon made me think how truly heroic they were. Such isolation and always the possibility you couldn’t ever get home. Talk about being marooned! The utter bravery of these men is astounding. I wonder how many times these thoughts came to their minds as they tried to sleep for a few moments on the moon’s surface. They were probably so busy otherwise, it was shoved to the back of their minds. We all need to salute these brave men and all their accomplishments. We also need to pay reverence to all those who gave their lives to further our ability to explore beyond our own world. Plus thank you too all on the ground who were involved in making this noble quest possible.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Uber cool!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Hm… blurry, just like the bigfoot pictures.
[I'm a little lazy today, to just a assume I wrote a bunch of loony drivel over how the pictures are obviously faked here.]
What’s funny is, that I’m sure this is what the moon hoaxers are thinking right now, despite the fact that we live in an era of photoshop, and that if we wanted to fake it, we’d make it a damn sight clearer, but I’m sure it’s a switch. Make the public think you’re honest by letting the images improve over time. Yeah those folk at NASA are tricky.
In all seriousness, it’s awesome! Thanks for sharing these with us Phil. Having just caught an old episode of 30 Rock, “I want to go to there.”
July 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I do believe there was someone here about a week ago, when we were first discussing this (Jeff, I believe) that said he’d be off the fence once he could see the landing sites.
Well – I’m waiting to hear from him…..
July 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
CCCCCCOOOOOOLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
treelobsters Said:
“Was expecting to see rover tracks from 15, 16 and 17 though. Different lighting conditions?”
Maybe. But the difference is mostly the wheel barrow that Phil talked about. The barrow was used on Apollos 12 & 14, and had tires which were more like automobile tires in that they had smooth, continuous surfaces. The rovers on 15, 16 & 17 were open meshes of piano wire. The tires on the wheel barrow evidently disturbed the soil much more coarsely than the ones on the rovers did. That’s why there aren’t any visible tracks at the other sites. These pics don’t resolve finely enough for rover tracks and bootprints.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Hi Freakin’ Five Squared!
Bob
July 17th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I just got a wave of euphoria. A wonderful reminder that yes, we sure did go to the moon. I mean, young folks (like me) have seen hundreds of photos and dozens of videos from ’69 and the ’70s, but seeing modern pictures, taken just now, beamed back to us from right there, just makes it so much more real and fantastic. So cool!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I really wish I was old enough to have seen this as it happened. Sadly, I was born 15 years after Apollo 11.
In my entire life, humans haven’t left low earth orbit. That’s kind of sad.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Amazing sight. I can’t wait to see the close-ups.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Okay, this send-up of the front pages of 1969 might not be suitable for all ages (it’s from The Onion, after all) – so feel free to not approve this message at your discretion. I thought it funny, but it sure isn’t for everyone.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/26247
July 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I think the photos just barely resolve the shadows of the RCS deflectors on the LMs.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Right now, LRO’s in its commissioning orbit with a 30 km altitude over the South Pole and a 200 km altitude over the North Pole. In this orbit LRO is flying over the equator (where Apollo 11, 12, & 14 are) at roughly 110 km – more than twice the altitude of LRO’s 50 km mapping orbit. Apollo 16 is more southerly so LRO will can see it now at a slightly lower altitude while Apollo 15 & 17 are more northerly so LRO is viewing them now from a higher altitude. LRO will move to its mapping orbit at the end of August.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Thanks for the heads-up, Phil! Those are incredible. Reading the comments on the NASA page, I note that somebody suggested that they point Hubble at these sites and image them. Obviously, I couldn’t resist. Pending moderation, there’s a link to your Moon Hoax/Hubble article in reply.
Just gives me goosebumps to think that this is the first time any human eye — aided or unaided — has seen those sites in 4 decades… and I’m around to see it, this time. Can’t wait ’til we make a few new footprints up there again!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Call me when they image the golf ball…
…
OK, seriously, this is beyond way cool. It’s beyond “beyond way cool”. This is so far beyond, it’s out of this world cool!
(get it?)
July 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
That -IS- cool, Phil!
I was in the Navy at the time of landing, on the aircraft carrier Saratoga. I had to stand on the anchor chain pipe to get close enough to the speaker of the PA system to hear the radio. Nobody else in 1st Division was interested in the event. Too busy playing cards and listening to music.
Go figure. They’re probably lunar landing deniers now.
My best friend is an LL denier who told me on the phone today that the loss of the Apollo 11 data tapes is further proof of a coverup. I don’t know what I can say to cure this mental disease of his. Once you start to see commies & coverups everywhere it’s hard to shake I suppose. I almost hung up the phone on him but we had important business issues to discuss.
I had to chuckle at the banner of the NASA page, though. Any of you folks out there see the errors?
July 17th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Wonderful, truly wonderful and awe inspiring to see it like this. Sure nutjobs wont be convinced, but hopefully some denialists who are just bitter and scornful will start believing it actually happened.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I don’t see it. All those arrows point to is dots I mean, if a kook used it and instead of landings he was saying it as small martian huts, we would all be chewing him a new once based on the poor pictures along.
It’s nice, but I was expecting more detail.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Actually, like Lawrence, I’m wondering where all the blusterous comments from HBs have dematerialized to? Isn’t this exactly what a number of HBs claimed would convince them? Who is going to be the first one amongst them to come here and admit error?
July 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Look, I know we went to the moon and landed, etc., but the pictures don’t prove anything. These pictures are pretty bad, what are you guys talking about how wonderful they are. All I see is little square pixelated blobs that don’t prove anything other than there is SOMETHING down there. Photoshop aside, these could just as easily be UNMANNED craft, and the “astronaut tracks” could be from an unmanned rover. The other thing is, NASA could have sent up unmanned craft, and that is what landed on the moon, then faked everything else. Encrypted fake vocal responses originating from the spacecraft could be sent to the craft and relayed back. All I’m saying is that THESE picture prove not much. I am awaiting the hi-resolution pictures first, these blobs don’t do it for me.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Thisis obviously photoshopped, I can tell by the pixels.
Also, there are no stars and Im prety sure that rock on the lower left hadn side has a C on it so its obviously a stage prop
In all seriousness, this is amazing. cant wait to see the higherrez shots!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I’ve uploaded several comparisons between the LRO views and frames taken from
the ascent footage here:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6111
Ian.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
@Richard #86 — you mean the banner on the home page under the “LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites…” featurette? I see a couple of things that obviously stand out, like stars visible in daylight, and the fact they depicted the Moon with a thin atmosphere. That lens flare looks a li’l odd, too… are those what you were referring to?
July 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Remember when Neil Armstrong reported, after “the Eagle had landed” that it took so long to land because the auto pilot was taking the craft down into a “football field sized crater” and he had to maneuver away from it?
There it frakkin’ is!!!!!!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Dwight,
It has already started. The claim (so far) is that it must be one of the test vehicles sent earlier. Of course, the natural question becomes, why send a test vehicle for a landing that you are going to fake?
(And, of course, what test vehicles? Were there test landers? I never heard of such.)
July 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Those aren’t lunar modules! They’re, ummm, they’re zits! Yeah – that’s it! ZITS! ZITS ON THE FACE OF THE MAN IN THE MOON!!!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Actually I am wondering why there appears to be only one set of footsteps from the landing site…Didn’t two men make the walk- Aldrin and Armstrong? If these were authentic photos they should show two unique sets of steps from the LM and two sets back to the LM. This photo shows only one set leading from the LM and none coming back
Also how did the astronauts survive re-entry? Our shuttle has numberous tile sthat protect it from the heat. That technology was not avaiable then. It seems that the passengers would bake inside upon re-entry of the atmosphere
I am not sold either way, but many questions remain unaswered for me. If anyone can shed more light on these subjects, please email me at bigdaddyxlt@rock.com
Thanks
July 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Nice pics, but I hoped for a bit higher resolution to be honest. But great anyways! Has anyone spotted the LRVs yet? Should also be barely visible, being about 3 meters long.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
John: I know, I was born just about a year after the first Shuttle mission. It’s sad really that in 28 years NASA hasn’t flown a person into space any other way or any further than near earth orbit.
We should have been back to the moon in that time and we should be closer than we are to sending humans to Mars. Rovers and other robotic explorers are wonderful and do so much great science that I wouldn’t want to stop ending them out into the solar system but they just aren’t the same as human explorers.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I’m looking forward to seeing the Apollo 12 landing site image – to see if the Surveyor is also visible.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
They need to image the 16 and 17 sites closer. There should be rover tracks all over the place if they can see footprints at the 14 site.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Ken M:
That’s why he took over controls for the final descent, carrying the LEM beyond the craters and boulders, and ignoring the computer’s “Help! Data is coming in too fast!” errors, and with something like 10 seconds of fuel left, finally landed in a “good” spot.
(Oh, and let’s hear it for the 20-something intern who “just happened” to have written down all the error codes, their meanings, and what to do about them. I heard his name on a show recently about all the things that went wrong [or nearly wrong] during the flight, but I don’t remember it. Now _that’s_ trivia.)
Anyone know which direction the Eagle was moving, in relation to the images?
July 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Very nice. Me likes.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
That’s awesome.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Fantastic!
Back in 1969, I would have thought that by 2009, we’d need a fence around Tranquility Base to keep the damn tourists from messing it up.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Is it me or do I actually see tracks from the rover in the Apollo 17 landing?
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369444main_lroc_apollo17_lrg.jpg
July 17th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
@Richard Drumm The Astronomy Bum,
Ask your friend that, if the loss of the Apollo 11 data tapes is proof for a conspiracy/hoax, why isn’t the existence of good quality video of the other lunar landings proof that we actually went to the moon?
Of course, you’re right that no amount of arguing/reason/proof is enough for Moon Hoaxers. They simply write off any proof as being faked or as not proof at all. Even if you manage to knock down one of their arguments, they simply move the goalposts and demand that you meet their additional levels of proof to convince them. Even if you were to load them into a rocket and take them to the actual moon landing site, they would probably claim that you somehow constructed an elaborate hoax setup to try to fool them. Of course, they being so clever would see right through it.
And I think that last part is the root problem. These people see a vast conspiracy that has “fooled” millions of people. But they see themselves as being clever enough to see through the “fakery” to see what is really happening. This gives them a feeling of superiority. When faced with the prospect that their superiority was actually founded on lies and they are – if anything – below average for constructing vast conspiracies where there were none, they choose to believe rather that anything that proves them wrong is part of the conspiracy. This way they are never wrong and they are consistently superior to those highly intelligent, highly organized conspirators who faked the moon landing/911/the Holocaust/whatever.
It’s kind of the same thing as a person who falls for a Nigerian scam giving more money to the scammer. They either admit that they were scammed or they cling even tighter to the false hope of millions and dig deeper into debt.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
The banner graphic I referred to is found on the NASA page you get to by clicking on the Apollo 11 graphic at the top of the page:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
With the image of the LRO and the Moon in it, with the text “Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter NASA’s First Step Back to the Moon” on it.
I don’t see any stars in the graphic, so I’m not sure about that reference, Josh R. That was not one of my geeky quibbles. I didn’t think the Moon is shown with an atmosphere either, it might just be a leftover from the graphic’s creation. That too, wasn’t one of my quibbles.
I see 2 errors right off the bat with the graphic, but strictly speaking, as a graphic it works well. It’s artistically done and nice to look at, so it works. It just has a couple errors in it that nobody but a graphics geek like myself would spot or dare mention.
[needless nerdgasm]
July 17th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
TechyDad:
Well, they wouldn’t need a return trip, since they wouldn’t really be going to the Moon, would they?
July 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I have a NASA URL in the earlier posting #101 above but it caused a ‘Moderation required’ condition, so I removed it. Moderation was still required, though, so I’m stuck. I put the URL back and you’ll have to wait for Phil to OK the post to read it…
[sigh]
TechyDad:
Good point regarding the later Apollo missions and their NOT LOST data tapes. I’ll have to mention that to my buddy and see what he says!
July 17th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
These are indeed very cool, the higher resolution ones taken from the actual mapping orbit will be even cooler.
They’ve been nice enough to point out detail in the Apollo 14 example, but note that lots of other details can be made out in the other ones as well (if you’re geeky enough to know where to look for it), and, more importantly, such detail isn’t necessarily new, since some of it has been captured from orbit already during Apollo, namely with the panoramic cameras in the SIM-Bay of the J-Mission LMs. It will be very interesting to match those frames up with the new LRO data. Great stuff.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I have a confession.
NASA stands for the National Agency for Secret Artistry. They were developed as part of a plot to take over the earth. They have spent forty years researching the right combination of technique and filters to produce convincing images of supposed ‘landers’. The eventual goal was to convince all the non-believers that the moon landings were real, once the world believed we would reveal alien technology that would allow us to transport the population to the moon and other planets. While we stayed behind to claim the world you would find yourself baked by radiation before plummeting into the lunar surface.
We would have had these photos much earlier with the advent of Photoshop, however the introduction of GIMP caused an internal rift. It wasn’t until the features of CS4 were announced that we could finally agree.
If you wish to live contact your senator and speak the phrase “The Hummingbird knows of the Butterfly’s secrets”. But continue to spread the myth or they will silence you.
I can no longer stand to remain silent but I fear I’ve said too much. Good luck.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
[...] och fortfarande tror på en månkonspiration att läsa den först innan du postar något. Han skriver också en hel del (med fasen så mycket bättre kunskap än jag) om dessa fantastiska b… Dela med [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Richard Drumm:
Well, not to put words in their mouths, but…
“Well, after NASA realized that they goofed by not faking high-quality tapes for Apollo 11, they started faking them for the later missions.”
However, I don’t have any idea what they would say when you ask them “why didn’t NASA just ‘find’ where they ‘lost’ the Apollo 11 tapes?”
July 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Very very cool indeed, I eagerly await the even higher res photos to come.
I wonder if the flags are still intact after all these years or if they have crumbled due constant to solar radiation?
July 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
This is so cool…I can’t wait to see the higher res. images. Does anyone know if they’ll get some Google Earth quality pix of the landing site? or any from a different angle rather than directly above? Just curious! I hope so!
July 17th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Funny that imaging has gone no where better in the past 40 years. These look as grainy as the black and white pictures from the Apollo missions.
NASA should have asked me for my Nikon D60. Wouldve gladly donated it to the cause.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Richard Drumm:
Well, I see two things, now that I’m looking for them…
If you are seeing “Earthrise”, then the part of the Moon visible in the image should be the “far side”. I’d have to check, but I have a feeling it’s not.
Second (hold onto your hats, HB’s), is the antenna’s shadow points to the right, when the Sun is obviously “up” in the image.
Ah, which brings up a third. (Or two-point-five.) The Sun is “up” in relation to the Earth, but to the right in relation to the Moon.
But, given that it’s a web page banner, I’ll give them artistic license.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
There’s not nearly enough resolution in those photos for you to know how many sets of footprints there are. It’s far too fuzzy in these early shots – there could be dozens of peoples’ footprints at that resolution and it wouldn’t look much different.
The command module had a heat shield. C’mon, use Google for 30 seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry
July 17th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@Kenn B, @ Richard Drumm
That’s all we need to debunk anyone who claims these photos were photo-shopped. NASA is supposed to be good enough to fake moon photos but they can’t even make a convincing space scene for the banner?
July 17th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Ken B.:
You nailed it!
- The Moon image shows crater Plato & Mare Frigoris, which are on the nearside, but Earth is rising over the limb, so this view of the Moon should be the farside.
- The LRO is lit from the upper left, but the Moon & Earth are lit from the upper right (though maybe from slightly different angles from each other).
You win everlasting geekdom! Enjoy! ;^)
You’re right, though, it’s just a banner and as an artist myself I grant them artistic license to do what the frak they want!
July 17th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Of course this won’t persuade the HBs, though it may help with any remaining innocents they’ve managed to dupe.
The whole objective of the conspira-liars is to “prove” that salesmanship and sound-bite aggression trump facts, intelligence, and (most importantly) honest work.
Frankly I am not interested in proving anything to these people and their audience. Spaceflight is not for compulsive liars and it is not for the semi-evolved knuckle-draggers who applaud them.
“Cast not thy pearls before swine”
In some ways, the ultimate objective of spaceflight is to leave such people behind.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I think the moon was faked, and the astronauts landed on earth but we’re all *on pluto*.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
For the ones cracking wise about finding the ruins of a civilization on the Moon, well, some of us already know all about it.
Anyhow, this is definitely something else – and I wish I’d been around for it when it first happened – but I know that it’s going to be one of those things where everything is tainted by the drooling, mindless idiots who want to push their insane beliefs, and I’ll never, never be able to get true enjoyment out of it because of them.
It’s the burden of not being a drooling idiot (at least on this), I suppose.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
BTW: Shuttle has just docked to ISS… Am I right to notice that for the first time in the history we have 13 people aboard a single spaceship in Earth orbit?
July 17th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Very awesome, indeed! I can’t wait ’til they image the booster impacts where the upper stages were sent crashing into the Big Cheese… ummm, I meant to say Moon…
Mchl:
This is the most humans on one spacecraft at the same time. In 1995 a Shuttle was in orbit, Mir was in orbit, and a Soyuz capsule was in orbit docked with Mir, but the Shuttle did not dock. There were 13 in orbit then as well.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
To Dennis:
“Also how did the astronauts survive re-entry? Our shuttle has numberous tile sthat protect it from the heat. That technology was not avaiable then. It seems that the passengers would bake inside upon re-entry of the atmosphere”
Answer: The same way Russian Cosmonauts have survived reentry every six months for the last almost 50 years. With an ablative heat shield. The Russian Soyuz has no tiles. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Vostok, Voskhod and Soyuz had no tiles. Are you saying ALL these missions were faked? Do you know how many missions we are talking about? Do you know how many times humans have returned from space without the benefit of tiles since 1961? It is fine to assume a skeptical posture before you have done your research, but the proper position isn’t “I don’t believe it, but “I haven’t really looked into it”. You have to do your research before you say “I don’t believe it.”
July 17th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
please come back and talk now neil,virgil ect ect ect please
July 17th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Ad Hominid,
Or, as Heinlein put it so succinctly: ” Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
July 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@chaboyax : Neil has alrady said that LRO pictures will be no evidence for him, as they’re released by NASA – the agency that is behind the conspiracy.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Oh boy, oh boy! This is great! It’s amazing that these artifacts are remnants of the greatest feat ever undertaken by mankind. I would love to walk around and see them and touch them a little too.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
All this means is that NASA sent an unmanned probe that a) created those tracks and b) created some white big stuff out of FOAM probably to support the obvious moon hoax!
They could have done this in the 90s. All those failed “Mars missions” they launched could have been just payload to support the moon hoax before China, India and Japan could get their scopes on that area.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
[...] APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine __________________ [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
OK, a serious question:
If an astronaut had shuffled the word “HELLO!” into the dusty regolith, would we consider that funny all these years later, or profoundly inappropriate?
July 17th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
We would find it funny
July 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
@Dennis
“Actually I am wondering why there appears to be only one set of footsteps from the landing site…Didn’t two men make the walk- Aldrin and Armstrong? If these were authentic photos they should show two unique sets of steps from the LM and two sets back to the LM. This photo shows only one set leading from the LM and none coming back”
Umm, wow. You do realize that you’re not seeing individual footprints, right? The LRO doesn’t have the resolution to make that out. What you’re seeing is is a path that was worn by the astronauts making several trips back and forth to set up the instrument, and they followed roughly the same path every time. I’m wondering how you figured that the image only shows one set of footprints going away from the lander, and none going back. To me, it looks like a smudge slightly darker than the surrounding area, with no indication whatsoever of what direction the footprints are headed.
Think of a path that gets worn in the dirt after several people walk on it. You have no way of telling, just by looking a the path, what direction they were heading. What you’re seeing as “footprints” is something like that.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Great stuff Phil! I can’t wait to see the higher res shots.
It is amazing how seeing new pictures can remind us of the incredible, inspiring power of this achievement.
I wholeheartedly agree, let’s do it again!
Larry
July 17th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Thanks for the heads up on the LRO imagery. I was hoping they’d show up in time for the 40th anniversary. Amazing images!
I was fortunate enough to have watched the events unfold in front of me LIVE – via our “huge” 25″ color TV (the round tube kind). Being a young, 15 year old photographer, I setup my 35mm camera and captured my own record of the first steps. Also, in the set, is the picture-in-picture of President Nixon making the historic phone call to the astronauts, and Armstrong’s salute from the surface of the moon.
I recently scanned those transparencies and they’re available for view at http://gallery.me.com/gr8tfly1#100023&view=mosaic&bgcolor=black&sel=0
Enjoy!
July 17th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
By the way, Phil, and others who may be reading my posts. It’s my view that many of the “casual” moon hoax believers are less conspiracy theorists than people (mostly young) who simply haven’t been taught much history. Their questions seem actually quite innocent. I am the director of an academic library, teach information literacy and critical thinking, and am on the board of directors of a Novato, California-based space history foundation. I deal with this a lot. Much of what I see in the young casual “moon hoaxers” is less of a conspiratorial affliction and more of a tragic level of under education in basic history and science.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
IMHO, the only faking of images that NASA has ever done is to remove the occasional evidence of alien craft from spy satellite pictures. This task is reportedly performed at NASA for some unstated reason.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Have we not reached the point in our cultural consciousness when ‘images’ have lost all value as evidence of reality? Whether you’re a conspiracy practioner or not, the fact that NASA proudly displays a blurry ambiguous image as proof positive of what it should not be bothering to prove (doesn’t acquiescing to suspicion only validate claims that more proof was needed, furthering suspicion) shows how cynical we’ve become – a clear concise image would almost certainly be deemed fake.
Like it or not, we’re witnessing the disintegration of history. The factuality of events has always eroded, but over time, generations and centuries. In the post digital revolution the use and misuse of images is so facile that every event (Apollo, Holocaust, Michael Jackson’s hair on fire) will immediately have its enforcers and eroders. Truth is in danger of becoming a shifting majority opinion.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
How did we get those big white arrows on the moon like that!?!?!? Those are amazing!
July 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Just out of curiosity, looking at the graphic of the different missions’ landing sites, where was Apollo 13 supposed to have landed if everything hadn’t gone all to heck?
July 17th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Duane says “OK, a serious question:
If an astronaut had shuffled the word “HELLO!” into the dusty regolith, would we consider that funny all these years later, or profoundly inappropriate?”
Gene Cernan almost did that! He drew his daughter Tracy’s initials in the regolith just before he departed. I think that is kind of sweet. (He drew them too small to be imaged by LRO)
As for a giant “Hello”. yeah, probably tacky. Better than “Kilroy was here” though, a common joke among military guys of that vintage.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
This is not as convincing as this: http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/1/Fake-moon-landing-436686.html
July 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
The way I see it, these pictures are NOT for the conspiracy theorists, but rather for the sake of interest for those of us who know there is no conspiracy. Nothing more. As it has been said many times, photos are too easy to fake now… there is no point touting these photos as evidence of anything. There is no convincing the moon hoaxers.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Phil…
Thank you for those pictures and a passionate defense of what is probably our greatest achievement. Shocks me to believe that we haven’t been back in 33 years; that people still deny the legacy of Apollo.
Keep it up.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Shopped!”
July 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Gene Cernan almost did that! He drew his daughter Tracy’s initials in the regolith just before he departed. I think that is kind of sweet. (He drew them too small to be imaged by LRO)”
Was it Cernan, or was it Pete Conrad?
July 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Duane:
No, what would be funny if they had shuffled “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky”.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Marsh
- I believe 14 landed where 13 was supposed to land. Someone correct me if I’m wrong
July 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Grisha
I have encountered that quite a bit. I mentioned the amateur radio tracking of Apollo to one young believer and added that if radio amateurs could track the missions, it was a sure bet that every military force in the world could. She responded that her uncle had been in the military and he said that military people are all robots and do as they’re told. I ignored the slander and the ridiculous appeal to authority and, after some back and forth, it emerged that she was not aware that there is more than one national military force in the world. She thought they were all American and all take orders from the Pentagon, so they had to be in on the hoax.
This person was a senior pre-med student btw.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Paulcrik,
And if NASA didn’t show the pics, THAT would be evidence for the hoax. Funny how all roads lead to the same place with those people.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Magnificent Desolation ( the words of the second man on the moon ) great fotos! I was 17 at the time and I remember sitting around a small B&W TV at the camp office where I was working watching history unfold.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
@paulcrik – They’re not releasing them to “prove” the landings were real. They’re releasing them to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the first landing. NASA could not care less whether conspiracy wingnuts want to believe it happened or not. It did happen, and that’s what matters. It’s just like evolution. You can “believe” whatever you want. That doesn’t mean evolution isn’t true.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Wow… to walk where no human has set foot… it has to feel amazing and be incredibly scary all at once. to # 139: LOL , I think that people would take it as inappropriate but I don’t think that NASA would send a mission up just to erase it
July 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
136. Duane Says:
“OK, a serious question:
If an astronaut had shuffled the word “HELLO!” into the dusty regolith, would we consider that funny all these years later, or profoundly inappropriate?”
That would have been terrible. The ‘aliens are among us’ wingnuts and the landing-deniers would be at each others throats and spamming each other instead of posting comments on decent, well-written blogs like this one. Wait a minute…
July 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
If the scale bar is 100 m, then the footprints must be around 10 m?! Were these astronauts related to Sasquatch???! Or am I interpreting the photo wrong?
July 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Wow man… after looking at those phot0s, and then reading your last paragraph, i teared up. Powerful stuff and a monument to what we can do do when we aren’t being dumb.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Romeo Vitelli Says:
> Does this mean we can’t punch Bart Sibrel any more?
I punched Bart Sibrel this morning, and I intend to punch Bart Sibrel this evening. I know Bart Sibrel, I punch Bart Sibrel, and, believe me, you’re no Bart Sibrel!
July 17th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Alan Shepard
July 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
99. Dennis Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Actually I am wondering why there appears to be only one set of footsteps from the landing site…Didn’t two men make the walk- Aldrin and Armstrong? If these were authentic photos they should show two unique sets of steps from the LM and two sets back to the LM. This photo shows only one set leading from the LM and none coming back
It would have been a neat trick for Aldrin and Armstrong to make footprints at the site of the Apollo 14 landing.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@paulcrik
It’s worth noting that we have some pretty solid history from before photography was invented at all.
For instance, there are people who reject the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, but to the best of my knowledge none of them have cited the lack of photographic evidence as a reason.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
136. Duane Says:
OK, a serious question:
If an astronaut had shuffled the word “HELLO!” into the dusty regolith, would we consider that funny all these years later, or profoundly inappropriate?
I’ll bet that some of the guys are kicking themselves now for not thinking of that, how cool would it be to find that Armstrong had shuffled: “Neil ♥ Janet” in the moon dust?
July 17th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Wow. You can even just make out one of the landing legs on the Apollo 14 LM. Epic.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
See the live (+40 years) radio traffic between apollo 11 and houston on
http://www.twitter.com/apollo11live
July 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Hey, now that I look more closely at the Apollo 14 picture, I can swear I see a golf ball about 80 meters from the LM.
(Space Geek insider joke?)
July 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Ken B:
No, what would have been really funny is if Armstrong and Aldrin had drawn on the Moon’s surface a picture of a bald man peering over a wall — like in the end scene of the movie Kelly’s Heroes — with the words underneath: UP YOURS, U.S.S.R.!
July 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
On a serious note, it might already be time to think about making provision to preserve these sites. Given the nature of the Moon, even the footprints can be preserved for centuries. Conversely, any effort to approach the sites would do irreparable damage.
At some point in the far future, it will be possible to build some kind of overhead system that would allow visitors to view the sites without actually stepping on them. The light gravity of the Moon would make this relatively simple, since the rails or whatever could be supported from posts a fair distance away.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
What about this evidence is physical and tangible?
Some pictures transmitted and presented on a website?
July 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Who cares about “The Hoax” believers / landing-deniers? Don’t spend even a moment wondering why irrational people are irrational. This is great stuff, and well timed. Bravo.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
[...] by mattusmaximus on July 17, 2009 I just saw this post over at the Bad Astronomy blog by Phil Plait, and seeing as how the media is crawling all over the touched up NASA footage of the [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
@ ad hominid:
I believe Arthur C. Clarke did a short story once about such a “protected” site being disturbed. In his story, he quoted an aging Neil Armstrong (we were sending tourists to the moon by 2000, sigh….) as saying he’d be happy to go back up and make some more footprints for the gawkers to see.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
>>”…how cool would it be to find that Armstrong had shuffled: “Neil ♥ Janet” in the moon dust?”<<
Who knows, he might of done it privately with his boot toe.
For the other image, Astronauts hypothetically shuffling along to create a big “Hello” as suggested in a previous post – would have of course taken up way too much valuable time.
As for the hoax believers, they will continue to make fools of themselves because the root of their disbelief is hatred for any and all aspects of “big government” projects of which the Apollo Program was a part.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Why couldn’t Hubble have done this years ago?????
July 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
OMG, I first read this as “Damaged by” not “Imaged by”….
Then, I read “This is so cool”
…
But I get it now. I’m returning to a state of calm.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
@Chip the root of my disbelief is the guy in charge at the time (Nixon)
I’m sure we landed on the moon, but getting a 70-mm Hasselblad to work up there is where the story becomes a work of fiction…
And those more recent pixels, sorry, pictures, are less convincing than the face of christ on a piece of toast.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Well, that did it! The space child in me just woke out of hibernation. (Dad was at Goddard from the late 60s into the 90s.) Off to find all the good stuff being posted for the 40th!
July 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
166. John Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
@Chip the root of my disbelief is the guy in charge at the time (Nixon)
I’m sure we landed on the moon, but getting a 70-mm Hasselblad to work up there is where the story becomes a work of fiction…
-sigh- Ok, please tell us why that is fiction…
And those more recent pixels, sorry, pictures, are less convincing than the face of christ on a piece of toast.
So you want to see the evidence on a piece of toast?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Anyone with a copy of Photoshop could put together images like that. They prove nothing.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
# 117. Bryan D Says:
I wonder if the flags are still intact after all these years or if they have crumbled due constant to solar radiation?
Well, considering nylon isn’t even supposed to go in a hot wash cycle, I’d guess they’re pretty much destroyed by now – midday heat of 200F+ making the fabric slowly sag & baking it into less flexible polymers, plus the -300F of nighttime making it super-brittle, not to mention the years of raw solar UV.
I’d guess all the flags are now piles of pale grey cornflake-sized bits at the bottoms of their respective poles.
(Oh, and the majority of the Apollo 11 “first footprints” would have been smeared badly by the Ascent Stage takeoff exhaust, too).
/ debbie downer music
July 17th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Anyone with a copy of Photoshop could have produced those images. I, for one, am not convinced.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Just one thing. When and where was that “discovery of the light bulb”?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Wow.. what another astronomical waste of money. friggin NASA.. what a joke.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Oh no, We are polluting the moon. Surely this will have an affect on global warming.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
(And I should of course have said CSMs, not LMs. People are really paying attention here, huh?)
July 17th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@syrtis
“Oh, and the majority of the Apollo 11 “first footprints” would have been smeared badly by the Ascent Stage takeoff exhaust, too.”
The exhaust would have been significantly deflected by the descent stage. It would not have impinged on the ground right next to it until it reached a pretty fair height. The footprints farther out would undoubtedly have been smeared though; which might well be why the trails are visible in these images.
Keep in mind that this was not a very powerful rocket, with about the same thrust as one the engines in an early Learjet. Was that enough to save the footprints? Beats me but I hope I live long enough to find out for sure.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
All pictures are obviously photoshoped! It is too convenient that these pictures suddenly pop up now.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
My boss Dr. Dale Smith from the days I worked for the astronomy department BGSU had told me about his experience looking through a massive telescope to see the Apollo landing sites, and I remembered being in awe.
I’m glad I could see this for myself, what a wonderful year the IYA is turning out to be!
July 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
ot… the new hassies have tons of plastic and they don’t even use Carl Zeiss lenses any more…
they use fujinon. Well the digital ones at least… the C series is still sold with Zeiss.
as to the camera not being functional on the moon, one of the modifications was developing a lubricant that could withstand the 500 degree temperature swing. And, from the pictures I have seen (well, everybody has seen em) it would appear the hassies worked flawlessly.
I would love to be the one to salvage the 12 500ELM (modified) bodies they left up there!
July 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
litterbugs
pack in – pack out
I always say, but then I don’t work for NASA
July 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I find it hard to take CNN polls very seriously as many are quite inane, but find it quite disturbing that the current results have 15% (37,726 people) saying “Yes” to “Do you believe the Apollo Moon landings were fake?”
Clear skies, Alan
July 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Simply incredible pictures. To be able to see something that we left on another world gave me goosebumps.
I still can’t imagine why anyone would try to argue it was a hoax. You’d have to completely deny facts that practically punch you in the face. Not like people who believe the hoax would do anything like that.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
@IVAN3MAN:
What part of “We came in peace for all mankind” did you not get?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Even if footprints at the very base of the ladder were somewhat smeared or dust covered from the ascent blast, footprints yards away are likely preserved and pristine.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
OH NO!! Now it looks like the LRO is part of the cover up too. THEY must have gotten to it. If we can’t trust our robots, who can we trust?
Maybe this is the begining of the ASSIMULATION. Is resistance futile?
I am really looking forward to the closer pictures where we can see the artifacts and if those aliens have run out of Tang.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
[...] place you should go to read about all of this is Phil Plait’s wonderful blog, Bad Astronomy. Plait has run a website and a blog for years that debunks silly claims like UFOs, faces on Mars, [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Shopped! I can tell by the pixels!
July 17th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
@ TexasOdysseyCoach (Gene)
“from the pictures I have seen (well, everybody has seen em) it would appear the hassies worked flawlessly”
Yes, they did, so did the 70mm film, which is where credulity becomes a little strained.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
[...] Read more HERE. [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Hey, don’t diminish ppl to simpletons just because some are sceptical to a nation that are infamous to manipulate the world! Of course the gears are there NOW as they are planted there afterwards as technology became available. This is the worst cover-up and is sadly swallowed in it’s entirety by already convinced believers. Footprints and moon buggy tracks was easily created by automated systems, we have even made this on Mars………..
Sorry, sorry, sorry, could not help it, the gate was fully opened and someone had to come up with a more plausible conspiracy explanation to WHY it still isn’t proved to have happened. I had to raise the bar above the “sim..” that believes a nation would Photoshop a hoax to postpone an inevitable exposure. 
This is so cool, and the comments are wonderful too. I have longed for these pictures my whole life. Imagine that we now got the opportunity to see the actual footprints on the moon, ON THE MOON! Way to go guys.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I need higher resolution photos to be convinced. Too easy to be doctored without anyone knowing because they are so pixelized already…. :-/
July 17th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
[...] is VERY cool APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine NASA has taken photos of the landing sites. STFU now moon deniers __________________ [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was invented by God to test our faith.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
[...] other news, the newest images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show the Apollo landing sites. [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
How many of these HB/pseudo-skeptic comments are real and how many are just trolling?
July 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I am living proof that some people can be convinced out of a conspiracy theory with logic and evidence. I used to be a 9/11 Truther.
These pictures ought to provide an important piece of the puzzle for at least some conspiracy theorists on the journey back to reality.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
[...] The LRO has beamed back some 100m shots of the gear left behind on the lunar surface. Phil Plait has it covered. Bad Astronomy Blog: [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
@140: Wow, the “animation” images. I remember those. Like during docking and such. I was just a wee lad and didn’t understand why we didn’t have live images the whole time.
@146: In Cernan’s book, he describes WANTING to put his daughter’s name on the moon. But, the NASA schedule was so cramped with things to do, there wasn’t a “30 seconds to do whatever the hell you want”, so he ended up forgetting to do it.
Alan Bean, astronaut-turned-painter has created a work where Gene has actually has done it:
http://www.alanbeangallery.com/tracyrock-new.html
kind of sweet, in a manly sort of way
July 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“2. John Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I’m sure this will shut up the hoax believers once and for all.
I mean, they’ve shown themselves to be a rational bunch who consider all the available evidence, right?”
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Hold the phones….we have the WINNAR!!
*LMAO*
~S*H
July 17th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
yep. that settles it. we’re all seeing what we want to see.
good luck with that vision problem thing.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
The shadows are backwards? They look fine to me. Note the shadowing inside the crater rims.
I suppose if you’re an Apollo Denier than black is white and up is down, though. So it makes sense in that case.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Nemo:
In answer to your question, I am going to play the Devil’s Advocate here…
If you study the history of war and civilization, you will see that most of mankind’s technological advancements are the result of the pressure of war: the need to throw bigger and heavier stones farther than one’s enemy; from the Roman catapult, to the ultimate ‘stone’ thrower — the Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a thermonuclear warhead. During the Cold War, much of the technological development required for wartime rockets (ICBMs) applied equally well to rockets made for human space flight. The same rockets that might send a human into orbit or land a payload on the Moon could also be used to send a nuclear bomb to an enemy city.
Though the achievements made by the United States and the Soviet Union brought great pride to their respective nations, there was a great political determination in the United States not to be seen as a nation lagging behind in the field of space exploration. It was for those reasons that led to then-President Kennedy’s announcement in 1961 that the U.S.A. “should commit itself to achieving the goal, before [the 1960s was] out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”
The Apollo Program met many of their objectives and promised to defeat arguments from politicians both on the left (who favoured social programs) and the right (who favoured a more military project).
Apollo’s advantages included:
* economic benefits to several key states in the next election;
* closing the “missile gap” claimed by Kennedy during the 1960 election through dual-use technology;
* technical and scientific spin-off benefits.
In private conversation with NASA Administrator James E. Webb, Kennedy said:
Kennedy was reminding Webb of the national security justification for the Space Race as a vital front in the Cold War. Kennedy was more explicit in his famous 1962 speech at Rice Stadium when he stated:
Also, astronaut Frank Borman later described the Apollo Program at a Newsuem event:
Basically, the U.S. adminstration just did not want to see the light of a Communist Moon over the U.S.A.!
July 17th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Samsoneffect Says:
Was it Cernan, or was it Pete Conrad?
It was definitely Cernan. I asked him about the story myself.
You cannot look in Gene Cernan’s eyes and doubt for ONE MINUTE that he was on the moon.
From Gene Cernan’s “Last Man on the Moon”
“While Jack cleaned up inside, I drove the Rover about a mile away from the LM and parked it carefully so the television camera could photograph our takeoff the next day. As I dismounted, I took a moment to kneel and with a single finger, scratched [my daughter] Tracy’s initials, T D C, in the lunar dust, knowing those three letters would remain there undisturbed for more years than anyone could imagine.”
July 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
As a father of a 2 1/2 year old girl and a 6 month old boy, one of my fondest wishes would be to go to the moon and be able to draw their initials in the regolith — surpassed of course by my wish for them to be able to go themselves and inscribe the initials of my grandchildren yet to be born. It saddens me to know that those initials left by the last man on the moon are now nearly 40 years old and little Tracy Cernan is probably older than I am.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
[...] External: [link] Apollo moon landing site gets photographed by LRO – Discover Magazine July 17, 2009 [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
[...] keep this simple, as you can get longer writeups at Universe Today, Bad Astronomy, and the NASA site, but a NASA spacecraft currently orbiting the Moon just released images of five [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
The BA Says: “And mind you, these pictures are not even the highest resolution LRO can provide; future observation will have twice this much detail!”
Actually, Phil, I believe in it’s final mapping orbit it will have twice this resolution which will be four times as much detail.
Man, I leave my system for a couple of hours to donate blood , and history happens!
- Jack
July 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
71. Peter B Says: “…go back to the pictures and look very carefully at the images of the Apollo 16 and 17 landing sites…Are they lunar rovers?”
Good eye! The NRO may have a job for you
Those very possibly are. The shadows are about right (the same shape and size as the LMDS) and they parked them about that far away. We’ll know for sure when they re-image the area with better resolution and lighting. Maybe even see the tracks.
- Jack
July 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
You know, those are some important memories up there for sure, but woe be the day anyone discovers life in this solar system. You might think that’s a dim view, but I am just thinking of the impact on the average working taxpayer. If you think global warming has opened up flood-gates for “research” funding, wait until you are ponying up to set aside a preserve for the martian orange spirochete bacteria and then charge you to look at it and browbeat you with the knowledge. John Holdren would be a perfect ecologically zealous “Space Conservation Czar”. The sky’s the limit, people.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I don’t see any of Sheppard’s golf balls on the Apollo 14 pictures.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
[...] en DiscoverMagazine Comparte esta [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
[...] się to zacytowało na CNN, vide pierwszy screenshot), już są. ~/.Trash zlinkował je, a i na Exposing PseudoAstronomy się w końcu pojawiły. Każdy chyba jednak tropiciel spisków od [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
To Doofus, see my previous post. You are correct Gene Cernan wanted to write his daughter’s full name in the moondust. He ran out of time and only had time to write her initials.
Too bad LRO can’t image the initials, but as a previous poster has noted, it looks like the Apollo 17 rover HAS been imaged and will likely be clearer in later passes in a lower orbit with better lighting. The initials are right next to the rover.
The golf ball from Apollo 14 would even be smaller, but if we could find see it, I have a feeling we would find that it didn’t go exactly “miles and miles!”
July 17th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
From NASA:
“Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.”
so it will be a 10-pixel picture in the future.
now, what about pics of the monolith excavation at Clavius base?
July 17th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
FAKE its a DUD!!! I point out many spot you idiots that would seem like it!! We got satellites that can read license plate but some how we can’t see a LM on the moon or even the US Flag come on people your so gullable!! NOT saying they didn’t go or they did but this is like saying I saw a black ant in a pile mud from on top of a mountain! DUUUHHH!!!
July 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Last man on the moon post got me thinking.
to think to have a left a book there in the rover, like a collection of Shakespeare’s sonnets or plays or some such. The alphabet written in the soil.
hopefully it won’t be that long that something like that would take on real poignancy. Of course at the time MAD stilled ruled the day and who knew we haven’t wiped ourselves out yet and it could have been forever.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
[...] doutaient que l’homme étaient allé sur la lune, voici la première image d’Apollo 11. http://bit.ly/uaDNr Comments closed | Trackbacks [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I’m a hoax idiot.
Inconsistencies in the previous images are as believable as this is.
In any case, I don’t care if you claim you have gone to the moon or not. I was never there to see you there any way. Call me an idiot all you want, as long as you’re not standing on the moon, anyone can think what they want, and what you think is exactly that. What you *THINK*.
I’m not going to judge you so please don’t judge me.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
@Levi, 209
I am as well, although more with pseudoscience in general than conspiracy theories. I used to be WAY in to it – astrology, reincarnation, homeopathy, crystal healing, ley lines, psychic phenomena, and yes, UFOs, alien visitations, and ancient astronauts.
Let’s put it this way – a little knowledge of the scientific method and, let’s face it, BEING WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT YOU WERE MISTAKEN go a LONG way.
To get back on topic – Phil, these pictures are amazing! I can’t stop staring at them!
July 17th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
131. Daffy Says: “…as Heinlein put it so succinctly: ‘Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.’ ”
As I recall, the quote was “Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll get all muddy and the pig enjoys it.”
- Jack
July 17th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
FAKE!!! Said:
“FAKE its a DUD!!! I point out many spot you idiots that would seem like it!! We got satellites that can read license plate but some how we can’t see a LM on the moon or even the US Flag come on people your so gullable!! NOT saying they didn’t go or they did but this is like saying I saw a black ant in a pile mud from on top of a mountain! DUUUHHH!!!”
Q: What’s the difference between a high-res spy satellite and LRO?
A: About a billion dollars and a meter or two of objective aperture.
Just because a spysat can read a license plate on Earth doesn’t mean NASA just parked one around the Moon. If Hubble were only a few miles from the Moon, it could count the stripes on the Flags. But neither Hubble nor its spysat equivalent is at the Moon just at this particular time.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
134. trustno1 Says: “All this means is that NASA sent an unmanned probe that a) created those tracks and b) created some white big stuff out of FOAM probably to support the obvious moon hoax! They could have done this in the 90s. All those failed “Mars missions” they launched could have been just payload to support the moon hoax before China, India and Japan could get their scopes on that area.”
At first I thought that this was one of those entertaining parodies that people have been posting above, but on a second reading (and considering your screen name) I’m afraid it’s real.
OK, Mr. 1, please tell me the name of the project that put these artifacts on the moon. Who was the prime contractor? How was the rover controlled. How did they get FOAM to withstand 40 years of high intensity radiation without evaporation?
What booster did it use? When were these series of launches made? “Sometime in the ’90s” isn’t sufficient, I want launch dates. Every single space launch vehicle ever launched is profusely documented. Which ones of these were they? Don’t say they were “secret.” You can’t launch something 100 to 150 feet tall making 130 dB of noise and not have people notice.
Until you can start coming up with answers to these (and I’ve got lots more!) your statement is nothing but a standard conspiracy theorist’s wet dream.
- Jack
July 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Some commenters seem to believe that they can see the LEMs, when in fact all that is left behind is the descent stages.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Wow. A trail on the moon left by people!
I can hardly wait until the orbit is more circular and closer and the f-stop thingys and all get dialed in. Individual foot prints perhaps?
No, wait! The skid marks left by tumbling moonwalkers. Or how about the patterns of regolith that were thrown up by the wheels of the moon buggies when the driver was feeling confident about the next off camber, downhill right. Reducing radius.
Mas Finas. Wicked Cool.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Some blurry gray pictures with tiny white specks. Am I supposed to be impressed? No wonder more and more people think NASA is full of crap.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Way cool!
Though I’m getting a bit of a headache looking for details. My brain keeps insisting the craters are mountains, and to have to keep constantly readjusting my interpretation is starting to hurt.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
#177 and anyone else wondering “Why hasn’t Hubble taken these photos already?”
The Moon is far too bright an object to aim Hubble’s sensitive receivers at, and at a quarter of a million miles distance, it could only resolve a lunar image to about a hundred or so yards a pixel.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“We got satellites that can read license plate ”
That’s an urban legend. Spy satellites no not have this capability. Images that have been published on the web to this effect were in fact taken by aircraft rather than from orbit.
Aperture size is not the only concern. The atmospheric disturbances alone make reading a license plate from orbit beyond our current technology.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Gentlemen:
I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that 5 unmanned Surveyor Spacecraft soft landed on the moom between 1966 and 1968 providing TV coverage of the surface and soil information used in the design of the manned Apollo Moon landers.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
[...] landing site photographed. APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine Finally. Why didn’t they think about doing that before? [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Enough said about the moon, that’s not the only thing in Plait’s blog you know!
I just wish I was there the day Edison (presumably, or someone he plagiarized from) ‘discovered’ the light bulb. Is that the same as how Al Gore discovered the internet? Was it really just sitting there waiting to be found?
Haha. Just kidding, but a funny choice of words indeed.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Moon landings were real
So were NASA 200 000 tapes erasing
One side is known
The other in Sun shadow
Tapes for greater reasons
Species survival above achievements
Whatever was found
Humans never alone again
Earth to the Moon
Moon to the Earth
The Precious
July 17th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
160. Rikke Says: “If the scale bar is 100 m, then the footprints must be around 10 m?! Were these astronauts related to Sasquatch???! Or am I interpreting the photo wrong?”
Rikke – No, you’re not interpreting it wrong. Go back a week or so to the post “The LRO Images Won’t Convince Hoax Believers” or something like that (it was on July 8). Scroll down to post 141 for an explanation.
Sorry, but I’m not sure how to do the direct link thingy.
- Jack
July 17th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
183. syrtis Says: “I’d guess they’re pretty much destroyed by now – midday heat of 200F+ making the fabric slowly sag & baking it into less flexible polymers, plus the -300F of nighttime making it super-brittle.”
Right! So it would snap apart at the first breeze!
> Oh, and the majority of the Apollo 11 “first footprints” would have been smeared
> badly by the Ascent Stage takeoff exhaust, too).
Actually (being serious now) that probably didn’t affect them much. Remember that the ascent stage was blasting into the top of the descent stage, meaning that the plume went sideways about 2 meters above the surface. By the time the vehicle got high enough for the plume to reach around the base, the pressure was probably down low enough to not disturb more than a few grains.
- Jack
July 17th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Thanks for posting these wonderful photos from the LRO. As to the conspiracy theory fringe, I think they are going to have to go away. The believers will have a hard time getting any media traction as new LRO data continues to accumulate. Remember the Face on Mars guy? He was all over the media for years until high resolution images of the “Face” showed it to be just an ordinary hill on the surface of Mars. Not a gigantic stone monument in the shape of a humanoid face. Haven’t heard from that guy lately.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
186. mark Says: “Wow.. what another astronomical waste of money. friggin NASA.. what a joke.”
You’ve got to do better than that, Mark. This is a word-for-word repeat of a post from about two weeks ago.
Some of us have functioning memories.
- Jack
July 17th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
185. Monkey_Brad Says: “Just one thing. When and where was that “discovery of the light bulb”?”
Um, about 1877, Menlo Park New Jersey. But what does that have to do with the LRO?
- Jack
July 17th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
The most significant feature of these LRO images, when viewed as evidence that the moon landings occurred, is the LOCATION of the objects on the surface of the moon. This is because these objects, in the present day images, are at the exact locations of the landing sites. Importantly, the landing locations have been public knowledge for a long time. They can be fixed by lunar topography, craters, hills, and the like, and by the lunar coordinates of the landing sites as recorded at the time of the original Apollo landings. When LRO searches at those exact locations with its high resolution camera, and finds objects, that is convincing proof. By scientific standards, such a match of locations with imaged objects would be considered excellent experimental verification that Apollo landings took place were these objects are located.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Jack Hagerty:
At the previous post that you wish to link to, simply right click on the date and time stamp, just below your name, and select “Copy Link Location” (Firefox) or “Copy Shortcut” (Internet Explorer); then paste the URL into the “Website” box just below the “Name” and “Mail” boxes, and then submit your comment — as I have just done — with the instruction: Click on my name for the link.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
[...] birthers and moon hoax pushers, reality doesn’t come into play. No amount of evidence would ever be enough to assuage them from their pre-held beliefs. This is the root of their fallacy [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
is the “lower half of the Lunar Module” still there?
Maybe it’s time for the Nasa to show us a good example and Clean Up the Garbage.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
#177. Robert:
Dr. Phil Plait explained all that in his previous post on “Moon hoax: why not use telescopes to look at the landers?”, back in August 12, 2008.
Click on my name for the link.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
The irony of Pfft’s statement is that it is this “NASA crap” that allows him to whine to the world at large.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
One point demands illuminating: IF (otherwise known as) “observation satellites” in Low Earth Orbit (400-1000km / 248-621 miles can view headlines of newspapers on the street, then why can we not view a rather large boot print or, a few of the devices in detail, left up there?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
One point demands illuminating: IF (otherwise known as) “observation satellites” in LEO (400-1000km/248-621 miles for those of you that haven’t caught-on to the logical metric system yet) can view headlines of newspapers on the street, then why can we not view a rather large boot print or, a few of the devices in detail, left up there?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
[...] resolved in these early images. Things will only get better. NASA – LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine NASA’s LRO Spacecraft Gets First pictures of the Apollo Landing Sites | International [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Thank you so very much for posting this link. Dad was involved with the Apollo program on the Air Force side – computer programming and the like. Because of him, I got to meet several of the astronauts. I’ve sent him this link, and can’t wait to see the higher detailed images.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/#comment-199930
It’s been 10 years since I read Cernan’s book. I should have gone into the garage and found it to quote it accurately. Thanks for the help.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
trustno1 Says: “All this means is that NASA sent an unmanned probe that a) created those tracks and b) created some white big stuff out of FOAM probably to support the obvious moon hoax! They could have done this in the 90s. All those failed “Mars missions” they launched could have been just payload to support the moon hoax before China, India and Japan could get their scopes on that area.”
1) This assumes that NASA faked it from the get go. If hypothetically they did…HOW did they fake it in the ’60s and early ’70s?
1a) If everyone involved knew…then there should be thousands of people trying to cash in on their “secret” knowledge with “Xtra” or “Inside Edition”. You can’t convince me that such a huge number of people kept their silence for 40 years. As the old saying goes…”Two people can keep a secret…if one of them is dead.”
1b) If only the 200 or so “top level” people knew it was faked…then all the engineers involved would be designing and building equipment that actually works (and mind you they are spread across several hundred contractors and sub-contractors who had to make ALL their designs integrate with each other)! They can’t design fakes because THEY AREN’T IN ON IT! Soooo….If you can build the equipment to actually do it….WHY FAKE IT?
2) Assuming you can show #1 is feasible (which you can’t)…it implies NASA had the foresight to plan for the “fake” missions required to “create those tracks and b) create some white big stuff out of FOAM” then…
2a) I pose the same question as Jack Hagerty, who asked “tell me the name of the project that put these artifacts on the moon. Who was the prime contractor? How was the rover controlled. How did they get FOAM to withstand 40 years of high intensity radiation without evaporation?”
2b) Where is the debris from these missions, easily tracked by many nations antagonistic to the USA, if it was in lunar or Earth orbit? A mission to create these “fake” artifacts would surely leave debris in lunar orbit. Why have none of these antagonistic nations come forward to show radar tracking evidence of USA craft approaching and entering lunar orbit when they should be headed to Mars?
Yet another hoaxer who throws out wild “speculation” (and I use the term loosely) as “evidence”. Here’s a suggestion…use your brain! You have it for a reason!
July 18th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Not that it wasn’t real to be before but these images just bring all that awesomeness back to the forefront
July 18th, 2009 at 12:03 am
The moon hoaxers need to be rounded up and given electro shock therapy.
Seriously. You are all pathetic.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:08 am
If these were real – I’d be very disappointed.
Considering the budgets of agencies involved, the disparity between civilian and agency tech (10++ years), and the limited knowledge priveleges accorded to civilians, these photos are either photoshopped or so censored they are worthless to anyone other than those who really want to believe man has already been to the moon (for whatever ‘reason’ they ‘emotionally’ need) or have a great imagination.
If the ‘big’ one-sentence-paragraph above was too much for your intellect to comprehend, then you are unlikely to understand anything other than ‘the official truth’ dummed down for glucose addicted, cognitively crippled, sheep like… well… most of you.
Personally… I would like to be ‘reasonably’ convinced that man did go to the moon when most of you believe they did.
If it is true, then, for those who didn’t understand the above pseudo (I was joking) rant:
I wish they would publish some real HD photos – between 1cm and 1m res that they obviously have the intelligence, funds, and motivation for.
If you still don’t understand my point – think of it this way:
These photos are so distant/low resolution – they could have been taken by the Lunar Module after jettisoning for Earth with the lame but laudable tech of the ‘day’.
Or for the very sucrose/frutose/glucose crippled…
These photos are sooo low resolution… they look like they were taken by the best equipment decades ago – in the 1960s – not in the 2000s or even in the 1990s.
If they are real – don’t feel proud you have convinced any ‘non-believers’ – as these photos are so low res they could easily have been faked.
Feel embarrassed that your tax dollars should have given you such low resolution photos – and that you are considered such a sheep that you will accept them as ‘valid’, rejoice for their paltry existence, and repudiate anyone who shows a sliver of real intelligence in questioning their lame quality or potential ‘fakeness’.
If they told you those were a ‘yeti’s’ foot prints – how would you prove they are not?
Again – I wish they were real!
But they could just be macro photos of acne not Apollo’s jettisoned landing gear.
Lets all wait another 40 years until another mission has got to the moon, painted and cleaned the old landing equipment – or planted it, and someone on this minor planet has bought a satelite or craft with a real camera.
If Sony were c0mmissioned for this kind of assignment – you’d not only be able to convince yourself a 10 by 10 pixel dark pixel spot is foot print – you’d see dust, footprints (or not) and everything else.
Truly, you are bunch of desperate ‘believers’.
If ‘man’ did go to the moon – it could only be because we weren’t sycophantic religious drones.
It could only be because we were sceptical, scientific, and sentient.
If we go again (or ever), it will be because we have regained or learnt these attributes that are the height of human progress.
And we won’t start by attempting to ‘validate’ (wiki ‘logic’) photos that if ANYONE on the ‘street’ were asked, could have been taken in the 60s or photoshopped.
Don’t knock the knockers… don’t shoot the messenger…
Ask why are these ‘photos’ are so low res…
”’if”’ taken in the… last 2 decades.
Or are you still using Walkmans???
(If a photo could be a Turing Test – the ‘believers’ would have failed it. To be human, is to question, and do better. Or not… Only you decide… if you ‘know’ you have ‘choice’.)
Feel ‘free’ to ‘debate’ this post… arrogantly agree with it it… or mock/ignore/selectively rebut it.
Someday, the ‘truth will prevail’.
Whether I, you, us, anyone enjoys it.
If I or any future generation is to live on the moon or any solar orbiting object – I’d rather rely on Google providing the images.
At least they would use some modern cameras or publish the real photos.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:19 am
252. IVAN3MAN Says: “At the previous post that you wish to link to, simply right click on the date and time stamp, just below your name, and select “Copy Link Location” (Firefox) or “Copy Shortcut” (Internet Explorer); then paste the URL into the “Website” box just below the “Name” and “Mail” boxes, and then submit your comment”
Thanks! I knew it was easy, but sometimes this technology stuff confuses me…
- Jack
July 18th, 2009 at 12:24 am
OK, I’ll admit it.
This is like porn for space freaks.
I can’t stop looking at these pictures, and there are better ones yet to come.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:29 am
NO! you mean to tell me the space aliens didn’t remove the moon landing evidence…it is a sad,sad day. LOL
July 18th, 2009 at 12:35 am
258. Curious1 Says: “IF (otherwise known as) “observation satellites” in LEO (400-1000km) can view headlines of newspapers on the street, then why can we not view a rather large boot print or, a few of the devices in detail, left up there?”
I’ll leave the actual arithmetic to an exercise for the reader, but some of your numbers are a bit off.
Back in the film days, the “observation satellites” (as you call them) flew a lot lower than that. In fact, the short-mission close-look birds would fly as low as 100 Km perigee over the “area of interest.” One actually used the heat shield of the film bucket as the nose cone.
However, despite what you read online and elsewhere, you could NOT read a newspaper headline from even that low altitude. The theoretical capability might have been there, but they have the same problem, in reverse, as astronomers, namely atmospheric turbulence and absorption.
As far as seeing objects on the moon with one of these systems, you’re talking about a much longer range. If your optics had a theoretical resolution of, say 10 cm from 100 Km up, then what would it have from over 400,000 Km away? Just proportionally you’re talking a max resolution of about 400 meters. At this point you should go to your favorite reference site and look up “Rayleigh limit” (the optics one, not the chemistry one).
I think that most people just have no idea how far away the moon is.
- Jack
July 18th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Daniel…
have you considered… *if* these photos are real… and you ‘believe’ in NASA…. eg their Deep Field photos ( Google Image ) of hundreds if not thousands… if not millions (once our satelite photography tech improves)…
of galaxies other than our own (do you know its name? ***LoL***) EXIST…
aliens could, would, may…
do anything.
Afterall, the best (scientific, logical, open) minds on *this* planet can mathematically prove that we may not be the *only* life in this galaxy, universe, whatever.
Can you be SO sure, that you can – implicitly – mock the existence of aliens.
You imply you believe in a god.
Yet, did the Bible mention the moon?
LoL.
And if you are not mono-theistic (Google it… sigh)…
then what is your excuse for mocking us…
after all,
since we attained ‘space travel’…
we are ALIENS.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Deep breath. It’s been a crazy couple of days, hasn’t it?
But that’s it. See? Right there. The proof is there now. We have pictures of hardware and can even see tracks and trails of spacesuit boot-disturbed dust between them. As far as I’m concerned the game is over, and has been won. HBs can either accept that, and rejoin the rest of us here in the real world, or they can continue to don their silver foil hats and run around flapping their arms like crack-addicted chickens, insisting that they’re the only people in the world who know the truth. It’s their choice, plain and simple.
Thank you NASA, and thank you LRO team. I used to try and reason with people who raised the Hoax issue during my Outreach talks here in the UK, you know, go through… again… the reasons why you can’t see stars in the sky above the moonwalking astronauts, explain yet again why the flag looks like that on the pics, but now, naaah, frak it, I’m just not going to bother anymore. From now on, each time I give an Outreach talk I’m going to take along some prints of these LRO pics, and if anyone suggests Apollo was fake I’m going to stop my talk, reach into my bag, pull out the pics, walk right up to them in the audience and hand them a picture, in front of everyone, and leave it at that.
I am a defender of free speech, but I’m not a defender of absolute bloody stupidity, especially when it infects and corrupts the minds and free-thinking of other people who read your web pages and blog posts and, mistakenly, assume you have a frakking clue what you’re on about. So, at the risk of offending some people, for which I apologise in advance, I’m going to say what many… most… of you are thinking…
Moon Hoax Believers – STFU!!!!!
And if, having read this, any HBs out there have taken offence and are preparing to fire back a flaming, angry response, I’ll save you some time. I know exactly what you’re going to say, and trust me, I don’t care. You’ve lost. The argument has moved on. You guys are like the last few remaining dinosaurs after the asteroid stuck: your world has changed, gone forever, and you can howl and roar at the sky in defiance and denial as much as you like, it doesn’t change the fact that the flames of reason are coming closer and closer and will soon engulf you, rendering you extinct. So, flame away. I will quickly skim your responses, laugh quietly, shake my head, and then go back to updating all my schools and community Outreach talks by inserting the LRO pics into the “Moon” sections of my Powerpoint presentations. Because soon I’ll stand up in front of a classroom of 7 and 8 year old kids, or a drafty church hall full of retired farmers, or a library full of young families, and show them just what we achieved when we dared to reach for the stars all those years ago.
And maybe, just maybe, some of them will go away looking up at the sky, and smiling.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Or put this way…
1. If you had FULL access to photos of ***ALL*** the moon;
2. Better imagery software than you currently know how to use (point/click) =) ;
3. And some pattern recognition apps ( which it appears your native OS lacks ) ,
you couldn’t imagine the following scenarios:
1. such patterns may commonly exist on the moon due to the rolling of dust/whatever ( did you watch the supposed real vid of wind on Mars? );
2. they were photoshopped so desperate ‘believers’ like you would ‘champion’ their ’cause’;
3. this was a random incidence?
Does it matter?
Why ask such a banal question?
Because – YOU HAVE NO PROOF… ******** EITHER WAY *******
Puppet… you have endorsed what was **** HANDED to you *****.
Take a 1st year Philosophy paper at what is called a ‘university’ and return to this forum’s thread.
Lol!
July 18th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Wonderful, never-before-published photos of the Apollo 11 astronauts and their families:
http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/29522/exclusive-up-close-with-apollo-11
July 18th, 2009 at 2:13 am
I needed to see these. I just watched one of those moon landing hoax conspiracy shows on Tru TV and well…Some of the arguments by the hoaxers are just soooooooooooo lame. My favorite is: Why can’t we see stars in the background in photos from the moon landing? People who ask this question just don’t know anything about photography such as the importance of aperture opening and shudder speed. My second favorite: They killed Gus Grissom because he was going to blow the whistle on the hoax. Yet, he kept working for NASA. Yeah, that seems like the actions of a man about to blow the whistle.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Awesome pics. Thanks for sharing.
MHB parodies: hahah
MHBs: You have some research to do. Your ignorance is showing.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:55 am
Incredible photos! I mean, I never doubted that we landed on the Moon, but it’s nice to have some more evidence to show to the idiots . . .
What’s more comforting to know, to me at least, is that the LRO is fully functional and doing it’s job. The topographic, HD, 3D maps it produces will be absolutely vital to the Orion/Altair missions in 2019 insofar that it can be used to identify resources on the lunar surface as well as potential landing sites for Altair.
It’s a very, very exciting time to be alive. Virgin Galactic’s advances in sub-orbital and hopefully eventually orbital spaceplane flight, viable commercial alternative rockets popping up everywhere, notably SpaceX, and not just one, but 5 plans to return to the Moon! ESA, China, Japan, India and NASA!
July 18th, 2009 at 2:58 am
So if these pictures aren’t faked, then how come there aren’t any STARS in them, huh? Explain that one away!
July 18th, 2009 at 3:02 am
[...] Astronomy blog make some interesting points too: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/ Apollo may seem like ancient history, but those artifacts on the Moon are still sitting there, in [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Meh. Pareidolia. You’re just seeing what you want to see. You see a line and say “yep, those are footprints”. You see some rocks and say”oooh, that’s our spaceship”
(Yeah, I’m kidding, but I bet someone’s just waiting to turn that argument on us after the face on Mars incident.)
July 18th, 2009 at 4:08 am
[...] Astrodicticum simplex (dort gibts auch wieder mal eine Diskussion mit Skeptikern), Bad Astronomy, Bilder: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/Arizona State University, Dieser Eintrag wurde [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Curious1 Says: “IF (otherwise known as) “observation satellites” in LEO (400-1000km) can view headlines of newspapers on the street, then why can we not view a rather large boot print or, a few of the devices in detail, left up there?”
You vastly exaggerate the capabilities of cameras both in the past and the present. My cousin flew on the SR-71 back in the late 70′s and early 80′s. While the media and popular science fiction has led people to believe that the SR-71 could identify individuals and “read the paper they had in their hands”, this was not the case. Even the Blackbird, awesome as it was and with much greater control over target selection and altitude, could not do what you claim. While the photos from the SR-71 could indeed resolve individual people under certain conditions, it could not resolve something as small as newspaper headline nor identify the individual holding it. Any identification of individuals in SR-71 photos was based on prior/post knowledge of where a specific individual would be and when, and correlating that knowledge with the photos, NOT by the photos alone.
The SR-71 was at a MUCH lower altitude than even the lowest stable orbit for a LEO reconnaissance satellite and with much greater control of altitude, speed, and target orientation…and it could not do what you ask even under direct human control. Yet you expect an orbiter 250,000 miles away in lunar orbit, under remote guidance, and built to strict guidelines regarding weight, trajectory, and mission parameters to perform better?
The fact is it has performed better by (in my rough estimation) a factor of ten. Add in the fact that the LRO has not yet reached its optimal orbit around the moon (which will increase its resolution 2-3X) and your argument holds no water.
You are (like most hoaxers) setting a standard which is unachievable in order to ensure you cannot be proven wrong. You (as with most hoaxers) also have, in effect, proven yourself wrong by displaying your complete lack of understanding of basic science, or any of the science involved in your argument, for that matter.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:34 am
The Hoax is finally dead for good!! Awesome
July 18th, 2009 at 4:35 am
I just believe that the first one was staged, look at the space race, russia was always ahead, but I could be wrong
July 18th, 2009 at 5:20 am
FAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
July 18th, 2009 at 6:00 am
[...] no llegamos a la Luna! ¡hombre! Eso son ruinas extraterrestres, como las de Benítez, no te j**e… Escrito en Reflexión. Etiquetas: Astronomía, [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Now I may be a bit late but here goes anyway:
Most of the posts in this thread are about these pictures being indismissable proof against the famous conspiracy theories. I’m not an expert on the hoax vs. non-hoax versions of ‘the truth’, but if ‘skeptics’ accept these pictures as indismissable proof, then…. wow, i guess they should also look at the thousands of UFO video’s available on the internet. They’re about the same quality (bad enough to not mean anything to a novice like me)… so i guess we’ve been to the moon AND we’re being invaded! what a time to be alive…
July 18th, 2009 at 6:33 am
For those interested, there is already talk of what to do with these sites as we do more and more missions on the moon. Make them historical sites? Study them to see how objects decay on the moon? There was a more recent article about this, but I’m having trouble finding it:
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/preserving_tranquility/
Also, there was a scare with the other remaining mission at the moon. I hope the troubles are over, but this is not good not even a year into the mission. Stay good, Chandrayaan!:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingworldnews/ci_12858053?nclick_check=1
July 18th, 2009 at 6:42 am
[...] APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 7:09 am
@ Jack Hagerty and Peter B
Those have to be the rovers or other artifacts/experiments…the shadows, distance away from the descent stage, the brightness of the objects…it all adds up. Based on photos from the surface and astronauts debriefing, there had to be maps created of where objects were left on the moon…it should be easy to correlate which artifact is which. I wonder where we can find those maps?? Can’t wait for the higher res…although it still won’t be as clear as most want it to be.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:15 am
@Sriram
Yeah, we wish!
I remember hearing a debate with Phil and a hoaxer. The hoaxer asked why we don’t have any amateur astrophotographers images of apollo on the way to the Moon. When Phil responded that a two-second google will find you hundreds of such images, he dismissed them as all being faked.
You think this will stop them?
July 18th, 2009 at 7:23 am
The LRO mission has been one I’ve been following with particular interest for this very reason. We’ve been able to see the landers on Mars, and now to see them one the moon is just too cool. What I’d love to see is a return to one of the moon sites to study the effects 40 years of vacuum, hard radiation and micro-metors have had on the equipment.
As usual, I’m late to the conversation.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:45 am
OBVIOUSLY photoshopped… jk
July 18th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Ok.. i explained the mechanical difff’s for the hassie cameras, now I need to explain the diff’s with Kodak film made for NASA? Dudes / dudettes do the research yourself. Kodak also modified the Estar* base for the film… it was Ektachrome… not KodaChrome. They were more worried about contrast (figgure that out on your own) so Ektachrome was medium of choice.
show ME that this film (70mm) could not work.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:52 am
We never went to the MOON! First of all, since they can show little imprints of the feet of the landing module, WHERE THE HELL IS THE AMERICAN FLAG THAT WE STUCK THERE? The flag should still be there, right? Really strong telescopes should be able to see that American flag sometimes! But NOPE, no flag…did they take it back with them? and another thing, they brought a “moon buggy” with them? Where was this thing stored at? strapped to the bottom of the lander like luggage on a station wagon?
How did the capsule re-launch itself OFF of the moon? It takes a helluva lot of fuel for the damn thing to get off the pad at Canaveral, did it only need like 2 gallons of gas to push itself off the moon and back to Earth?
Anyone who thinks we went to the moon is insane. If we had gone to the moon, we’d have PLANNED TO GO BACK several times to colonize it. The US Gov’t didn’t do anything in it’s history without planning to go back, that’s why there are US Military bases all over the world, so that we can always maintain a presence. If the gov’t thought that there was even an inkling of an idea another country would be going to the moon to try to claim it, they would have planned several trips and tried to build structures on it or at least spray paint USA USA USA or something to make a territorial pissing upon it.
We never went, we can’t go back to some place we’ve never gone, and that’s why it’s taken so many years for them to even consider trying again. There is more technology in a Gameboy than there was in the Lunar lander. It’s just not possible. So, each time we create a new technology, they keep “enhancing” the footage of the moonwalk, etc. They have to keep doctoring it up so it keeps up with technology today, and you can’t see how shoddy the production of the 60′s was.
Even the “plans” they have to go back to the moon keep getting delayed and pushed back further and further. About 20 plus years ago, a man from NASA came to my 8th grade class to tell us we’d all be riding the space shuttle like an airplane to the moon by the time I’m the age I’m at now. It never happened, it never will happen. The shuttles are junk, and we aren’t meant to do any further exploring than where we’ve gone thus far. They’ve been trying for so long, and it just ain’t happening. Rocket scientists apparently aren’t as smart as everyone thought, so you can all drop that term as a metaphor for brilliance.
You’ve all been watching too much Star Trek and Star Wars. It’s never going to be that way. You are just “tongue tied and twisted, earth bound misfits…I” (pink floyd).
July 18th, 2009 at 7:59 am
OH, and just one other point, WHO THE HECK WAS SHOOTING THE FOOTAGE AS THE FIRST DUDE STEPPED OUT AND ONTO THE MOON? WAS THERE A CAMERA MAN THERE WAITING FOR HIM TO COME OUT AND SAY THE “ONE SMALL STEP” THING?
Just like “reality” shows, there has to be cameras to capture the action folks. Where and who was holding the camera that shows the dude stepping outta the module? and wouldn’t the module have imploded as tiny as it was when he went to step out? it was too small for an air lock area.
And the camera that took that footage was TOO FAR AWAY for you nuts who are going to say “it was on the outside of the space module” …I don’t know if you remember what security cameras looked like back in the old days (they were rare) but they were HUGE. Who was filming everything? the walk on the moon? wouldn’t the person filming it be the “first to step onto the moon” then? Who filmed the moonbuggy riding around? we didn’t have portable camcorders then folks. THINK ABOUT IT.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:11 am
This place sound like a UFO convention, you see one little shadow and suddenly this is proof of men walking on the moon.
I guest the skeptics all when home!
July 18th, 2009 at 8:21 am
WoodGuard,
The notion that such a thing could be faked requires a global conspiracy involving THOUSANDS of people. You couldn’t get that many people to whistle “Mary Had a Little Lamb” together.
The notion is so absurd as to almost requite mental illness to believe it at all. In fact, that may explain things…
July 18th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Mr. Roy,
Your stance requires ignoring MOUNTAINS of evidence, and believing in a global conspiracy on a MASSIVE scale. If that is not being an idiot, what word would you use?
July 18th, 2009 at 8:30 am
@WoodGuard
I remember the Apollo 1 disaster… I was 11 years old. I followed Apollo from that time until the end (Apollo 17). those who think it’s fictional , get a life. Or show me your evidence, failing that, SHUT UP !!!
you are Luddites! let us take all of the technology gained from the Apollo project, and throw it OUT!
… computers greater than 4 bits, NMR, in fact ANY Magnetic resonance, mobile phones, (talk to anybody at Intel… Mr. Groves…. )
We Did not do this?
entschuldegen sie mich bitte
July 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Meh! Get back to me when they find that golf ball
July 18th, 2009 at 8:34 am
fake
July 18th, 2009 at 8:35 am
this is just silly. uh how did we get a pic of the first foot on the moon? uhhh Mr. Armstrong had a camera on his chest.. and pressed the shutter release.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:32 am
why fake *a moon landing*? there was stuff to fake back then that would have had a much more powerful effect on controlling the populace. fake the soviet union nuking alaska. that would’ve made americans *extremely* pliable.
besides. if it had all been special effects, it would look about as ‘real’ to our modern eyes as ‘plan 9 from outer space’, or early ‘trek’. photoshop and ‘industrial light & magic’ didn’t exist back then, and no amount of $ would have brought them about at that early date. the *demand* simply wasn’t there.
i suspect that actually figuring out how to send hardware and personnel to the moon — and then sending them — was: 1. cooler; 2. less time-consuming; and 3. believe it or not, CHEAPER, than faking it. they’d have been trying to convincingly fake a never-before-experienced event, so they’d have had to hire a bunch of physicists and engineers anyway.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:35 am
People, the purpose of the LRO is not to prove we went to the moon. These were just released for the anniversary celebrations and are more like looking at a photo album of something that happened 40 years ago. It’s NOT the same as looking at a fuzzy picture of big foot or a ufo and saying “It’s PROOF”. We have proof, and better pictures taken 40 years ago, duh. In fact it’s sad that everyone is saying ‘see proof that we landed’ inside of “COOOOOL look at the resolution we are getting and we aren’t even in the optimal orbit yet! The best pictures of the moon EVER!” Sad really…
July 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
thanx Rift
and May Walter RIP, dang he didn’t make it to the anniversary.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Awesome photo – congrats to the LRO team.
@ 153. Tim asked :
- I believe 14 landed where 13 was supposed to land. Someone correct me if I’m wrong?
Apollo 13 was meant to land in the Frau Mauro highlands – I saw the movie on video again just the other day.
… & checking up in ‘Destination Moon : The Apollo missions in the astronauts own words’ by Rod Pyle (Carlton books, 2005.) it seems the answer is …
… Yes. You got it right Tim!
The Apollo 13 & 14 site was the first Lunar landing to occur on the lunar highlands rather than on a Mare (sea) & another bit of trivia – Alan Shepherd the commander had the least spaceflight experience of any Apollo astronaut at the time with just 15 minutes in his initial sub-orbital mercury flight preceeding his grounding with an ear disease then his command of Apollo 14. (Ed Mitchell was the other Moon-walker & Stuart Roosa the command module pilot for Apollo 14 btw.)
Al Shepherd may have been the oldest Apollo astronaut /moon-walker too .. unsure of that but.
PS. Hope that hasn’t already been answered a thousand times, scrolled down through the comments from that question post.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:18 am
296. WoodGuard Says:
July 18th, 2009 at 8:11 am
This place sound like a UFO convention, you see one little shadow and suddenly this is proof of men walking on the moon.
I guest the skeptics all when home!
Nope, all we are saying is that photos correlates with all the other information available about the Apollo program.
Here’s your opportunity to go through the pictures from the surface, compare them with the latest LRO images and find inconsistencies.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I don’t know why I persist in trying to patiently reply to hoaxers, but here goes.. once again.
1. Ascent stage lifting off the moon: The moon is 1/6 gravity and has no air resistance. It takes a whole lot less fuel to do lift off in this environment.
2. Camera shots of Armstrong descending the ladder. The camera was on the LEM. Armstrong pulled it down with a lever before he descended. You do not need a camera operator to operate a camera. Ever heard of a tripod? Camera shots of the Rover. Some were made while one astronaut drove and the other held the camera. Some were made with the camera on a tripod. This is photography 101.
4. Who was filming everything? One of the guys. If you notice, most almost all of the still footage of the first landing was of BUZZ ALDRIN. Why? Well, conspiracies about Buzz’s resentment of being second to step on the moon aside, it was because NEIL ARMSTRONG HAD THE CAMERA.
Have you ever seen a picture of both astronauts at once? No. Why, because someone had to hold the still camera. Pete Conrad and Alan Bean had planned to try to surprise everyone by doing this with a Hassleblad timer, but they were not able to pull it off.
Have you ever seen a film or video of both men on the moon at the same time? Yes, because the TV camera as well as the onboard 16 mm cameras could be put on tripods and set to automatic, or in the case of the Rover TV camera, controlled from the ground.
These aren’t after the fact rationalizations — the missions and equipment WERE ENGINEERED TO WORK THIS WAY.
4. Getting to the moon is SO HARD. Um, no it’s not. Even India and Japan who have never had manned space programs have done it. The US and Russia have done it dozens of times. Getting something HEAVY to the moon is hard. A manned mission is HEAVY. We have not gone back because we have neither the will or the HEAVY LIFT capability.
I’m afraid that many of the moon hoaxers must be young and simply have not lived it. Many of us, myself included, are in our late 40s or older. We were not (and I am not THAT old) raised on Star Wars and special effects. We were raised on the real thing.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Wow, I’ve waited all my life for these photos!
July 18th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@Texas
Sad Walter didn’t make it to the anniversary, I was looking forward to hearing from him. I know I speak for many here… Walter Cronkite in many ways IS the Apollo missions and NASA in the ’60s and early ’70s.
His mother is buried quite near my house, and I plan to go out there and leave something, not exactly sure what yet. I know, but even though I’m an atheist/agnostic I feel the need to do so… Walter Cronkite’s death has affected me more then any celebrity’s death in a long time. I think it has to do with the 40th anniversary as well as the fact he really did feel like “Uncle Walt” that came into our house for 30 minutes every evening. I was a senior in High School when he retired and it felt like his death then, although he’s been around the last near 30 years. I had just turned six 40 years ago, and although the memories are spotty, it is a day I’ll never forget. I knew the significance even then.
So horse hockey on the HBers and the ‘it’s a waste of money’ morons, forget they even exist and thank goodness we are still exploring the universe…
July 18th, 2009 at 10:58 am
@Grisha
Your #4 is what gets me. How in the heck is the friggen gianormous shuttle suppose to get to the moon when it took a honking huge Saturn V to get a tiny little cramped capsule with 3 men on it to the moon.? The younguns don’t understand the size difference between the LRO and the shuttle, sheesh. WE saw it with our own eyes.
And I am SICK of the Hubble argument. Optics was my favorite part of Physics in college, I can sit down and do the math for you in five minutes and prove why the Hubble would have trouble seeing a galdurn football stadium on the moon.
Wait.. Wasn’t I going to ignore the Hoax idiots? grrrrrrrrrrr
July 18th, 2009 at 11:10 am
just another hoax!
July 18th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Hi.
I dont know English very well but:
———–>Look at the Sadow of apollo instruments & the hills around them.
they are not at same sides.??????????????
July 18th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I can tell these pictures are photoshopped because of the pixels! There are pixels everywhere!
If you’re gonna make hoax pictures, at least take more care and don’t leave pixels!
I kid, I kid, harr harr! LOL But you know some idiot is going to say that! And really mean it!
July 18th, 2009 at 11:29 am
@ Tim #286:
A fair comment. Here’s one response:
Because these photographs have a paper trail. No, more than a paper trail: they have an engineering trail, a money trail, a congressional appropriations trail, a sweat and toil trail, a trail made by thousands of skilled people dedicated to the LRO project, people who have been applying their skills and their knowledge and their time — years of it! — to produce these photos. And these photos aren’t being made to “prove” anything. Such results are by-products of their real mission: to study the moon remotely at a level of detail we’ve never had before.
Show me a hokey UFO video that has that same trail behind it.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Yay! New Apollo photos!
Sniff sniff… Sad new about Walter Cronkite (who for a huge chunk of people is the foice associated with those LIVE Moon shots).
Boo! Hoaxers probably also don’t believe we have submarines or any kind of deep sea diving capability. After all, EVERYONE knows the weight of water would crush anything man could build. Gah!
Okay moon hoaxers, I have a challenge for you. Most of your so called ‘evidence’ is based on what you think have to be man-created anomalies in photos. Now, for every anomaly you THINK you can point out, open y our eyes and pay attention to nature around you. and while you are at it, please, one of you, explain this phenomon that I see daily driving to and from work: as I follow any car, I am able to look at the road surface underneath the car ahead. let us say that at this moment in time, the sun is positioned to the right of this car. The shadow of course extends to the left of the car, but on closer examination, with very little effort I can also notice shadows under the car (usually caused by the lfet side tires) that extend to the right. So there obviously HAS to be another source of illumination right? Shadows can only extend AWAY from the source of illumination right? Right? So.. any hoaxers out there.. please explain.
Another experiment for the hoax crowd: tonight, or any dark night, pick up a flash light and go into a darkened room of your home (preferably a white or light colored room). Now pick a wall and face it. Turn on the flashlight in your hand and aim it directly at the wall in front of you. Now, turn your head and look at the wall BEHIND you (I know this takes some physical prowess and might require a little effort). Please tell us what you see behind you. Those of us that understand that light can reflect and illuminate from more than ONE DIRECTION will tell you that you will see your shadow behind you although the light source is shining in a different direction. and as a side note: if the walls are really reflective, you’ll also see your shadow in front of you. wow.. two shadows going in two diametrically opposed directions, created by a light source that is in no way directly illuminating the object that is casting both shadows.
I look forward to your explanations if you care to try the observation of cars and the flashlight experiment!
P.s. No, the shadows in the two cases mentioned are not added in by NASA the U.S. Government, nor the Illuminati/Freemasons, or the Luna dwellers on the far side of the moon.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Seriously, I think that Phil Plait should ask
the Hive OvermindDiscover to implement a registration/log-in requirement for all commenters; this would significantly cut down on the number of trolls making idiotic comments, as it has done at Universe Today, ever since it implemented that policy, and which has a similar article on the LRO images of the Apollo landing sites, but only 14 sensible (mostly) comments so far.P.S. However, maybe it’s something about Dr. Phil Plait that attracts a disproportionate number of nutters to his blog — the consequence of fame!
July 18th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I don’t think I have ever met a hoax believer in real life.
Hmmm. Is it possible they don’t really exist?
Maybe the hoax is that there aren’t any real hoax believers.
What evidence do they have? Some grainy, obviously faked movie of Buzz punching that idiot?
Anyway, I’m looking forward to celebrating one of humanty’s greatest engineering achievements…ever.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
none asks us to “Don’t knock the knockers… don’t shoot the messenger…”
After he calls us “cognitively crippled sheep” and throws a horde of other insults at us. Well, is it “shooting the messenger” to suggest that you are showing hypocrisy here?
We are not the sheep. Why do hoax believers, UFO alien believers, ghost believers, jesus-in-my-fried-cheese believers and so on always call us “sheep” and claim we are the ones who do not think? As far as I can tell it translates to:
“I read this stuff on a website once and totally accept it without question, so I’m clever, and you simply look at reams and reams of evidence and apply the scientific process to the question so you obviously just mindlessly accept stuff just because of all the evidence”. Or something like that.
There is an enormous amount of evidence that the Apollo program did exactly what it claimed. Many, many thousands of people worked on the Apollo program. There are many photos, films and physical items that appear to have come from the moon. Transmissions were received from the moon by many people, both associated with the program and many more from other countries. The Soviet Union, generally accepted by all except for the most rabid conspiracy believers to have actually existed as an independent and rival political entity to the United States, accepted this evidence and believed that the moon landings took place.
When you question this enormous amount of data, then it is up to you to provide some sort of evidence. Go on. Evidence. Not “you can’t trust THEM, you know, THEM, those secret brilliantly capable conspiritors who are able to secretly run the world and fool everyone while simultaneously looking like the bumbling half-wits that governments appear to be run by, because, you know, THEY do these sort of things for mysterious reasons known only to THEM!!!!”
Every question put up has been shot down. Stars in film, radiation, the spring-loaded camera, “blast craters”, shadows, etc etc etc. And yet, the same questions keep getting asked. Look at how many people are still posting “why don’t we turn hubble on it” or “we should be getting really good pictures, not these ones” even though it’s been explained how daft it is to expect super-high res pics from these kinds of distances. Posting the fourth or fifth question about why the pictures aren’t at star-trek sensor technology level when it’s been explained several times already, and then sitting back with a smug “gotcha” grin, makes people look daft, not brilliant.
We, those who don’t believe in this “hoax” theory, are listening to the arguments of those who do. Please do us the courtesy of doing the same, or if you’re going to be rude and just shout random disjointed drivel at us, we’d prefer if you’d please be quiet.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
[...] Details about this technology news can be found here @ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-... [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
It seems that some people have a psychological need to believe in conspiracy theories; “I’m in on a big huge secret that nobody else is, therefore, I’m special.”
I hate to break it to you, HBs (and 9/11 truthers, and Holocaust deniers), but you’re not special. You don’t have the whole world figured out, while the rest of us sheep wander through it aimlessly.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
[...] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/ [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
[...] Bad Astronomy: APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Like someone else said in a comment thread “about” this thread.. So.. NASA faked not *1*, but ***6*** landings, and a near disaster on the Apollo 13 mission, under the noses of the USSR, who would have loved nothing more than to catch the US “faking” something they where trying to manage themselves. And they did such a good job of this that HAM radio operators where able to pick up and listen to the “fake” signals from the moon, while these things where supposedly taking place, never mind that such radios use antenna that work best when pointed “at the source”, but the real evidence that all of it is fake has nothing to do with physics, implausible radio angles, large numbers of foreign powers all crying, “Its all fake! It never happened!” No.. the “evidence” of this fake is that you can’t see stars in some photos, and a flag waved funny, according to the loonies.
Seriously, something this complicated, was faked, not once, but ***six*** times, and either everyone on the planet running a space program was in on it, never mind that your average government project directed can’t tie their own shoes without both screwing up and leaking the fact to the public, or it was “so good”, that multiple enemy states couldn’t work out that it was faked, yet.. some moron in their basement could figure it all out, looking at blurry videos and a few photos, which have been around for 30 years without any of those “other” people pointing out that something was odd about it.
My brain hurts trying to imagine how you get to be that paranoid and simultaneously stupid.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Don’t forget that the same argument about photo quality is turned around by the conspiracy theories. How could Apollo 11 make such excellent photogrags? With heavy suits, no atmosphere, etc. etc. Thats just unbelieveable.
So no matter how the pictures look like, they will turn it around either way. A bit diffuse? Clearly to hide the truth! Brilliant high-quality? Unbelievable, must be faked! Case in point of Poppers non-science, no matter what reality turns up, your “theories” hold, because they are constructed in a way, to be independend on any reality.
To answer the question why Apollo 11 pictures were of that high-quality. ‘Because that was all the Apollo 11 programme was about, not because it was so scientifically important to bring a man on the moon, any drone would have done better. It was because we wanted pictures of man on the moon, thats why the whole mission was engineered to bring excellent pictures from man on the moon, because, sure you take some rock with you, when you are already there, but that wasn’t the real thing it was about.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
@Sina P,
Those are not hills, they are craters.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
“WoodGuard Says:
July 18th, 2009 at 8:11 am
This place sound like a UFO convention, you see one little shadow and suddenly this is proof of men walking on the moon.
I guest the skeptics all when home!”
Oh sure.. just pretend the other evidence just does not exist, just pretend the tons of video footage of the Apollo missions, the thousands of still images, the rocks brought back from the moon, the hundred of thousands eye witnesses that actually saw the Saturn 5′s take off etc etc do not exist. Just pretend the LRO images is the only evidence available.
Is your argument stupid? Calling it stupid would be an insult to politicians. It’s the intellectual equivalent of 1 million Kelvins below absolute zero. The IQ displayed by it is negative by quite a margin.
My god, I can’t honestly can’t phantom why anyone setting himself to type such transparently flawed argument doesn’t stop himself by wandering “Hmm.. where did I go wrong? Am I going to like like a absolute fool, a complete moron by posting this?”. Honestly.
You are proof god didn’t create earth.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Dennis (99) said:
Yes, that’s right, they didn’t have the technology for a re-useable heat shield.
And?
July 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Ken B (104) said:
Jack Garman was the guidance / navigation engineer who had carried a crib sheet of error codes into the support room at Mission Control. After the landing, they traced the cause of the overload alarms to the rendezvous radar having been left in its “slew” setting. This meant that the rendezvous radar was constantly seeking the CSM and interrupting the LEM’s computer with updates. It’s a testament to the programmers that the LEM’s computer was able to prioritise all of its jobs correctly and continue with the landing. We should all be glad that it did not run Windows.
What was that about trivia?
(Hat tip to my copy of the Apollo 11 Haynes Workshop Manual.)
July 18th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
The shadows are going the wrong way
July 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Marsh (145) said:
Apollo 13 was intendded to land in the Fra Mauro highlands. After 13 failed to land on the moon, Fra Mauro was set as the destination for 14. So, essentially, 14 was a direct replacement for 13.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Quite amazing – I was 11 y/o when I saw the landing LIVE on TV and now to actually see the landing site from orbit is truly spectacular – unfortunate that the hoaxsters will never believe this evidence that is right in front of their eyes – they will come up with some crazy explanation, as usual, to continue their silly denial of the historic event. I feel sorry for them. I wonder – what are they so afraid of? why is it so hard for them to believe?
July 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Footprints? Is this a joke? I downloaded the image and don’t see much of nothing. Is this like the power of suggestion? Put some arrows on a image and say this is that…and that is this? I’ve seen images from mars that clearly show things and you people are totaly blind…claiming shadows and other exceuses but you can see things in that crappy image?
I think you people see what you want to see and don’t see what you don’t want to see.
.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Robert (177) said:
Because it would take a telescope with an objective mirror about 100 m in diameter to resolve these features on the moon from 240,000 miles away. Hubble’s mirror is about 2.4 m in diameter. LRO is looking at these sites from roughly 100 km.
More info here:http [colon slash slash] blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/
July 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
No, RST, it’s not a joke – in fact, you are the joke or the hoax. Continue to live in denial (how’s the water BTW) Frankly, at this point, who cares? Nothing will make you guys believe – so who cares?
July 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
John (179) said:
Except he wasn’t in charge when it mattered. IIUC, Lyndon Johnson was in charge while the key work was done: Gemini missions to understand human space flight; the design of the Apollo hardware, from the Saturn V to the CSM and the LEM; and the guidance systems, the computer, and the shape of the mission (the fact that it would operate by lunar-orbit rendezvous).
Yeah, I just took 22 seconds to look it up on Wikipeedia. Johnson was in office from November 63 to January 69. Nixon had no input whatever, apart from cutting the budget several times.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
To regular readers. Please clip the following and place it in your Defense Against the Dark Arts, er, Responses to MHB file.
> 294. We Never Went Says: WHERE THE HELL IS THE AMERICAN FLAG THAT WE STUCK THERE? The flag should still be there, right?
Wrong. Check out post 183 in this thread.
> Really strong telescopes should be able to see that American flag sometimes!
> But NOPE, no flag…
NOPE, no telescope ever built has been “strong” enough to see anything smaller than about 500 feet on the moon.
> and another thing, they brought a “moon buggy” with them? Where was
> this thing stored at? strapped to the bottom of the lander like luggage on
> a station wagon?
No, it was strapped to the side. BTW, don’t end your sentences with prepositions. It makes you sound ignorant.
> How did the capsule re-launch itself OFF of the moon? It takes a helluva lot
> of fuel for the damn thing to get off the pad at Canaveral, did it only need
< like 2 gallons of gas to push itself off the moon and back to Earth?
Not two gallons, but only a few hundred. It was only lifting a few tons against the moon's gravity, not the 6 million pounds of the whole Saturn V stack against Earth's gravity. And it didn't push back to Earth, just back to low orbit with no atmospheric drag to worry about.
> If we had gone to the moon, we’d have PLANNED TO GO BACK several times
> to colonize it.
We did plan to go back. We’re executing those plans now.
> There is more technology in a Gameboy than there was in the Lunar lander.
Ah, the bliss of the ignorant. Just how is this a valid comparison? Why do we need the super graphics capability of a video game to fly to the moon? Actually there was far more “technology” in the LM than in a Gameboy, you know, like propulsion, communication, life support.
> Rocket scientists apparently aren’t as smart as everyone thought, so you
> can all drop that term as a metaphor for brilliance.
I’m not a rocket scientist, but I am a rocket engineer and I’ll do an intellectual smack down with you any time you want. I’ll do it with half my brain tied behind my back. Just bring it on!
> WHO THE HECK WAS SHOOTING THE FOOTAGE AS THE FIRST DUDE
> STEPPED OUT AND ONTO THE MOON? WAS THERE A CAMERA MAN
> THERE WAITING FOR HIM TO COME OUT AND SAY THE “ONE SMALL
> STEP” THING?
[sigh] First dude? Can’t you even figure out the name? The camera was mounted to the equipment storage shelf on the side of the LM (called the MESA, Modular Equipment Storage Assembly). Armstrong (the “first dude”) pulled a ripcord on his way down the ladder that caused it to unfold and activate the camera. This, BTW, is also where the moon buggy was stored on later missions.
>Where and who was holding the camera that shows the dude
> stepping outta the module?
If you mean the photo of Aldrin (dude #2) coming down the ladder, it was taken by Armstrong (dude #1) since he was already on the ground.
> and wouldn’t the module have imploded as tiny as it was when he went
> to step out? it was too small for an air lock area.
OK, your ignorance used to be funny, but now it’s just irritating. This is where I want to do a “dope slap” about a dozen times while screaming WAKE UP! about two inches from your face. Things implode when the pressure outside is greater than inside, like submarines. They were on the moon. The outside pressure was ZERO. They had their spacesuits on and vented the cabin first. The pressure inside was ZERO. Outside ZERO. Pressure differential inside to outside ZERO.
I’m not even going to address the thing about how huge cameras were back then. The reason they’re smaller now is that they were miniaturized as part of the R&D done for Apollo.
> we didn’t have portable camcorders then folks. THINK ABOUT IT.
Why? You certainly haven’t.
- Jack
July 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Ad Hominid (189) said:
Actually, my money would be on nearly all the footprints still being intact. Not only was the ascent stage rocket quite modest, but the exhaust would rapidly have dispersed in the lack of atmosphere to a point where it could not exert any significant pressure on the regolith. Bear in mind also that the regolith itself is very cohesive (far more so than sand or salt crystals).
July 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I have a feeling we are being played by POEs. Just when we have settled the thread down, a new hoax believer pops up.
Just in case you are real, RST: The images from LRO are stunning, considering the weight and budget requirements, this is the most sophisticated probe that has ever been in lunar orbit.
The tracks are there and will be even more obvious under better lighting conditions and a lower orbit later in the mission.
Do you realize that even the pilot in the COMMAND MODULE on each of the moon missions could not see the landing sites this well even through a telescope?
Have you ever flown in a plane 110 miles up? Of course not. You’ve likely been at most 6 miles up. LRO was aproximately 110 miles up when it took these pictures. It will soon be only 50 miles above the surface. This is not science fiction. Not as good as earth spy satellites? No and not as expensive or heavy either. Putting a military spy satellite into lunar orbit would be prohibitively expensive and overkill for the LRO’s mission, of which these photos are only a fortunate side effect.
RST, despite your skewed expectations which have likely been shaped by special effects, the science being returned from LRO is phenomenal, because it’s REAL. A video-game designer or special effects artist could give you the kind of pictures you are likely used to, but: Welcome to reality, isn’t it exciting!! We REALLY went to the moon.
By the way, I have a funny feeling that there were “airplane hoax believers” “Train hoax believers” “Elephant hoax believers” at one time, even after they talked to people who saw one, saw pictures of one or even saw one themselves. It’s probably something that is just part of the human psyche. It’s really just the other side of the coin people who believe without evidence. Belief or disbelief without evidence — same problem. Usually the same kinds of people are suceptible to both.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter Images Apollo Sites
This is one of the cooler things that has come from a space probe. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken images of all of the Apollo landing sites.
The image you see here to the right is the Apollo 11 descent module which was left behind after…
July 18th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
For the life of me, I cant remember where Phil explains why they cant just aim the hubble telescope at the moon and take pictures. This is great though that they did this.
Ofcoarse I now have to crack out photoshop and photoshop stuff into the pics
July 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
@fsdfdfsd
The features that are casting shadows are craters. The rims of the craters are casting shadows onto the crater floor. The far side of the craters are illuminated.
Like SilaP above, you are seeing the craters as hills. This is similar to those silhouette pictures that can be seen as a fancy cup or two human profiles. Depending on what you want to see.
The sunlight is coming from the left, so the shadow directions are correct for the craters and the lander.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
@339
I’m not sure about elephant deniers, but there were platypus deniers (and for good reason). RST is such a Really Silly T*** that I almost wish Virgil would reappear. At least he was somewhat smarter than a bag of rocks.
I want a digital camera like RST has, you know the one with a zoom of 1000000000000X and infinite resolution.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Ah well.. it appears that none of the hoaxinati have decided to take up my challenges at #316. hahahaha
July 18th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Awesome!
To add to what kuhnigget (315) said, the photos alone aren’t proof. The photos are the visible wafer-thin layer on top of a *mountain* of evidence.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Again I find myself agreeing with Grisha. We are being Poe’d. Bored teenagers with daddy’s laptop on summer vacation. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
It’s a pity this thread has become a HB thread. LRO is just stunning, absolute fantastic photos and more and better to come! We already know the hardware is up there, and sure it is neat to take a picture of it 40 years later, but that’s NOT the point of LRO. Hopefully it’s the first step to a permanent moon base. Now THAT is cool….
July 18th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Jack Hagerty,
I really have to quibble about one thing: In English is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to end a sentence with a preposition. The notion that it is not was invented by a preacher in England in the 1800s, who thought, since Latin does have such a rule, it would be cool for English.
Minor point, and I enjoyed the rest of your post, but this one is a pet peeve of mine. I repeat: There is not such rule in English, and never was.
Or, as Winston Churchill was rumored to have said on the subject: “This is something up with which I will not put.”
July 18th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
345. Daffy Says: “I really have to quibble about one thing: In English is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to end a sentence with a preposition. The notion that it is not was invented by a preacher in England in the 1800s, who thought, since Latin does have such a rule, it would be cool for English.”
Thanks for the history lesson. Actually I knew it was OK for a sentence to end a preposition with. It’s also OK to boldly split infinitives. I didn’t know the origins, though. Thanks. I put that in there as a reference to the the old joke about the freshman asking “where’s the library at?” I guess it was too obscure.
- Jack
July 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Phil,
Good on you mate. I just read the byline on CNN and honestly this, and other hoax talk, make me seriously worried about how gullible people are. There is something that borders on misanthropy in their comments and politics. First of all the hoax followers show great disrespect to the memories of Grissom, White and Chaffee. Perhaps the show no less to the crews of the Shuttles Colombia and Challenger. They are probably also followers of those who think that the World Trade Center collapses, and the thousands of lives lost on 9/11, were some conspiracy. And they join the ranks of those who deny that the Nazis ran concentrations camps. Anyone who contends that the Apollo program used money that could have been better spent on earth can get my ear. But when considering the hoax believers: I shudder to think what else they believe.
Thanks for making this photo available.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
When will we have Google Moon like we do Earth and Mars? That would be sweeeeeeeet.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
347. Scott Says: “When will we have Google Moon like we do Earth and Mars? That would be sweeeeeeeet.”
La dolce vita: http://www.google.com/moon/
July 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
[...] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/ [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
To Scott:
“When will we have Google Moon like we do Earth and Mars? That would be sweeeeeeeet.”
It’s already started and just going to get better with the LRO imagery.
See press release here:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/sep/HQ_07195_Google_Moon.html
Or go directly:
http://www.google.com/moon/
July 18th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
[...] en: Bad Astronomy. Más información: [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
When viewed as evidence that the moon landings occurred, the LOCATION of the objects on the surface of the moon is the TELLING POINT. The present day images of these objects, are at the EXACT locations of the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites. Moreover, the landing locations have been public knowledge for a long time. They can be fixed by lunar topography, craters, hills, and the like, and by the lunar coordinates recorded at the time of the original Apollo landings. If LRO searches at those previously recorded and published coordinates and then finds objects, that is convincing proof. By scientific standards, such a match of recorded locations with currently imaged objects would be considered excellent experimental verification that Apollo landings took place were these objects are located.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Hoax claims give the originators (non contributing zeros) a lot of power and attention. It comes from the same school as vandalism.
Weak people with no skills or power, create a haox / conspiracy theory and watch the worshipers arrive in praise. (Or they watch the police arrive from a safe distance in the case of vandals.)
Obviously the moon photo is the real thing, but perhaps those are not footprints, but the trail left by the lunar baggy surely?
Is this a later site?
Jonathan
July 18th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
@Odd Texas Coach:
So was I… and it was my birthday! Challenger was the day after my birthday. Columbia was 5 days after my birthday.
I get a bit nervous around my birthday…
I’m about 50 messages behind, but a few comments:
I imagine that the Apollo 12 / Surveyor 3 site wasn’t included in this batch of images because the sun wasn’t low enough yet for a good shot. It’s early evening there now, though, so we might have something in the queue.
Related: The landings happened just after lunar sunrise, so that the long shadows cast by the terrain would let the crew see what they were getting into. Given the phase of the moon when these LRO pics were taken, the shadows we’re seeing are pointing the other way. Not a great big huge deal, but I know it took me a moment wondering why the images were upside-down!
July 18th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
[...] Finally, the week ended with stunning images taken by the lunar orbiter. For the first time since the initial landing, the area where astronauts first walked on the moon was photographed. Some may ask why we haven’t been able to see this area with our telescopes, but the fact is that even the Hubble is not strong enough to focus in on such a small area. Good thing the lunar orbiter crossed paths with the landing site! Skeptic celeb, and apocalyptic author, Phil Plait, posted the pics on his blog, Bad Astronomy. [...]
July 18th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
@ 195. Sarah :
I still can’t imagine why anyone would try to argue it was a hoax. You’d have to completely deny facts that practically punch you in the face. Not like people who believe the hoax would do anything like that.
Buzz Aldrin would!
Just ask Bart Sibrel..
July 19th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Jack Hagerty,
Well, I do apologize for being pedantic. I have no idea why that one nags at me…
July 19th, 2009 at 2:12 am
NASA is full of crap, they have been deceiving us since day one.
Why else would they need to fake an image of the earth from a distance?
Their whole operation is laughable.
Quote from Neil Armstrong in 1994:
“We have only completed the beginning, we leave you that is undone, there are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers”
I’m sorry; this section is [CLASSIFIED].
July 19th, 2009 at 2:18 am
RST (333) said:
* Sigh *
The point is not that these images “prove” what is there. They don’t, because they are not sharp enough. In case you had not worked it out, we already know what is on the surface of the moon at these locations, because we left it there. By aiming LRO’s camera at the Apollo landing sites, NASA have obtained some cool new images. Plus, it is a good test of the camera.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Munky (341) said:
Try here: http [colon slash slash] blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/
July 19th, 2009 at 2:29 am
[Quibble mode ON]
Daffy (347) said:
Whatever. “Where’s the party at?” still sounds awful. Failure to use “of which” and “with which” is still indicative of a low level of education in the use of the language. Have you no use for elegance of expression?
Yeah, but he got that wrong. In the verb “to put up with”, the word “up” is not serving the role of a preposition, but an auxiliary or modifier to the verb. So it should have been “something with which I will not put up”. You see?
[Quibble mode OFF]
July 19th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Alex Cicelsky (349) said:
I recently saw a documentary that included straw-poll interviews with American cits that had been stopped in the street by a TV crew shortly after Sputnik hit the headlines. Everyone was either terrified of the Soviet achievement or outraged that America did not have the same capability. The interviewer even asked the question “Do you admire the Russians for this?” and was given a resounding “No” as an answer.
When Kennedy set the USA the goal of landing on the Moon, Congress assigned a huge budget to NASA. Obviously, at that time, NASA had the full support (albeit probably not unanimous) of the US public. By the time of Apollo 11, NASA’s budget was already being slashed.
However, even at the height of the Apollo programme in the mid-60s (when all the hardware was being designed and prototyped), NASA’s budget peaked at about 4% of the USA’s GDP. If you wonder why we could not spend that money on earth, I would answer with 2 questions:
(1) What was the other 96% being spent on?
(2) Where do you think all of the companies that built the Apollo hardware were based? On the moon?
NASA’s Apollo budget was spent in the USA, on American engineers, American computers (BTW, NASA single-handedly kick-started the silicon chip industry by ordering a million computer chips to ensure that the manufacturers would iron out the teething troubles with chip fabrication, so without Apollo, you would not have a computer in your home), American cryogenics, American aluminum (see, I even spelt it the American way this time) and alloys, and so on.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:56 am
Grisha Says:
Just in case you are real, RST:
Yes I’m real and I’m not a member of the Hoax crowd but I’m not a member of the “we went to moon crowd either”. I’m keeping an open mind about the subject until I see something that makes sense to me and that picture does not do it for me. The lander as described is just a blurred pixel and people here call it stunning? Then the claims that someone can see footprints? I mean come on…..footprints? You can’t be serious to think you can actually see footprints? I don’t think I could see footprints in that image even if I took LSD and looked at it.
Then someone asked why they couldn’t have pointed the Hubble Space telescope and looked at it years ago. Sound like a logical question….if it can see things at the ebd of the Universe then the moon would be childs play.
I’d take it a step further and ask why we can not see live uncensored streaming video from the hubble telescope? Or take that a step further and why can’t we see uncensored streaming video on the internet from just one of the thousands of satelites we have in orbit? If its a sercurity risk then point the cam at the Moon or Mars or Venus…send the live feed down and stream it on the internet. What is it they don’t want us to see out there?
.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:48 am
Why people think that thoe photos are for moon hoaxers in the first place? Those photos are for peoplo who believe what was achieved 40 years ago. Apollo landing sites are like memorial places for mankind. This is the reason why those sites are being photographed.
If you’re hoaxer and you think that NASA did this on purpose for you to believe than you’re more than ”smart”. Think again why NASA should even care about moon hoaxers. They’re only 15% other 5% don’t have oppinion and all the rest takes proud of what was achieved.
Looking at those photos I put respect for people who did that. I trully feel emotionally touched of what was achieved almost a half century ago.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:28 am
@ 365. RST:
1. No one is saying you can see individual footprints from LRO. What you CAN see is very obvious disturbed lunar soil — a footpath — left behind by astronauts Shepard and Mitchell from Apollo 14. We know this because a.) they went down there, b.) they took high quality pictures, and c.) they flew back with a couple hundred pounds of lunar rocks that have been studied in labs all over the world. The Nazca lines on Earth are a disturbed soil footpath too… made by real people on the real ground, and you can see those from a low orbit as well. Do you need to take LSD just to see those? No. You just need to NOT close your eyes and NOT be willfully ignorant.
2. Hubble was designed to see gargantuan cosmic objects light years across from far, far away, not incredibly tiny human-sized ones. The optical specifications of Hubble SIMPLY DO NOT WORK the way you think they should. If you had done even the SLIGHTEST internet search, you would already know this. Hubble, if aimed at the Moon, would not be able to reach the level of detail that LRO has. Here, you are being nothing less than intellectually lazy and dishonest.
3. Hubble does not shoot “live uncensored streaming video.” It doesn’t have to. It doesn’t look at things that change rapidly. It is a telescope that was designed to take individual still pictures at very long exposures, some that last for days. That’s like asking why doesn’t this old digital still camera I have shoot full motion video? Because it wasn’t designed to — it doesn’t have that capability built-in. The same goes for the “thousands of satelites we have in orbit.” They are mostly aging communications satellites that have no imaging capability whatsoever and were never meant to have it. Not every satellite can take pictures… just a small minority of them. And they can only see things like cars and people on Earth because of their proximity to the ground which is a few hundred miles away. The lunar ground would be HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of miles away from Earth orbit!
************************
RST, you aren’t fooling anyone except yourself. Despite your protestations, yours is NOT an open mind. Far from it. If your mind were actually open, you would have done the intellectually curious and honest thing (rather than be lazy and dishonest) and sought out the answers to all of those questions of yours — which are available at this very site — BEFORE you posted such a willfully ignorant series of statements under the guise of open-mindedness.
I mean, the guy who runs this site is an astronomer who worked for ten years with the Hubble telescope itself fer Chrissakes! He is here to offer you the correct answers and you blatantly disregard it? That is just foolish.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Re: Google Moon.
While there are those links provided by others, Monday there will be a Google announcement with NASA officials present. Hmmm…. I wonder what it could be:
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2009/07/google_earth_event_on_july_20th_in.html
People are speculating a Google Earth lunar skin like they have for Mars.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:32 am
I’ve to agree with Justin Olson. People disguise them selfs as open minded but they’re too lazy to even check their statements and look deeper.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:34 am
@RST
May I give you some career advise? Please go the route of the the Conspiracy Theorist. You brain is ill equipped for logical thought, resolving your confusion and doing actual research, it is far better suited for Conspiracy thinking:
The body of evidence, the video footage, the still images, of the lunar missions, from take-off and its preparations to splash down and its aftermath, books that key figures in the Apollo program have written, the people that have actually have traced the spacecrafts on their way to the moon, etc etc. does make perfect sense.
That you “haven’t made up your mind yet either way” yet, in view of the amount of evidence that has been available for 40 or more years, implies that the first of the two prerequisites for becoming a conspiracy theorist has been met: you distrust everything you see.
“Until you see something that makes sense to you.”
“To you” are the operative words here. The second of the two prerequisites for becoming a conspiracy theorist has been met: your ideas are absolute, infallible, i.e when there is a discrepancy between primary evidence and your ideas, rather than adapt your ideas to match the primary evidence you will conclude that something is wrong with the primary evidence.
Your “come…on footprints” shows your inability to bring observables to a logical, valid, conclusion.
Your “Hubble, if end of universe, moon child’s play” argument further is indicative of a confused mind, a mind wandering off into the irrelevant, a mind unable to resolve puzzles by digging up the facts, a mind unable to learn, a mind that is geared toward resolving puzzles by pulling theories out of thin air.
Since both of the two prerequisites are met. You are all for go into Conspiracy territory. Your aforementioned intellectual deficiencies are a great plus in this territory since they will catalyse the process of bringing your theories a great distance from reality. Your theories will therefore be highly regarded in conspiracy circles.
Yes. I’m serious. You are doomed. Make up your mind. In fact, you already have made up your mind. I don’t want you to be on the sane side of the fence. Go into loon territory please. You belong there.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:09 am
See what? That grammatically correct English can sound just as ludicrous as grammatically incorrect English? If so, then yes, I do see.
I don’t think grammar alone is the key to elegance of expression. Spend the next few days speaking only formally correct English to the people around you. Count the number who give you strange looks or giggle at your pompousness.
I do think that certain ways of speaking and writing sound better than others, but that doesn’t seem to correlate to grammatical formality. Indeed, it can be a serious distraction from the meat of your ideas.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am
“I’d take it a step further and ask why we can not see live uncensored streaming video from the hubble telescope?”
The Hubble telescope is too far away to get any shots of the landing sites. And it isn’t NASAs job too convince idiots like you.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:18 am
RST (365) said:
So, what would?
Photos taken on the surface of the moon? We have these already.
The simple fact that 400,000 people were directly involved and it would be impossible to keep any kind of conspiracy quiet? Apparently not.
How about pieces of the moon brought back by the men that visited it? We have these already (I’ve seen one, and it looked like no rock I had ever seen before).
How about the radar tracking data from the dozen or more governments that followed the Apollo space craft? I’m sure at least some organisations have kept their data.
How about the fact that the Soviets (who had the most to gain if Apollo failed) accepted that the USA landed men on the moon first? Surely if there were any real evidence the USSR would have pounced on it in a flash!
How about the laser reflectomoeters that three Apollo missions left behind on the moon, and are still used today to measure the moon’s recession velocity?
Or how about the 12 men that have walked on the moon?
Go on, what would convince you?
You claim to be keeping an open mind, but the case really is closed. There is no evidence for a conspiracy. There is no evidence that NASA lied about landing on the moon. Yet there is a bucketload of evidence that Apollo did land people on the moon. Your “open mind” is unreasonable, because it was shown (in 19696 – 1972) beyond reasonable doubt that we did land people on the moon.
It’s not a stunning photo of the Apollo hardware, but it is a stunning technical achievement. Resolving an object a mere 3 m across from a distance of 100 km is a staggering achievement for an instrument that had to be light enough to be sent to lunar orbit.
No, you have misunderstood. No-one has seriously claimed they can see individual footprints. What we can see, however, is the trail of darker material where the astronauts of Apollo 14 kicked up the regolith. The lunar regolith is light on the surface and darker underneath, due to the peculiar environment. We cannot see footprints, but we can see the trail the astronauts left as this darker material is exposed to see.
Maybe you should have followed Phil’s link to the NASA page, hmm?
Oh, not another one. I wish I had a dollar for every person who thinks this is a reasonable request.
The objects that Hubble observes billions of light-years away are enormous (distant galaxies that it resolves as little blurs are hundreds of thousands of light-years across!). It does not possess the resolution to make out an object a mere 3 m across from a distance of about 240,000 miles.
Now, go and read this:
http [colon slash slash] blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/
Because:
(1) It takes longer to process the data into an image than it takes to acquire a short-exposure image (such as would be needed to create a video). Even your digital camera takes a finite time to create an image from the raw data that it acquires from its CCD, and that has a far smaller sensor than a high-quality telescope (even if you have a top-of-the-line DSLR, its sensor will be only a small fraction of the size of those in the scientific instruments we have in orbit).
(2) These telescopes will collect data from one object for many minutes or hours at a time before the raw data are converted into an image. The longest exposure that Hubble has taken was (IIRC) about 30 days.
There you go, assuming in your ignorance that people have something to hide, whereas the reality is that you simply do not understand the technology. What you propose is not merely unreasonable, it is impossible.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Naked Bunny with a whip (368) said:
Oh!
This explains so much! Thanks!
July 19th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Kenton (193) said:
Also, you obviously don’t have to haul the fuel to get you home with you to the moon. And have to haul that plus the fuel to get you to the moon into Earth-orbit. And have to haul that lot off a launch pad in Florida.
Every extra kilo being brought back from the moon multiplied the fuel demands of each earlier stage of the mission. The LEM was as light as it could be. The rocks the astronauts brought back were obviously deemed to be of far greater value than the hardware they used while on the surface. So, not only are the ALSEPs, the LEM descent stages and the lunar rovers still there, so are the astronauts PLSSs, their visors and lunar overboots and probably a few other odds and ends that they no longer needed. Every item they left behind was one more sample bag they could bring back to Earth.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Nigel,
Elegance of expression (I like that term) is fine. Just don’t declare it to be a “rule.” Conversational writing is, IMHO, best…or did Ernest Hemingway live in vain?
Btw, the English preacher’s name who started all this was Robert Lowth.
And that’s just where it’s at.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:16 am
question. why is the shadow of the lunar module on the right and the shadows of the hills on the left? or am i reading the pics wrong?
July 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/apollo11return_nasa_big.jpg
Are those stars, or… lint? I’m guessing lint.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:09 am
okay so if I put an arrow on a grainy picture, that would count as proof? More please….
July 19th, 2009 at 11:16 am
The LRO’s job is to do mapping with a view to finding future landing sites, taking the photos of the Apollo sites was just a nice way to mark the Apollo 11 anniversary, and get some positive publicity for NASA. Face it if some Chinese taikonaut(they are probably the most likely to land a man next) takes his buggy and goes sightseeing at one of the Apollo sites and takes ground level shots the hoax loonies still won’t be convinced.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:36 am
[...] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/ [...]
July 19th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I hope the day comes when all the hoax-heads realize their mistake and how they’ve wasted their lives and minds on their cultish, paranoid beliefs. Kool-Aid for the whole lot of them!
July 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
John (201) said:
And why should credulity be strained, John?
If you refer to the fiction that radiation levels are too high on the moon for film to achieve anything other than simply fogging, you quite obviously know nothing about radiation.
The principle kind of radiation encountered on the moon is from the solar wind, which is particle radiation (mostly electrons and protons ejected from the sun). This is very easy to shield against, unless it is extremely high energy. For example, a mere 1 cm of perspex shields against roughly 99.9% of high-energy electrons (beta particles) unless the energy is extraordinarily high. Protons are even less penetrative. The cameras / film cassettes had aluminium cases (IIRC), which, while only a couple of mm thick, were adequate to shield the film from the solar wind.
What you have failed to recognise, John, is that NASA employed people who knew what they were doing.
Have you ever heard of the scientific technique of autoradiography? No, I thought not. Even with high-energy emissions, unless your flux density is very high, you need to keep the film in close contact (typically less than 1 mm away) with the source of radiation for many hours (usually overnight) to achieve a useful detection of the source.
If you had bothered to research this, the information is all freely available.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Constantskeptic (204) said:
To be convinced of what, though? And how would a high-res pic be protected from doctoring?
July 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Ivan3Man (215) said:
Actually, I thought that, once you had rockets big enough to throw nukes into orbit, you could hit anywhere on Earth? The Saturn V was so much bigger and more powerful than anything that was needed for launching missiles. Although, I guess you could use it to lob up about 100 nukes in one launch…
July 19th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Why the **** are we still bothering to even *try* to convince the HBs trolling here that they’re wrong? We might just as well try to blow out the Sun with a sneeze. They’re never going to accept the truth, their padded world of delusion is far too cosy, far too comfortable to leave. Let’s just leave them to their stories, eh? If we stop tossing them bones to gnaw they’ll get bored and wander back to the 9/11 and Kennedy conspiracy sites they were hanging out at before LRO made the headlines.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Nigel Depledge:
I think that the general idea, before nuclear weapons were miniaturized, was to launch something like the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS), with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV), in orbit around the Earth or the Moon, or even on the Moon — which would have required a relaunch system.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
RST Says:
“Then someone asked why they couldn’t have pointed the Hubble Space telescope and looked at it years ago. Sound like a logical question….if it can see things at the ebd of the Universe then the moon would be childs play.”
Telescopes don’t see distant objects. They image objects which subtend angles that are within their angular resolving power. The distant objects in those Hubble pics all occupy larger angles in the field of view than many much closer objects; for example, leftover Apollo hardware on the Moon.
I’d take it a step further and ask why we can not see live uncensored streaming video from the hubble telescope? Or take that a step further and why can’t we see uncensored streaming video on the internet from just one of the thousands of satelites we have in orbit? If its a sercurity risk then point the cam at the Moon or Mars or Venus…send the live feed down and stream it on the internet. What is it they don’t want us to see out there?”
Satellites, including space telescopes (and even ground-based telescopes) aren’t just big TV cameras. They don’t stream live, real-time video. Not at all. A telescope typically observes objects which are extremely faint. They aren’t even visible to the unaided eye. To image these things, the telescope must stare steadily at the target for very long periods of time (anywhere from minutes to hours or even days) to accumulate enough light to make a visible, useful picture. It’s the same for telescopes on the ground. Even a hand-held camera needs to do the same thing. I have photos taken in poor lighting which are blurred, because the camera kept the iris open for an extended length of time, and I wasn’t able to hold it steady enough during the exposure.
And, it doesn’t matter if there’s something something “out there” that “They” don’t want us to see. “They” have no monopoly on the sky. Anyone can point a telescope at any patch of overhead sky. You should try it sometime; I mean, actually looking at the world.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Stu:
I think that most of those trolls are just pranksters messing about… like those adolescent punks in the audience at a cinema, who make groaning noises during love scenes on the screen.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Very impressive. These tiny man made specks on the surface of a heavenly body. I vividly remember my childhood disappointment when Apollo 17 ascended from the lunar surface. I asked my mother if they would ever go back. And her answers left me with the uneasy feeling that I might never see that weird, out of the earth world again. These images are like opening a time capsule. Makes me want to look at these sites from the lunar surface. I wonder what these images would look like. Untouched by time. 40 years frozen, as if nothing happened in the meantime, as if there was no meantime, I guess.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Ivan: “like those adolescent punks in the audience at a cinema, who make groaning noises during love scenes on the screen.”
Maybe, but seeing as I can’t throw a half-melted Malteser at them, as I would (and do!) at noisy kids in the cinema, I’m stuck with virtually snarling STFU…
July 19th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
@RST
I don’t know why I’m bothering, but here goes. I don’t have a scientific background. I went to law school, and I should be studying for the bar exam rather than wasting my time on you. What the hell is wrong with me? But I digress.
Even as someone with no formal science education beyond a few undergraduate-level astronomy and math courses, I can tell you that your questions betray the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
Hubble being able to image the landers on the moon? Ok, I’ll grant that at first blush, it seems plausible that a telescope as powerful as Hubble should be able to make out tiny details on the moon, but a quick internet search and a few calculations on angular resolving power (you can do basic algebra, right?) would show that Hubble doesn’t have anywhere near the resolving power to make out such small objects at the distances involved between earth and the moon.
As far as getting live streaming video from Hubble and the “thousands of satellites we have in orbit” – you’re just talking out of your rear end. Where did you get the idea that this is even remotely possible? You’ve been watching too many spy movies, I think.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
@Rift
we are kindred spirits
Lay a flower for me pls
July 19th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
To Deborah,
What you are actually seeing with the shadows to the left, are depressions, not boulders.
The big one to the right of Apollo 11 is called the West Crater. Since there is no real atmosphere on the Moon to reflect light back into a crater, the “up sun” left side of the crater will be heavily shadowed.
On the other hand, the lander, protruding some distance above the surface will cast a shadow to the right, as it does. The sun is obviously at a fairly low angle, on the left, given the length of the landers shadow
July 19th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Those are the coolest pictures I’ve seen this year! I absolutely love them, and can’t wait for better ones. I’m too young to have experienced the real thing, so this is the first Apollo imagery to be taken in my lifetime.
Of course it won’t change any HB’s mind, because they will always deny any evidence. Actually I’m beginning to wonder if there is a conspiracy, but a different one. The conspiracy is that there aren’t any HBs, but there’s someone out there making us think there are just to annoy us. After all, no thinking human being could possibly believe the landings were faked.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
@John for #293
I *hate* the ‘hubble’ question too. It’s been debunked a dozen times in this thread alone.
The hubble really isn’t that “great” of a ‘scope. The punch line being ‘here on earth’. It pales in comparison to those in Arizona or Hawaii. The fact it IS such a great ‘scope is it is above all the crap in the atmosphere unlike the MUCH bigger ‘scopes here on earth.
I was scientifically trained (hope your bars go okay btw) and the math to figure out how big an object the hubble can see on the moon is incredibly simple. We talking basic basic algebra. Of the top of my head if i recollect correctly works out the biggest thing (that would show up as a blurry spot or even pixel) is about 10 or 12 times bigger then the LEM. The other problem in imaging the moon is that it moves FAST for the hubble and is a tricky shot to make (although it has been done)
What’s cool for me isn’t the fact we can see the Apollo hardware (although that is neat) but it is the fact that we can see boulders and craters FEET in size! And LRO isn’t even in optimal orbit yet. It’s going to survey the moon like it has never been imaged before, it is going to be AWESOME. Sure we have seen these shots 40 years ago, have pictures AT the landing sites. But what is thrilling for me is that we will get images of places no one has gotten before in unbelievable resolution. (well unbelievable for those of us who understand the difficulties behind the science and technology)
LRO is paving the way for a hoped for permanent science base. May the nationality(ies) of that base be meaningless… “For All Mankind”
@TexasOdysseyCoach
Gene, I found her headstone yesterday. It is near a rather large monument with, what I assume are her parents and Walt’s maternal grandparents. It looked to be a family plot with many of her sisters/brothers buried around the central monument. I have pics if you are interested… I simply left a news clipping about Walter’s death, held in place by an american flag. I plan to take my brother up there and will lay a flower on your behalf there then… Since it is a five minute drive for me, seemed like a logical pilgrimage for me to make to honor Cronkite. It is a beautiful cemetery up in the Missouri River bluffs. Although I never met him, he did frequent town on occasion and I knew a few people who bumped into him. One was a friend in college who waited on his table at a local restaurant and said he was ‘just an average down to earth low key friendly guy’. Kinda like he was in the anchor chair…
July 19th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Hi,
Nigel #374
“(I’ve seen one, and it looked like no rock I had ever seen before).”
Isn’t the current fav theory of evolutionary astronomy that the moon came forth from earth matter in a huge collision, when the earth was molten. So why would the rock from the moon then look so different ?
btw .. are you a geologist ?
When the moon rock FAQ says:
” Breccias aren’t unique to the moon. Volcanic areas on earth have a lot of breccias, as well. Many of the moon rocks are a very dense hard rock called basalt that is also a very common rock on earth. Most of Hawaii is basalt … The biggest surprise about the moon rocks was that over 80 percent of the moon seems to be light colored feldspar, which is also the most common rock on earth. ”
It surely does not sound like the moon rock specialists agree with your learned understanding.
“a very common rock on earth”
“the most common rock on earth.”
Shalom,
Steven Avery
July 19th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Pretty cool pix. I remember watching the Apollo 11 moon landing when I was 8 yrs old. The entire Apollo Program happened as I grew up and it fascinated me to no end. What gets me is that I have a hard time reconciling the information NASA puts out. One day we go to the moon- the next day you can’t go through the Van Allen belts without getting a huge killer dose of radiation. One day you can see rocket flames coming from behind a space vehicle- the next day they are invisible as the astronauts leave the moon using a rocket. One day the dangers of radiation in space will kill you- the next day they send Apollo craft into space with no radiation protection, neither the spacecraft OR the astronauts spacesuits had any whatsoever. Just what the hell is going on? Spare me the moon hoaxer name calling BS. Either a) NASA doesn’t know its ass from a hole in the ground, b) they are BSing us about the dangers of the Van Allen belts and space radiation in general, or c) we had materials and technologies that protected our crews. There is no way to look at the situation and come up with any other answer except that we are being lied to or given false information with which we are to reach conclusions. I just don’t know.
One thing I do know for certain. A few years ago I wrote an FOIA to NASA requesting photos, IR images, or any other kind of imaging or raw data that they had about the Crater Tsiolkovsky on the moon’s far side. I find that crater fascinating as the images I have seen of it show some very curious shadowing and other anomalies. I offered to pay for any images/pictures/data that they would send. What did I get in return? It wasn’t images/pictures/or data. Just a rather snide letter demanding to know why I wanted the information. Apparently I’m not supposed to ask for such information, just being a regular citizen who puts the salt on their table and all. Well, at least I didn’t pay good money for pictures in which they smudged out the interesting anomalies.
We may have gone to the moon- at least I think we went, personally. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that something very shady is going on at NASA and we are not getting the openness promised when they were formed. NASA itself is the root cause of all of the accusations of hoaxing by the way they handle their data.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
[...] addition, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter just sent back photos of some of the Apollo landing sites. The resolution isn’t perfect, so the details are [...]
July 19th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Stu (387) said:
We’re not. It’s for the benefit of people who otherwise wouldn’t know that the questions raised by the HBs really do have simple answers.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Rift (396) said:
I agree about Hawaii, but Arizona? I think you’ll find that’s a little behind the times. Try the ESO in Chile, for example.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Rift (396) said:
There’s also the fact that (even ignoring the atmosphere), Hubble can point at one place in the sky for a lot longer than can a telescope on the Earth. For a ground-based scope, unless it’s at one of the poles, it can’t image the same point in the sky for more than about 16 hours (in the depth of winter), or 12 hours if sited close to the equator, because the Earth itself gets in the way.
Hubble, OTOH, can observe perpendicular to the plane of its orbit for days at a time. Of course, this is limited by the relative geometries of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, but it can be done and has been done.
Hubble’s power lies not only in being above the atmosphere but also in its ability to take extremely long “exposures”.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Deborah @378 asked: “why is the shadow of the lunar module on the right and the shadows of the hills on the left? or am i reading the pics wrong?”
G’day Deborah. You’re reading the picture wrong.
They’re not hills. They’re craters. If you’re finding them hard to visualise, turn the picture upside down (if you can).
July 20th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Speaking of largish telescopes…
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-keeps-space-dream-alive-with-huge-telescope-investment-20090719-dpl0.html
Looks like we have some involvement in the Chile project. w00t!!
And a 25 metre mirror too! OMG…
http://www.gmto.org/
July 20th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Got to admire the imagination it takes to form a moon landing conspiracy theory. That kind of thinking will not let the facts get in the way and that makes them dangerous too. This week truTV (old court TV) ran that insane Nash Entertainment production “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?”. Well the photos are here where is the ‘oops I was wrong’ article. Never happens. Here is my journal entry that references bad astronomy and has the new Apollo 11 conspiracy, Lost Tapes is the core of it. Corrections welcome.
http://duddits-fairuse.blogspot.com/2009/07/apollo-11-week-without-conspiracy.html
bye
July 20th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Hmmm…Phil, could we be looking at one of your top 10 pics for 2009?
July 20th, 2009 at 3:30 am
For me only 1 proof is enough to say that the moon landing was real and that proof is USSR. At the 1969 USA and Soviet Uninion was deadliest enemies of all time and it was the peak of cold war. Soviets had the best inteligence in the world, forgot CIA, soviets had way better one. So if the moon landings were faked soviets would have screamed all over the world about that.
I’m from the post-soviet uninion country and my grand-parrents still has memories of apollo landings. Soviets addmited that apollo missions actually landed on the moon and even let to post such news on the radio/newspaper. If you think that it’s not big deal that those things where told to people in soviet uninion than you’re mistaken because you don’t know what was happening inside soviet uninion at that time.
So if USSR sais that apollo actually landed on the moon than there’s no reason to doubt that this was fake. How can you proove smth to moon hoaxers when they shut their ears and starts screaming ”lalallalalalalalal”?
July 20th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Steven Avery (398) said:
This is my understanding, but the moon has been without water for about 4 billion years, and exposed to micrometerite bombardment and intense short-wave UV from the sun, and has experienced no atmospheric weathering of rocks as occurs on Earth.
No, so I’m no expert on rocks, but the moon rock I saw still looked different from any kind of rock I had ever seen.
The kind of minerals the moon is made of are indeed common on Earth, but the way they appear is influenced by their environment and the local chemistry. I don’t know if there are any Earthly minerals that reflect light in the same way that the lunar rocks do (preferentially back to the source, though I cannot recall the technical term for this phenomenon).
As I have pointed out, I’m no geologist, and I’ve never been to Hawaii (or anywhere else where there might be freshly-crystallised basalt) so the only basalt I have seen has been weathered basalt. Perhaps this is why the lunar rock looked so different to me – because it has never been exposed to atmospheric weathering (IIUC, they keep the rock samples under inert gas).
July 20th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Mr. Roy (231) said:
I really have no idea what point you are trying to make.
However, you may claim that “anyone can think what they want”, but this is not so. While you are indeed entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. It is a fact that 12 men have walked on the moon. There is no rational dispute over this.
You are of course free to form your own opinion about the reasons for their going there, and the meaning of humanity’s having achieved this feat, but all of the hoax believers display one or more of the following traits:
(1) Failure to research the Apollo missions for themsleves;
(2) Ignorance of what occurred and how it was achieved;
(3) Ignorance of basic physics (such as radiological protection, the parameters of protection from low-pressure environment, heat transfer in a vacuum and so on);
(4) Ignorance of the technical details of photography as it pertains to the Apollo missions;
(5) Delusions of superiority;
(6) Unreasonable distrust of authority coupled with unreasonable credulity in “mavericks”.
You ask not to be judged, but there is no sitting on the fence with this one. Doubting the fact of the Apollo missions is irrational (i.e. there is no evidence that we did not land men on the moon and plenty of evidence that we did) and unreasonable (either you have not bothered to find out what the evidence actually is, or your standards for evidence are far higher on this topic than you expect for any other aspect of life).
July 20th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Pfft (238) said:
Thus speaks the Playstation generation.
If you took the time to understand what a huge technical achievement this is, you’d be impressed too.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:18 am
From my experience as amateur astronomer, when looking at the moon you need special filters, otherwise you damage your eyes, as the through the telescope focused reflected light on the moon is too dense for a device otherwise built to see faintest lights.
I’m no hubble expert, but beside not beeing precise enough to make out a 3m object on that distance, I suppose focusing it on the moon its likely the last thing it would do. The intense light would damage the sensors for good.
Also since when should a livestream of anything convince any hoaxer? You’d just call it faked. Remember Apollo 11 was streamed live? Did this convince any of you idiots? You just call it faked. Also why should, even if it would be possible, a picture taken from the hubble, convince any of you hoaxers? You’d just call it faked.
Actually the astonishing thing is, NASA did build a probe to take picture of the moon, this very article is about it! Did it convince any of the hoaxers?
I guess one could build a moonshuttle, bring you hoax-people up there, and headbang you on the lunar lander, you’d still say, “oww, oww, this proofs nothing, oww, oww, you just put it there. See the metal isn’t any rusty… oww, oww… after this years? unbelieveable. oww. owww ” [of course it isn't in no oxygen atmosphere]
July 20th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Carter (244) said:
If I have understood correctly, it was Joseph Swan who hit upon a tungsten coiled coil filament as providing the best light, but Edison who pioneered the use of a low-pressure inert gas to prevent the filament from burning out after a short time. Did they not go into business together?
July 20th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Nigel Depledge Said:
“Hubble, OTOH, can observe perpendicular to the plane of its orbit for days at a time. Of course, this is limited by the relative geometries of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, but it can be done and has been done.
Hubble’s power lies not only in being above the atmosphere but also in its ability to take extremely long “exposures”.”
It should be noted that some Earthbound telescopes can accumulate exposures longer than a single night of good seeing. If pointing is accurate enough and weather & schedules permit, an exposure made from the ground can be done over successive nights. V.M. Slipher used to use the Lowell instrument to take individual spectrograms on multiple nights, and that was a century ago.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:26 am
Curious1 (257) said:
Go read comment 241.
http [colon slash slash]blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/#comment-199959
July 20th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Quote: John
“As far as getting live streaming video from Hubble and the “thousands of satellites we have in orbit” – you’re just talking out of your rear end. Where did you get the idea that this is even remotely possible? You’ve been watching too many spy movies, I think”.
I’m not sure why you would think that was a silly question. Cable TV sends live video signals from earth to those satelites and back down to earth 24 hours a day. If you originate the video signal from the satelite you only have to send the signal down to earth. In fact there is a satelite right now that does that and streams it on the net but it is blurred and only sends down pictures taken every so many minutes. Its practically useless. Maybe they don’t know how cheap a good web cam at Walmart is.
Here is the link.
http://www.tate.org.uk/space/webcam.htm
Thats the only web cam from space I could find and I’ve been looking for a long long time.
Its from the Tate satelite and is called the Tate in Space Web Cam. Take a look at how horrible this is. Seriously, don’t you think they could do better than that?
.
.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:57 am
None (265) said:
No, they couldn’t. None of the CM pilots ever got to view the LEM on the surface, even from “only” 50 miles away. A big enough telescope to do this would have added too much weight without adding significant value. How could NASA anticipate the insanity of the HBs?
Do you actually have any idea what the metabolic differences are between this sugars?
Oh, right. To you, they “look like” the resolution is too low, so that’s supposed to convince the rest of us, is it? In fact, if you stop and think (no matter how abhorrent that process may be to you), you will recognise that LRO has resolved something that is roughly 3 m square from a distance of 110 km. Do some sums to work out how small an angle this represents.
Ah, and higher-res photos will convince you, will they?
What about the ones the astronauts took while they were on the surface?
Well, (a) I live in Europe so it wasn’t my tax dollars (these are contributing instead to the Herschel and Planck missions); (b) Even though the LEM descent stage is at the limit of resolution, it still represents a huge achievement, and is rightly applauded by those of us who understand such things; (c) give me a reason to question their validity and I will do so, but until then the principle of parsimony requires that I accept them as genuine; (d) please explain in detail how it is “intelligent” to question the genuineness or otherwise of an image supplied by a team of reputable scientists.
I cannot prove they are not. However, there is no evidence for the existence of a yeti, so it is unreasonable to assume that they exist. OTOH, we have tons of evidence that the Apollo missions did what they set out to do (land men on the moon) and absolutely no reason to question that evidence. The success of Apollo is fact. Live with it.
Well, they are. Why do you doubt this?
Rubbish.
What possible difference could that make? You are claiming that these pics are not real. What about other pics that may be taken at higher resolution?
Well, yeah, so what? Any CG artist could create any view that you ask for. That doesn’t bear any relation to reality, though.
Not so. You seem to be the desperate one. You have yet to state any reason at all for doubting the validity of the images.
I don’t need to becuase I understand the technical challenge.
I wouldn’t trust Google to speak my weight. What do they know of science? Still a great deal more than you, seemingly.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Mr Roy @231 said: “In any case, I don’t care if you claim you have gone to the moon or not. I was never there to see you there any way.”
So you only believe things if you’ve seen them?
If you think this isn’t an accurate assessment, why do you accept other things you haven’t seen if you accept this thing you haven’t seen?
July 20th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Or go to watch a Copperfield show, you’ll *see* magic there. Will you believe it when you see it with your own eyes, or do you suppose there is a trick?
When exactl does *own* sight become articifial? If I look at an house, do *I* see it? I suppose you’d say yes. Now say I look through a window at the house? Still first person observation? Suppose you were glasses, still first person? Suppose you look through it, from some distance through a telescope? still first person? Suppose you look through a light amplifier since it is quite dark. Suppose that machine is now changed it does now amplify in a digital manner, suppose that device records the image. And so on. Where was the jump from first person to an artifical observation?
Also its true an imagine alone that you happen to find at the floor proofs nothing. Yes it could be part of the moon, or part of a face. BUT there is meta-data about it. There is a lot of meta-data. To ignore it is just stupid – ignorance is a bliss.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:50 am
This is another science ponzi scheme. If they want to believe in a lie let them. When the teacher in 86 said she could never lie to her kindergarten children on 20/20. You know what happened the Challenger blew up because she wouldn’t lie. So if this is enough evidence for people who will believe anything that is report. I say God bless them.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:28 am
You all remind of the nut who’s in the Big Brother house right now wearing the “DORK’ t-shirt. Most of you all don’t cut and paste very valid points in my argument because you don’t know how it possibly could have been done either, so you avoid answering. And for idiots who use the “bad grammar” as any kind of argument, that is just stupid. We are on a message board, not in a master’s level literature class and I don’t give crap about how proper my grammar comes off to you or not. You would not be able to tie half your brain behind your back to take me on in a mental challenge because that is 1/4 more brain than what you are working with presently.
I’m not sure where these huge battery packs were stored, all these huge cameras, these hundreds of gallons of fuel, all the neat-o gadgets that you claim they “had with them”. That module is not big enough to have accommodated everything that you say they brought with them. First of all, there were no camcorders run on battery packs then. Was a guy with a generator following them around too, with lots of fuel for the generator so he could power the camera to film all of this incredible footage? Even news crews back then were using movie sized (HUGE) cameras to film things and many times it took at least 2 people to operate them, not ONE.
And they even had room for storage of his golf club, moon buggy, flag, all the fuel, the suits, etc. WOW, this thing must have been huge…NOT.
You all act as if so many people would have had to lie to pull this off. No, just a select few. Just like the few that lied to tell you about the “WMD’s” that lead us into the Iraq situation we are in right now. So, I will always question everything. I will always question the government, because when I look back at history, you are damn right we have been lied to before, on a grander scale than just going to the moon. We’ve been lied to to the effect that it has cost millions of people their lives in wars that were created by a select few liars.
Oh, and since you say that we are currently trying to go back to the moon, you ignored what I said earlier. Why is it taking so long since it was SO EASY to get there before? Why do the dates keep getting pushed back? They keep pushing back the “return” by years, not months. I live near Canaveral and as often as they shoot rockets off, you’d think they’d just send one every day the way you all think. Do you like them spending billions of your tax dollars to sit there burning fuel on launch pads because these stellar pieces of equipment can’t make it through a few rain clouds? And I’m supposed to believe they can get to the moon? NASA is nothing but welfare for a bunch of over-educated brains who would have nowhere else to go if it shut down. I bet you, Mr. Rocket Engineer, probably would have to figure out how to build a dishwasher before you could actually load one and turn it on while you work at your dish washing job in a restaurant. That’s what all of the NASA folks are gonna be doing soon anyways, or they’ll be geeks in blue shirts at the Best Buy OVER EXPLAINING how a digital camera works.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am
To:”We Never Went”
Wow, you are so ignorant. Before making all of these ridiculous claims fueling the conspiracy advocates, at least make an attempt to know what you are talking about. You are obviously not a rocket scientist or any other type of engineer/scientist that worked their butts of to get to the moon. Why do you claim that it was “SO EASY” to get to the moon? Do you not realize that people died in the process and risked their lives every step of the way to make this great achievement possible? You do not understand the technical challenges of space travel. You are also one of the many under false pretence who believe that the government is wasting enormous sums of money on NASA and the rest of the space industry. It’s actually a shame how little NASA receives from the government. Allocated only ~0.6% of the federal budget (we waste more money on other ridiculous pet projects), NASA continues to provide the world with groundbreaking, sometimes lifesaving technologies. I’d bet that you couldn’t go a day in your life without encountering a single NASA derived item or technology. Peace
July 20th, 2009 at 9:43 am
We Never Went Says:
“I’m not sure where these huge battery packs were stored, all these huge cameras, these hundreds of gallons of fuel, all the neat-o gadgets that you claim they “had with them”. That module is not big enough to have accommodated everything that you say they brought with them. First of all, there were no camcorders run on battery packs then. Was a guy with a generator following them around too, with lots of fuel for the generator so he could power the camera to film all of this incredible footage? Even news crews back then were using movie sized (HUGE) cameras to film things and many times it took at least 2 people to operate them, not ONE.””
The batteries were aboard the LM and the rovers. The rover batteries were charged by photovoltaic panels. Is this really so very hard for you to figure out?
They carried no huge cameras. The TV cameras weren’t off the shelf; they were custom built. They also weren’t carried around by anyone like a news videographer does. They were mounted on one of three places: the MESA (the tray which opened from the front-right face of the LM descent stage); a simple tripod; or, in the case of Apollos 15, 16 & 17, on a motorized pan/tilt head attached to the rover. The pan/tilt head was controlled remotely by a guy on Earth. There is some movie footage of the rover being test driven. This footage is always of just one guy driving it. The other guy is holding-not a camcorder-but what’s called a 16mm film camera. Even waaaaaaaaay back in the ’60s there were film cameras small & light enough to be easily toted about. I know, because I have one, a Bolex Reflex. Hell, newsreel photographers were shooting 35mm with tiny Eyemos way back during World War 2. Is this really so very hard?
The rovers were stowed in-transit in the front-left face of the descent stage. It was folded compactly, and the wheels unfolded as they were brought out. There are perfectly good pictures and movies of the whole process. I won’t bother providing links to these, because you, having 1/4 more brain than I have, must surely be able to find them lickety-split.
The gallons of fuel were stored in what’s called “fuel tanks”. Is this so very hard for you? The descent stage had four large tanks in the legs of a “+”-shaped set of compartments. The ascent stage had tanks to the right and left of the cabin. You see those faceted blisters on the sides? Those house the fuel tanks.
And they even had room for storage of his golf club, moon buggy, flag, all the fuel, the suits, etc. WOW, this thing must have been huge…NOT.
No one carried a whole golf club to the Moon. Shepard had one driving head custom-tapped so it could screw onto the end of an existing tool handle. He kept the head and two itty-bitty golf balls in one of his suit pockets. The suits themselves had no special place for storage. When the guys were inside they had to stuff the suits as well as they could manage in the rear of the cabin, over the engine cover. There are very good photos of this arrangement. But I’m sure that you can find them on your own, being 1/4 smarter.
You all act as if so many people would have had to lie to pull this off. No, just a select few. Just like the few that lied to tell you about the “WMD’s” that lead us into the Iraq situation we are in right now. So, I will always question everything. I will always question the government, because when I look back at history, you are damn right we have been lied to before, on a grander scale than just going to the moon. We’ve been lied to to the effect that it has cost millions of people their lives in wars that were created by a select few liars.?
You should question the government. I do it all the time. But, just because you question the Upper Echelons doesn’t mean the answer is always what you expect it to be. Even a corrupt government cannot afford to live purely on lies. Even the corrupt must get around to actually making things that really work. For instance, rockets really, honestly do work. Any rocket hobbyist can aver to the fact that they work, and for what reasons. Since you are officially 1/4 smarter, I’ll leave to you to go learn how & why.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Space Shuttels are a lie! They never existed, its unbelievable that a zero stage rocket could ever make it from earth gravitation, and the tank is much to close to the fuel exhaust to ever work. Its all faked, the IIS doesn’t exist either. Satellites are the pure product of our imagination. I saw a picture of a space shuttle supposevly in space, and the shadows were all wrong! And no stars, can you believe it? They were too stupid to fake the stars.
[we never went, do me a favor grow up kid, thats the problem on the inet, you don't see when you arguing with an ugly kiddy]
July 20th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Just want to say that these pictures proof nothing;
first of all there are no sources shown, if you’d use these pictures in court.. no single judge would be able to use these as evidence… besides i don’t know for sure but i believe that most cameras used for these purposes have digits/watermarks in them showing what time the pictures were taken etc. etc.
Secondly the way this blog is written just makes me sick cause its all SUBJECTIVE speach. All this sweet talk may be due to one of the following two things; ONE: they want you to believe it’s true and try to make the message most fun and emotional to read, aka: “propaganda” or TWO: the writer was actually incredibly emotional whilst writing. I really don’t care you pick an answer, i’m just gonna go on with my life… i suggest you do the same
but still… this does leave us with the mother of all questions:
WHY DO THEY EVEN WANT TO GO TO THE MOON ( “AGAIN” /and spend billions) there’s nothing there but dust and rocks…
July 20th, 2009 at 11:02 am
On a lighter note, The Daily Week claims that the Apollo landings were faked… on Pluto.
The satirical article is here: http://dailyweek.com/stories/20090720_pluto/pluto.html
July 20th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Well, this has been by turns both an exciting and discouraging read. The actual article was exciting, and brought back just a hint of the thrill I felt as a boy of 10 when I watched that first broadcast of the Apollo 11 landing. The world was very different then, and I say that not just as a man remembering the feelings of that little boy, but as an American looking back at both the optimism and the fear we held close to our hearts as we navigated the treacherous waters of the Cold War.
And I am discouraged. Since then, we have seen Soviet threats replaced by those of others who insist on clutching what is basest in our natures and behaving more like savage animals than creatures capable of logical thinking, cooperation, and compassion. But a core still remains of people who believe that we are capable of more than simply attacking each other until we self-destruct. Unfortunately, I see that ethic here, as in other areas, being eclipsed by an even more dangerous threat of pseudo-thinkers who leverage a jumbled glut of superficial knowledge to attempt to explain away that with which they are uncomfortable. A general decline in our education system’s insistence that students actually learn how to THINK instead of being regurgitators of poorly integrated facts exacerbates this threat by reducing the ability of the average American to actually be able to choose between a well-reasoned argument and an assemblage of logical fallacies.
Ironically, the failure over time of many of our government leaders to demonstrate integrity and, well, just avoid the use of deceit and deflection as a standard tool of policy, has eased the ability of those who wish to play on distrust to convince those who were never taught to think for themselves to believe in grand and complex conspiracies. This, to me, is an indicator of the decline of a civilization, though I hope this is not the case here.
I am puzzled, though, by one thing, and maybe one of the superior-sounding, arrogant, self-congratulating purveyors of pseudo-thought I see here railing against the veracity of these photos can explain it. I mean, since in their eyes I am a mindless sheep following the evil shepherds of the age, it should be a simple matter for such superior intellects to help me understand this. So here goes:
It is easy for me to see why certain factions would want to believe that the Holocaust never happened. It enables them to continue to embrace their hatred of those they perceive as threats to their cherished fantasies about themselves and “the way the world should be.” But how does this apply to you “moon landing was a hoax” believers? There has to be some powerful motivation that pushes you onward in pursuit of “proof” that will substantiate this mythical world view. But what is it? Why is it so terribly important to believe not only that we didn’t go to the moon, but that we have spent billions of dollars to pretend that we did? Like the shallowness and logical fallacies of your protestations, this makes no sense to me.
But it certainly makes me gravitate towards being ashamed to be a member of the same species.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:59 am
jesper Said:
“Just want to say that these pictures proof nothing”
You’re right; they don’t prove it. Is that what you think they’re for, to prove something controversial? The LRO’s mission is to map the Moon’s whole surface. That naturally includes whatever leftover hardware happens to be there. The ground crew had some opportunities to get these pics early in the mission, and so they took ‘em. They’ll get even more later.
“WHY DO THEY EVEN WANT TO GO TO THE MOON ( “AGAIN” /and spend billions) there’s nothing there but dust and rocks…”
Is there nothing in Antarctica but ice? There’s more to the Moon than just rocks, just as there’s more to Antarctica than just ice. Accounts of the Moon’s death have been highly exaggerated. What is it exactly that you think geologists do all day long here on Earth? Do you suppose they do nothing of interest? Perhaps of none to you; but who are you? Is everything about you and your paucity of curiosity? If you don’t like space exploration on the public dollar, then petition your representatives in Congress. That’s what they’re there for. But they’re also there for me and everyone else. If more people have healthy curiosity than not, then the curious carry the day.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
@Rick
You’re truly saying that NASA murdered Christa McAuliffe because she knew about the “moon hoax” and was going to spill? Absolutely disgusting.
I know it’s easy to spout off whatever nonsense you like from behind the safety and anonymity of a computer screen, but this is so beyond the pale.
Here’s a protip: if you’re going to accuse people of murder, you damn well better have some pretty solid evidence, lest you be torn down as the crank that you are. Please, provide a single scrap of real evidence that the Challenger disaster was part of this conspiracy. Go ahead, expose the Great Big Lie. Otherwise, crawl back into your dank little pit.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Steve A says:
“For those interested, there is already talk of what to do with these sites as we do more and more missions on the moon. Make them historical sites? Study them to see how objects decay on the moon?”
Don’t worry Steve, removing these objects will have no effect. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objects_from_The_Lost_Room
July 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Dan, this is a very interesting sociological question I’m asking myself too! Some hypothesis I got so far. I doubt the standard way of interviewing doesn’t work here (Why are doing that?):
* They like to think of themselves being smarter than all this scientists that were “fooled”. I think its in the redneck kind of people to enjoy whenever they feel they can disgrace science.
* There is to make a mystery out of it. Mysteries fascinate people. The X-files movies sure made their part to this.
* To some degree there might be still the old conservative bumpkin thinking. walking on the moon, impossible! Even a year before Apollo 11 so many people still consider it crazy talk going totally against common sense. Walking on this disc on the sky? Ridiculous.
* There is as you say just stupidity (or not trained in thinking). I guess a fair percent of the poeple happend to land their browser on a moon hoaxer side, and without any knowledge of themselves are actually convinced of this nonsense, you know their classic arguments: Waving Flag, Shadows “wrong”, no stars, etc.
* From non-USers I could imagine it could be to disgrace the US.
But my bet is on the false feeling to be “superior” to scientists that drives people to go on and on on this, and they mroe they are countered with facts and logical arguments the more inferior they feel and go on even harder. I think there is enough evidence in this discussion here that show many arguments that try to disgrace the “science believers, moon landing believers”.
BWT: To be fair, we might ask as well, why do these hoaxers disturb us so much we even reply on it?
July 20th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I have one question for the hoax believers.
Why?
Why did they do it?
Why on earth (as it were) did anyone bother?
What was the point?
I know to most conspiracy believers that’s a question that causes cognitive dissonance. It’s just what “THEY” do. “THEY” cover up aliens and pretend to go to the moon, because, well, they pretend things and cover them up. But if anyone has an actual reason, I’d love to hear it.
It can’t be because of the race to the moon with the Soviet Union, because the Soviets were obviously in on the hoax and went along with it. Along with most other world governments.
It can’t be for the money – it would have been perfectly possible to simply skim off funding from regular spending on military hardware without all the drama and risks of a huge multi-hundred thousand person conspiracy.
So what was it? Something to do with the Kennedy Assassination? Aliens? Mu? Atlantis? the planting of bombs in the WTC in preparation for the plans to blow it up 40 years later? Was it a secret Zionist plot? Or a secret Hollywood Communist one? Mind Control Rays? Chemical spraying in contrails?
Could you let this poor confused man who doesn’t understand in on the big secret?
July 20th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
THE QUESTION HOWEVER IS, IF we had been up there, WHY THE **** did no one Bother doing SO again? So, I still believe its a hoax sorry guys and gals
July 20th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
OK… We have photos and WHAT it proves? Nothing! Why – because if anyone of you should like to ENLARGE first photo can see that second photo haven’t ANY similarity!!! Just try to do that! I am DP and know everything about light & shadows. Where is the long and tight LM shadow, why they blur so much photo #2? If you enlarge the first one you will have more then five times sharper picture then they show here! They “arrowed” Astronauts footprints but lost few craters around!!! This is fanny to talk about. Maybe they think today is April, the 1 st?
If this event is TRUE and so important, for USA and rest of the World, how its possible that NASA destroyed ALL feeds and photos from A-11 Mission? They said that it wasn’t accidentally, they should like to spare! What – Air in the rooms?!!!! Sorry guess, today you are in deeper trouble then yesterday!
July 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
@ 430
To add more I find such people to do not have common logical sence or at least their common sence can’t go deeper. For example take the ‘no stars’ fact and think about it. From the first look it makes sence, there’re no strars!!! This must be fake! But now think again if NASA would try to fake such thing as moon landing how they could forgot stars? Basically without Moon terain and sun there’re no object to think about and hello, we’re in the moon so stars should be.
So for those who has logical sence it’s totally clear that to forgot 1 out of 3 things is imposible when 400 000 people were directly involed. It just doesn’t make logical sence.
Also this perfecly fits first fact that hoaxers thinks that they’re smarter. They tend to think that they have very clear logical sence but in reality they’re lieing for them selfs.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@433. anonymous, because there was no further reason for man to go up to the moon. Well there were several other apollo missions, but the scientific results were meager. Honestly there was never a real reason to use man to go to the moon, any research can be done by automatic probes just as well, much cheaper, much safer. The sole reason was it became a race with the USSR, it was a challenge to show who got more engineering power, USSR or USA? That was what the space race was about. Once the race was done, no more reasons for man on the moon. They talk about starting to create a permanent base on the moon. Dunno if this will work out and convince goverments to invest in this project, we will see.
Again standard hoaxer, zero knowledge about anything, but all must be hoax!
July 20th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
El Tigre, you are an idiot. Put your photoshop away for a second and look at the headlines.
The first photo is Apollo 11 the second Apollo 14. Of course its not the same!
You made my day. Declaring you as hoaxer of the day!
July 20th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
come on! if a ufo nut showed you these pics and said thats proof aliens walked on the moon you’d laugh at them. you would scrutinize these photos and hold judgement. come on phil? you can’t pick and choose when to be a skeptic? you can’t pick and choose bad pics as fiction and bad pics as fact.
i’m skeptical that your a skeptic at all….seems like your a skeptic only when it serves your best interests….
July 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
when scientists sound as stubborn and narrow minded as religious nuts, i get concerned.
you don’t even try to see it from both sides
July 20th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
@jj: Is that when you get concerned? Me, I get concerned when someone confuses sound judgment based on a preponderance of easily verifiable facts with stubbornness or narrow-mindedness. But that’s just me; I’m pretty stubborn and narrow-minded about being reasonable.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
@jj
These images were never meant to be proof that the moon landings actually happened. There are mountains and mountains of evidence available from other sources.
The LRO was not launched with the purpose of convincing a small number of conspiracy theorists that the moon landings did, in fact, happen. And if that were its purpose, it would be a colossal waste of taxpayer money because, in the scheme of things, it doesn’t matter what HBs think, the moon landings happened. Also, they’ve shown time and again that no evidence whatsoever will convince them that the moon landings were not a hoax.
The LRO’s primary objective is to create a high-resolution map of the entire lunar surface (and these images of the landing sites are just incidental to it performing that objective), and to perform other scientific observations.
Also, I should give you a quick heads-up: when HBs loudly and unrelentingly spout off arguments that can be (and have been) discredited with a little bit of easily-obtained knowledge about the physics and technology involved with the moon landings, they aren’t being scientifically skeptical; they’re being dogmatic and intellectually dishonest.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
@dan….reasonable would be allowing the outside chance that what seems to be a strange conclusion could be the right one.
If you had to make a judgement on moon hoax or not by just looking at the images posted, do you really believe those images are undeniable fact that we landed on the moon? No ounce of doubt?
I’m only debating that those images provided by Phil are no better then the very same ufo images that Phil always ridicules as fictious. What makes these fuzzy grainy pics any better then pics of flying saucers?
I don’t believe it is reasonable to cheerleader these images as fact, when a large segment of our population doubts we actually made it to the moon.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
@john…………….i never said ANYTHING about the objective of the LRO…so I will disregard your post.
I will stress this one more time. I don’t believe in either option yet? I still hold my judgement on if we made it to the moon or if we did not. I don’t believe either side has clearly won me over.
But what I’m getting at, what truly bothers me is that Phil hammers people who see faces on mars or jesus in grilled cheese, but seems to have no doubt when looking at grainy photos with captions and saying its legit.
I’m sorry but that comes off as being a hypocrite. If I stare long enough at that image I could probably see jesus or maybe even calvin and hobbes. Do you understand my point?
July 20th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
@jj
Yes, I understand your point. While there has been a little bit of gloating toward HBs because of these images, Phil, and most of the commentators here don’t seem to be touting these images as proof that we did, in fact, land on the moon. As I said before, there’s plenty of other (and, frankly, better) evidence in existence, for anyone who cares to look. All the excitement is because of the impressive technical achievement that these images represent (getting images with a resolution of less than 1 meter, from a camera that’s ~110 kilometers above the surface of a body hundreds of thousands of kilometers away from Earth is, after all, very impressive), and their historical significance.
Now, you don’t seem to be a committed HB, so to the extent that I assumed you were, I apologize. Some hardcore HBs have come in here and produced “evidence” that these particular images are fake, that they prove nothing, etc. Most of those arguments, as usual, rested on incorrect factual assumptions, and were quickly shot down. Maybe that’s what you interpreted as “cheerleading these images as fact”?
But I’ll say again: very few people are touting these images as absolute proof that the moon landings happened.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
One thing I will grant: by themselves, these images don’t really prove anything. If, 40 years ago, a representative from NASA went on TV and said “Hey guys, guess what? We totally just landed on the moon! Take our word for it! Scout’s honor!” and provided no additional evidence, people would be perfectly justified in being very, very skeptical. And if, 40 years later, they presented these images as proof that we did land on the moon, I could understand why few people would be convinced.
But as we all know, that’s not what happened. We have photos, videos, eyewitness accounts, moon rocks, verification from the governments of nations that were our enemies at the time, and plenty of other evidence. So, yes, in a vacuum, these images don’t prove much. But they don’t need to.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
@ john….thanks for the apology, that was nice of you
Honestly I’m a tad disappointed ……I read the headline for the images and thought this would be the proof I needed to finally declare without a doubt that we did land on the moon.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I would gladly declare my belief in the landing if we had images of apollo debris, but these images are not conclusive. Hopefully they’ll have a better quality image in the future.
And I still wonder how that Japanese lunar satellite didn’t capture a clear image of apollo debris?
July 20th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
jj Says:
“And I still wonder how that Japanese lunar satellite didn’t capture a clear image of apollo debris?”
It’s because Kaguya’s cameras didn’t have the resolving power.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
People who still believe that we faked the moon landing, after these photos came out are just stuburn to itmit their wrong!! I guess Russia never went into sapce either!!What would we, as a country have to gain from fakin a moon landing!! Im sure we would have wasted millions of dollars to fake a moon landing,Russia to!! Well after these photos came out if you still dont believe that we went to the moon, you got some serious issues to work out. Get a counsler!!!
July 20th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
@kkjjgoh – “What would we, as a country have to gain from fakin a moon landing!!”
Great question…….if you do an ounce of research you’ll find a slew of potential answers.
Open your mind!
July 21st, 2009 at 12:05 am
TEL (414) said:
I did not know this before. Thanks, Tel.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:09 am
Rick (420) said:
Rick, your vile insinuations contribute nothing. Go away.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:31 am
jj, honestly just put both sides of evidence next to each other, and guess whats far more likely.
On the side of the hoaxers they have NO evidence, absolut none. Any “evidence” they brought up can easily shown to be proven wrong. Wrong shadows, waving flags, no stars, you see everything they done, is just because they didn’t understand any of the physics at work.
On the other side, you have thousends of people being involved in the apollo programme, how likely do you think all of them would keep quite. You have photos, yoo have live streams, the best thing, back to apollo 11 you had radio transmissions, coming from the moon, captured not only by the NASA but by hundrets of amatuer radio operators, other goverments and so on. You have rocks from the moon, there is a mirror on the moon anybody with some technical equipment can laser to proof its existence, and much more. Oh and altough this pictures by themselves proof not much, they would require that any possible conspiracy would still need to go on! Thousends of more people that need to be involved and all of them keeping secret.
Now don’t say we are stubborn because we judged on this evidence mountain. Thats the problem of hoaxers they confuse their stubbornness with being open minded.
Now not only from the evidence, and instead talking about pixels on some youtube video and so on, there are the 5 big question any hoax theory should explain instead:
1. How did the NASA do it? Over 40 years, tausends of engineers, scientists, operating personal, to keep quiet and not say anything about the faked moon landing. To keep a conspiracy that size that long secret is much more difficult than just actually flying to the moon.
2. Now suppose even if the 1969 flight was faked, why should NASA make it more complicated and fake 6 other flights (5 landings and 1 near miss) One faked flight is already indefinitely difficult to do, but 6 others just following it? Ridiculous.
3. Why did the NASA do the fake so dilletantish? You suppose they managed all that explained above, and they fail and can be discovered by having a flag waving in the wind? Or having the shadows wrong? Or forgetting about the stars?
4. Why didn’t the USSR say anything. They had at least at this time a very developed intelligence service that sure would know of a conspiracy of that size. So now even the USSR must also be involved in the conspiracy? How big does it get? Maybe *everyone* except you is involved?
5. Why are the conspiracy theorists only to be found in strange internet forums? In 40 years, why didn’t any journalist live up to it and get rich and famous supposing there would be a real conspiracy?
(inspired by http://www.scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/2009/07/die-mondlandungsluge-einmal-anders-betrachtet.php )
July 21st, 2009 at 1:40 am
@jj
There isn’t “another side”. That’s the point. On the one side there is the body of evidence, the video footage of the entire enterprise, the still images, etc, etc. On the other side there is.. well nothing.. just nonsense “logic.”
Science is not about being “open minded”. Science is about going from facts to a valid conclusion. The moon hoax crowd has nothing to offer in that regard.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:53 am
Peter not quite, being “open minded” is an important thing in science. Especially when thinking about Kuhns paradigms and so on. But science has to have a connection to reality. Theories must be able to fail on reality (Popper). And in that you are right, both the hoax crowd has nothing to offer. Not a single evidence, not a single fact that holds, its all just crazy talk. And its no theory you could ever test, since whenever you come up with something the hoax theory is just adapted. Oh another proof its not a hoax? Then another entity must be involved in the conspiracy! Oh another evidence, oh this is faked as well! Etc. etc.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:07 am
@muriem
I used “open minded” double quotes intentionally. “open minded” in jj sense of the words , I’m afraid, means “be willing to accept a belief.” These words in your sense of the words mean “willing to change ones position if new evidence surfaces.” To which I naturally, agree: in science reallity has the final say.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:29 am
Or “open minded” in the sense of accepting a new theory, if it explains already known evidence better (and simpler) than the existing prevailing theory.
Also thats the other weak point of the hoax theory, it explains known evidence far more complicated and needs far more additional assumptions than the simple assumption we actually flew to the moon.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:18 am
Jesper (425) said:
So, isn’t it fortunate that no-one here is seriously claiming that they do.
Irrelevant. We’re not talking about law courts, we’re talking about scientific instruments.
Well, that’s what opinions are, dummy. What else did you expect?
BTW, you may notice that Phil does base his opinions on facts (and, indeed, refers to many facts in his blog entries). So, what’s your beef, exactly?
Who? C’mon, let’s have names and job titles.
There is a third thing awaiting us on the moon, but I fear it is something that is beyond your reach: new knowledge.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:23 am
John (429) said:
I, too, would be interested to see what evidence no less an investigator than Richard Feynman supposedly missed in seeking the cause of the Challenger disaster.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:27 am
Muriem (431) said:
For me, there are two reasons:
(1) That denial of the success of Apollo denies one of humanity’s greatest intellectual achievements; and
(2) That, while I do not expect to change the mind of any rabid HB, there may be other lurkers who do not yet know that the questions raised by the HBs really do have simple answers.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:02 am
If you zoom in on the blow ups of 16 and 17, you can faintly make out the tracks of the rover especially in the 17 shot. The tracks (they look like a series of overlapping C’s, from the dust spraying from the wire tires. The rovers didn’t make deep tracks, but they disturbed a wider area of the surface soil.) head south along the edges of several craters until they reach the small deep one to the south. If you ever read the mission records you can see the exact route the astronauts described and videoed from the rover.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:08 am
Second point: Why go to the moon again? Because the computer that your using right now is a derivative of the space programs research. In fact, every last piece of technology advanced in the last 40 years comes directly from space and military research.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:09 am
JJ (438) said:
These photos are not proof that Apollo was successful, except insofar as the location of the objects is exactly as predicted.
They are photos of things that we already know are on the moon. They are cool, because they show the descent stages of the LEMs and other artifacts, but above all else they illustrate the power of LRO – it can resolve objects a mere 3 m across from 100 km away, yet was light enough to be sent to lunar orbit!
July 21st, 2009 at 5:17 am
JJ (439) said:
Both sides of what?
This isn’t a popularity contest, it’s about reality. Therefore, not all opinions are equal, and no opinion is as important as the facts. The fact is that the Apollo programme landed men on the moon.
How would you feel if (for example) someone started saying that no-one had ever been to the South Pole? And coming up with all sorts of lunacy to rationalise such a claim? Would you write them off as a nutter, or would you insist that their view be considered equally with that of the “South Pole believers”? Or would you carefully refute each and every argument they come up with in their efforts to persuade people that no-one ever went to the South Pole? How would you then feel if they totally ignored your refutation?
July 21st, 2009 at 5:19 am
Dan (440) said:
Hear, hear.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:31 am
JJ (442) said:
Well, of course, in the absence of sufficient evidence, this is what science does. “We don’t know” is a perfectly valid scientific conclusion. Until, that is, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that one conclusion is overwhelmingly more convincing than another.
In the case of Apollo, there is no evidence at all to support the conspiracy theories. OTOH, there is a shedload of evidence that Apollo succeeded.
Well, of course, if these photos were the only evidence available, I would conclude “We don’t know”. Fortunately, that is not the case. Did you have a point?
Because we already know what these photos show. After all, NASA left it there in 1969 – 1972. OTOH, terrible, fuzzy photos are often produced as the “best evidence” of alien spaceships. Given the challenges inherent to interstellar travel, it would take genuinely hard evidence to convince a rational person that Earth has been visited by aliens.
Fortunately for reality, fact is not open to a vote.
It doesn’t matter how many people doubt the reality of Apollo; this cannot change the fact that men have walked on the moon.
Therefore, since these pictures are indeed of something factual, it would be actively dishonest to label them as anything other than fact. What is so unreasonable about stating reality as reality is?
July 21st, 2009 at 5:38 am
JJ (443) said:
Then you are a fool. Only one “side” uses actual facts. The other “side” uses fantasy and wild speculation. And only the HBs are trying to sell you something.
Give me one reason why we should rationally doubt that Apollo was a success. One reason that has not already been demonstrated to be specious. Just one, go on.
They are legit, because we already know what is at the locations that were pictured. We know because humans left it there.
If these photos were the only evidence, I would agree with you. But they are not. If you are confused about Apollo, there is plenty of research you can do to find out more information (start with Andrew Chaikin’s book A Man on the Moon, it is excellent). However, in the absence of any genuine reason to doubt the success of Apollo, it is irrational to assume that the HBs may have a point. Every HB “argument” has been debunked and refuted a thousand times over.
Try http://www.clavius.org if you want to read about the HB claims and the simple information that refutes them.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:44 am
JJ (446) said:
Well, LRO will certainly be taking higher-resolution images of the Moon’s surface when it reaches its 50 km mapping orbit, but I do not know if further imaging of the Apollo landing sites is scheduled any time soon.
However, we do already have much, much higher-resolution pictures of the Apollo debris, and we have had for about 40 years. The photos that the astronauts took on the surface of the moon included pics of the ALSEPs, the LEMs and the lunar rovers. What about these troubles you?
July 21st, 2009 at 5:51 am
JJ (449) said:
Sadly, there is not a scrap of evidence to support any of the fairy-stories the HBs have come up with to “explain” why the moon landings were supposed to have been faked. In the absence of any reason to doubt the 12 men who walked on the moon and the 12 others who have orbited it (Apollos 8, 10 and 13, and the CM pilots of Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 & 17) and the 400,000 people who designed, tested, built and operated or supported the hardware, it is irrational to entertain the HBs’ “reasons” as if they had any kind of merit.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:04 am
Stu (271) said:
While I agree that the images are both very cool and a huge technical achievement, I disagree with what you say here.
First, the HBs have never really paid much attention to evidence of any kind.
Second, any photos taken in these days of PhotoShop will generally not be regarded as particularly convincing, especially if, by accepting new pics as proof, someone would have to admit that they previously believed something utterly insane.
I do not believe that a tenacious HB can be convinced by any amount of evidence, unless you fly them to the moon (but I also believe they don’t deserve that privilege). All I can hope is that people who don’t know how to answer the HBs’ claims can learn how to do so, and slow down the spread of the inanity.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:44 am
I’m sure nobody is phuled by this display of low-res Photoshop abuse.
Anyone can see that this is not the REAL MOON, but the fake moon the US Government launched back in 1946 at the whim of its NWO masters, using alien technology moved back in the same time machine found at Roswell that enabled the US to ship nuclear aircraft carriers back to the 1860s to sink the Japanese Ironclad “Monitor” designed by Sony to break the American stranglehold on the TFT market and which led to the design of the GWB Terminator sent forward from the 12th century to destroy the education system of the free world and give rise to the Age of the Morons.
It’s all simple when you know the troof.
But to keep you sad people happy, let’s pretend those Gaussian blurs are really scratches in the dust of another world, put there by a bunch of people more interested in exploring reality than fantasising over nonsense.
Happy Birthday, Apollo.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:45 am
It would’ve been easier to actually land on the moon than it was to fake it. NASA was so successful in the late 60′s early 70′s that they actually faked the moon landing 6 1/2 more times
))
))
Even if you take all the doubting Thomases to the moon and show them the landing site, they tell you it was put there yesterday. They have one thing in common. Guess what it is
July 21st, 2009 at 7:08 am
Sad to say, Nigel, I think you’re wrong. Even if you flew them to the moon, they’d claim “Oh, it’s possible *now*, but you planted all this evidence here yesterday, not in 1969.”
It’s a belief equivalent to young-earth creationism. They “know” what’s true, deep in their hearts, and anything that contradicts that must be in some way fake, even if it’s the evidence of their own eyes. “A man in a bar told me….” is incontravertable evidence, if it matches that pre-held belief, and tens of thousands of documents, a left-over Saturn 5 rocket, astronaut and engineer accounts, radar tracking data, laser reflectors, tons of photos, loads of film, masses of radio transmissions received from the moon and anything and everything else can not match up to a badly-done website and some hysterical rants about “THEM” and the way “THEY” cover things up or fake things just because “THEY” like faking things and covering them up, or something.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:09 am
[...] LRO tomó las primeras fotografías de la presencia del hombre en la luna, y lo que vemos debajo del continuar leyendo es una muestra de ello. Apreciamos allí lsa huellas [...]
July 21st, 2009 at 8:35 am
None (272) said:
Except we already know what is there!
Well, you’re wrong. And typing in all caps does not change that.
We have pieces of the moon that the Apollo astronauts brought back with them, for frak’s sake. And that is just one element of the picture.
Perhaps. But tell me why I should not. Tell me one good reason why I should doubt the following:
(1) The accounts of the astronauts themselves;
(2) Photographs taken on the lunar surface;
(3) Moon rocks;
(4) Tracking data;
(5) The contemporary reportage, including TV transmissions from the surface of the moon;
(6) The acquiescence of the USSR in the space race after 20 July 1969.
No need to. (BTW, why have you put the word “university” in inverted commas? Do you consider them to be fictional?) The relevant logic is actually fairly simple.
Do not assume anything for which there is no evidence. If all available evidence indicates that the simplest explanation is true, it is reasonable to assume this explanation to be true unless evidence comes to light that contradicts it.
There is no credible evidence of a conspiracy. There is a mountain of evidence that Apollo succeeded.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:48 am
Lula (283) said:
The main reason that the USSR had so many firsts was that their effort was championed and coordinated by one man (Sergei Korolev), and that, at the end of WWII, the USA got most of the German rocket scientists and hardware, and the Soviets were left with the dregs.
The Soviets worked hard to close the gap, while the USA may have been complacent. Also, the USA was focussed on military missiles, and (IIUC) had the various armed services running parallel programmes. Only after Sputnik did the USA even start a programme to launch satellites and subsequently people.
Once the USA was committed to manned spaceflight, it devoted a huge effort to achieving something incredible. Kennedy’s goal was to land a man on the moon because it was the only realistic space goal that was sufficiently difficult to give the USA a chance to catch and overhaul the USSR.
Also, the USA already had the technical edge in inertial guidance. For low-earth orbit this does not matter a great deal, but when you set out from a moving platform (the Earth) to aim at a position where a moving target (the moon) is going to be in three days’ time, you need to take your frame of reference with you. In order to get to the moon, purely Earth-based navigation was no use.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am
This all happened 12 years before I was born but I have been facinated by Apollo (and all the test pilot work such as the X planes and other stuff that pushed the envelope that happened during the 50′s and 60′s) since I was a little kid. I would love to have been there and felt the excitement and ‘we can do anything’ attitude that seemed to sweep everyone up.
These new pics of the moon’s surface are great. I am sure we will get even higher resolution soon and maybe even a ‘google moon’ application??? Google Mars…how cool would that be!
Anyway, I am fed up with reading feeble minded hoax theory supporters’ comments. Seriously sad people. When man finally strides out into the universe there will probably still be a few sad retards sitting there denying it is happening. Laugh at them and leave them there while the rest of us explore the endless possibilities that lay out there…
We are all made of stars! (haha…I’m starting to sound like a UFO spotter!)
July 21st, 2009 at 9:10 am
Nigel, well it was kind of USAs fault they were left with the “dregs”. Its american culture to think only of the leader figures, the CEO is the company and thats all about it, so from the german rocket sciences they just secured themselves von Braun, the leader, and left all the middle and lower personal to the USSR. That gave the USSR quite an advantage to the beginning since the US middle and lower personal needed to be built more ground up, only when that was done, they could outperform the USSR. Yes they won that race eitherway, but just imagine how much earlier they could have done it, if they weren’t just so much leader focused from start.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am
@Muriem
“Yes they won that race eitherway, but just imagine how much earlier they could have done it, if they weren’t just so much leader focused from start.”
Muriem, that’s not what happened. Please review the history of this era. The US did not go after Von Braun. Von Braun, and his brother Magnus, assembled their best men, escaped to the Alps, then surrendered to the Americans at their first opportunity. Von Braun and his team went looking for the Americans, not the other way around.
The US got the entire Peenemunde team, not just Von Braun, because Von Braun picked them and surrendered to the Americans. If anyone was doing the picking and choosing, it was Von Braun. He wanted to go to the US. The US got lucky that he surrendered to them. They did not go looking for him.
Yes, the Soviets got a lot of technicians as well as one major engineer Helmut Gottrup, who for some reason did not escape with Von Braun. The Soviets had an advantage in Rocket expertise on their own ( a legacy of Tsiolkovsky) and did not need to rely as heavily on the Germans as the US did.
I am by no means an uber-American nationalist but this is not my read of the history of the era. The US did not get the “dregs” — they got Von Braun’s self-selected team — the cream of the crop. The Soviets got the those who Von Braun did not take with him to the surrender. I appreciate your passion for debunking the HBers and will be happy to indulge with you “America bashing” where appropriate. It’s not approriate in this case.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:54 am
Its okay, I stand corrected, I never actually researched into von Brauns history.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:54 am
As for the pixillation of the images, obviously the camera is much higher resolution than that, and these are small cropped sections showing the landers at near the resolution limit.
It’s ironic that NASA used Photoshop to do the cropping, though.
http://moon.eu-tube.com/
I know nothing about the veracity, but I suppose it’s easily checked with some simple software tools.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am
PeteC (472) said:
Ah, yes. I did not allow for the “Last Thursdayism” argument.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Muriem (477) said:
Erm … IIUC, the USA captured all of the German rocket designers / engineers, which is what I think made them complacent. The Soviets, knowing the size of the gap, worked extremely hard from the get-go.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Grisha (478) said:
Um, I think Muriem was indicating that it was the US’s fault that the USSR got left with the dregs (and I’m starting to regret using that word, cos I was thinking of the hardware not the people).
July 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Tim (286) said:
Actually, I think it was no more than half a dozen commenters who got overexcited and made claims along these lines. At least as many comments point out that we don’t need these pics as proof, and if we did they are not up to the job.
The only way in which these serve as proof of the veracity of Apollo is thus:
What do we see when we point a high-resolution telescopic camera at the Apollo landing sites? Exactly what we would expect to see, i.e. the leftovers from the Apollo missions (including the trails scuffed in the regolith).
July 21st, 2009 at 11:59 am
WoodGuard (296) said:
Yeah … er … maybe you should read a few more of the comments. A handful of people got a bit overexcited about these images. Others have been more considered about these pics. If you feel the need for proof of Apollo, then you’re in the wrong place, because there already exists plenty of proof, but you either reject it or have not sought it out.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Here, as always, context is the enemy of HBs. Their version of the scientific method is interesting: (1) Take a single artifact or set of artifacts; (2) ignore all associated context; (3) construct a NEW context consistent with a foregone conclusion; (4) re-integrate any selected bits of actual context that can be interpreted (outside their own contexts) as being consistent with that conclusion; (5) toss everything else.
They simply assume that here the same process is being followed when these photos are presented, because, well, it’s their mental model of sound research (a.k.a “opening one’s mind to the truth”). I find that fascinating, in an anthropological sort of way, because I can see that, once you have constructed that box for yourself, it would in fact be very difficult to break out of it, in part because you have held it up as the very definition of intellectual freedom.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Nigel, I think you are not taking into consideration here that there are not just 2 sides to this dispute. I was accused of being in the Hoaxer crowd simply because I questioned the quality of that image.
I believe we went to the moon and have been going there for years and probably have a base there. I can remember 30 years ago when it was said they could read the writing on a dime using their satelites. I am convinced they can and can do the same on the moon.
The Hoaxer crowd and the crowd that thinks this image represents a great achievement are much different than my crowd. My crowd actually thinks our engineers and scientists are much better than you would have us believe.
My crowd would question why we drive in cars powered with a gasoline engine that was invented around 1910. Thats 100 year old technology. Do I think they can do better than that? Yes but you don’t seem to think so, you seem to think they are not up to the challange.
Then we wonder why after billions and billions of government grants as well as donated money to find cures for diseases we have zero cures after a 100 years of research.
Even the rockets are what? 60 year old technology?
Why does technology seem to trickle out if any comes out at all? Is it lack of funding? I don’t believe that. The Pentagon lost track of 2.3 trillion dollars in 2001 and another trillion in 2004. It was like chump change to them, at least thats how it seemed. That amount of cash it would seem could buy a lot of answers to a lot of questions.
But what do we get? Blurred images from the moon? Maybe that will explain why that image underwhelms me. I expect better and think they can and are secretly doing better than we are being told.
.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The conspiracy theorists will just say these were planted there by the rocket that crashed into the moon a couple of weeks ago, they were just planting these things so we could photograph them.
Conspiracy theorists are unrelenting, and cannot be reasoned with. They just move the target, raise the bar.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
@RST: While I will be quick to affirm a disgust for covert activities and over-funded military research, I think much of what you appear to attribute to some sort of organized techno-conspiracy against the public I can more readily attribute to greed and incompetence, both of which can be found in abundance at all levels of government and corporate structure. Most of the politicians and corporate executives I consider capable of corruption (which, BTW, is the majority of them) would stoke an offshore account for themselves long before they would work together to fund some super-secret technology program.
Oh, and, BTW, I’m not sure you have a realistic picture of the pace of technological advancement over the past 100 years relative to the span of human history. I think it’s pretty clear we’ve been moving very quickly the last 100 years or so.
And “zero cures after a 100 years of research”? Are you seriously suggesting there is some sort of collusion across the domain of medical research to withhold disease cures? Wow. Let me know when your book comes out.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
@Dan,
Very well put and intriguing.
I believe their method is dictated by their distrust/bias: the “official story” coming from the government or from a powerful organization, is wrong. Genesis is right, therefore Evolution has to be wrong. So they start looking for these wrongs. They loop over the available elements of the “official story”/Evolution and study each element in great detail to find these wrongs. If such a wrong is found, presto, proof! Some of these wrongs need a resolution: presto! Great find! If a clue is found supporting their belief, presto, proof positive!
Some of these resolutions become Truths: pods, space beams, no planes etc.
After having absorbed one conspiracy theory, the amount of wrongs found has deepened his distrust for the government/powerful organization. A second conspiracy theory will sink in more easily. His inflated ego, his self-image of a critical, intelligent researcher being reinforced, will be an incentive to believe another conspiracy theory.
Simple, really. There was a time I could not make any sense of their incomprehensible, incoherent, bizarre arguments. There is some machinery in the madness.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
RST; Aside of the moan hoax. Phah, people keep complaining about their goverments, unless you post from Iran, Kuba, China, etc. you don’t have *any* idea how good we have it. People complain and complain, oh I’m not as beautiful and rich as Cindy Crawford and its *their* fault, I’m stupid and its *their* fault (education system) etc. Really while your goverment is likely not perfect (mine is quarreling all the time). But really think back 2000 years of humanity and their goverments, and think how good you go it, think about all these places of the world, and think how good you got it.
To complain like, cancer is not yet cured, and its “their fault”, its all a conspiracy, is IMHO the most childishness wheeping I read for a long time, I’d rather have the core moon hoaxers, at least they fight for something as stubborn and stupid it might be instead of this ultimate whine that seeks to find an equal
July 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
muriem, as long as I pay my taxes then I have every right to complain.
I can remember in the 1950′s them saying that a cure for cancer was right around the corner. If I contract to your company to provide a service or product then you have to provide what you agreed to in that contract.
I expect taxpayer’s money to be handled in the same way. You want my money then tell me what you agree to provide. No one is held accountable for what our money is getting us. In fact the system is set up to where if you did provide a cure for cancer then you just cut your own throat because no more research money needs to be given to you because you already found the cure.
In the late 50′s I could get 3 TV channels for free through the air. Now I get close to a hundred channels but it costs me 80 dollars a month. And thats just for one of their cheap packages. Is that progress? Yes I suppose its a little bit of progress even though I still only watch maybe 3 or 4 channels to this day. The rest are garbage and I wonder why I pay for it? Pressure from the family I suppose.
The only other visiable change I see from the 50′s is the internet and computers. Is that progress. Yes I have to say that is progress but I think its a double edged sword. The computer is slowly enslaving us all. So I think the negatives come close to canceling out the positives.
I can say this. I don’t see any progress out there that doesn’t cost an arm and leg to get. For all the money the tax payers have generously handed out for free we have gotten nothing back for free. It always seems to come back to us with an expensive price tag attached to it.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
RST Said:
“Then we wonder why after billions and billions of government grants as well as donated money to find cures for diseases we have zero cures after a 100 years of research.”
What makes you think that cures are only a matter of money and time? What makes you think that there is such a thing as an outright cure to most maladies? And what is this 100 years [of research] of which you speak? What makes you think that one century is long enough? And what is this “no” cures you claim? How many people do you know who have been stricken by polio? How many of your friends have suffered any of a number of diseases in the last half century that used to be common facts of life?
It’s as if you said that physicists have been “searching for the unified field theory” for such-and-such length of time; what’s the big holdup? It never boils ONLY down to money and time. Whole paradigms must be discovered; and that’s not a predictable sort of thing.
So, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Amazing pics. Remind me of MRO imaging Phoenix and its parachute as it landed on Mars.
and on another note…. hehe… you’ve got to LOOOVVVVVEEEEEEEEE the hoax people. Pure entertainment !
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 am
T.E.L. Says:
“How many people do you know who have been stricken by polio?”
I’m glad you brought that up. It sort of proves my point. Like I was talking about 100 year old technology, the polio cure is what? A 80 year old cure? Long before they had computers, DNA information, chromosome information, lasers, atomic microscopes and many other modern tools at their disposal.
Now if you are correct then these modern guys just are not that smart. If I am right then they are as good and maybe better than those old timers. It wouldn’t be so bad if they just couldn’t find cures to existing diseases but everyday it seems new diseases are coming out of the woodworks like AIDS, Ebola, Mad Cow and others.
Now I don’t want to get in the situation where I catch Ebola and think I won’t die from it because my Mad Cow disease will eat it up.
Or come down with cancer and have to treat it with radiation trying to out poison the poison with Chemo.
.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 am
complain as you want, you don’t realise what advance it is that you got that right to complain after all.
*wheep*, I want it all, I want it now. And its there, just these “evils” keep me from it. Really I know I shouldn’t get emotional, but you disgust me worst. The normal moon hoaxers are just bedazzled, but this is outrightous sickening. I won’t discuss this much further, other people who want to cure cancer devote their life for it and study chemistry or medicine and discover how difficult this is. Just as side info nature itself has no cure for cancer, in no to me known lifeform, actually its a fundamental problem, the higher the selfrepairability of an organism the higher chance for cancer, humans have due to our rather long lifetime compared pretty low selfrepairabilities, but also lower chance for cancer than most other lifeforms, its just not zero. But instead of devoting your life to science to actually help the situation like so many have, you just sit there and whine, its the evil conspiracy that makes your life misserable.
Okay do it, many people died for you to have that right, in most other goverments before 1900 you would have get fundamental problems for just saying that. But its also my right not to listen to your cant anymore.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 am
Apollo 12 wasn’t found. When LRO got there it could see footprints and things but there was no lunar module! There were a lot more footprints. The aliens took it!!!
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 am
RST (487) said:
Actually, you said some pretty wacky things in comment 365, that I attempted to address in 374. You did not merely question the quality of the image, you said a whole heap of other stuff (and not just in that one comment, but others got there first in rectifying your errors).
What?
OK, first two questions – why do you think this? And how do you think it has been paid for given that NASA’s budget was slashed from the mid-60s to the mid-70s?
Next question – how do you think NASA (or whomever) has kept these visits to the moon secret?
Yeah? Well, that was what we scientists call a “lie”. I would challenge you to cite a reference for that soundbite, and also to read the other comments above that point out (based on information from people who have actually flown spyplanes, no less!) the falsity in the “reading a newspaper headline from orbit” myth. (Basically, irrespective of the quality and size of your optical elements, atmospheric turbulence limits what can be resolved on the ground.)
Based on what?
I mean, do you actually have any evidence to support your position? As an amateur astronomer I have looked through telescopes up to about 16″ diameter and I have attempted astrophotography. As a professional scientist, I am familiar with the workings of a variety of cutting-edge scientific instruments, and I can tell you that LRO’s images are a great achievement.
Steam engines were in use for about 200 years before being mostly replaced by internal combustion. If it ain’t broke, we don’t fix it.
Also, BTW, today’s direct-injection petrol and diesel engines are nothing liike their forebears except for the principle of internal combustion. They didn’t have turbochargers 100 years ago (in fact, these have only been around for about 30 years).
You are wrong.
You seem to be of the opinion that they should be giving us substantially better images right now. Whereas I expect images to gradually become better and better as the technology evolves incrementally. Substantially better images are therefore purely a matter of time.
This is an outright lie.
But more sophisticated and more efficient now than they were then.
Well, let’s see what technology has “trickled” out in the last 20 years, shall we?
MRI
CAT scanning
DVD
Blu-ray
HDTV
Digital radio
The internet
iPods
Mobile phones (miniaturised to the point where they are now pocket-sized)
Laptops
Nickel metal-hydride batteries
Lithium-ion batteries
Cars that will average 70+ mpg
Biopharmaceuticals
Anti-viral drugs
Vaccines for more diseases than I can count
New antibiotics (e.g .vancomycin)
New anti-malarial drugs
New airliners incorporating composite materials
Wind turbines for electricity generation
Miniature energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs
Satellite navigation (GPS)
Experimental laser weapons
Tazers
And probably a whole range of other stuff that I can’t think of in just a few minutes.
But the pentagon is only going to fund military projects (or projects with a potetntial military application), and NASA is a civilian agency, so what relevance does that have?
LRO carries the first camera to be sent to the Moon that is capable of resolving the Apollo hardware. Even once it is in its final orbit, it will probably not be able to resolve much detail on the Apollo hardware (I do not, for example, expect it to resolve the legs of the LEM descent stage). Apart from some rambling and irrelevant speculation, you have given no reason why you expect the technology on LRO to be so much better than it is. You also have demonstrated no understanding of the technical challenge to imaging very fine detail from a great distance.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:45 am
RST,
You talk like you know how long it should take to find cures for all sorts of diseases. Tell me: how long should it take? Show me the math.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:59 am
RST (492) said:
Only if your complaints have a basis in fact.
Hey, guess what? If that claim was genuinely made as you recall, they were wrong. Guess what? If we could predict what would happen, we wouldn’t need to do the experiments.
Maybe so, but you can only make a complaint if you then produce the contract and demonstrate where the other party has failed. So, cite me a reference where someone promised to find a cure for cancer within a definite time span, and I’ll pay your argument some attention. Otherwise, stop whining. Your memory could be wrong. And, hey, maybe it was an honest mistake – maybe there was a cancer researcher who genuinely believed that a cure was just around the corner.
Actually, publicly-funded cancer research is published in scientific journals. It is there for all the world to see. You and everyone else are free to go to a university library and read what your government is paying for (of course, the university may require that you pay to use their facilities, but there are online journals too).
Knowing what I do know about cancer and about some treatments for cancer, I can tell you that this is utterly wrong. There are many different kinds of cancer, all with their own subtle peculiarities (patterns of gene expression, metabolism, morphology and mobility etc. etc.). If you cure one type of cancer, there are still 99 others to have a go at.
And, hey, guess what? There are other problems to investigate. Medical research funding can do many things besides seek cures for cancer.
No, it’s a free market economy. If you want more stuff for free, move to a socialist country.
You cannot blame the government for this. TV stations supply whatever sells.
If that’s the only progress you can think of, then you haven’t bothered looking very hard.
What rubbish! If you’re talking about publicly-funded research, the knowledge it generates is freely available, as it has been for many years.
If you refer to technology, then of course it costs money. People have to design and build that stuff, and what are they supposed to live on, fresh air? You seem to be complaining that in order to get stuff, you have to spend money. Yet your tax dollars are paying for many intangible things that are of direct benefit to you.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 am
RST (495) said:
Alternatively, it could be that the easy discoveries were all made first.
BTW, before you whine any further about medicine, please go and read a textbook on epidemiology. Your ignorance is so deep that it would take me weeks to respond to your comment in a way that you might understand.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:51 am
http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:51 am
UHM>>> Nasa touched up footage OH MY GOD its FAKE!!! Get real people you see it done with all sorts of older movies such as Star Wars. I would love to see the enhanced images over old grainy video. I mean its all in the details.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Gregorious Said:
“http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp”
Uh-huh. What about it?
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
@Nigel: I admire your tenacity in continuing to refute some of these ridiculous contentions blow-by-blow. Thank you.
@RST: I think it might be appropriate to say here that it’s clear that you are angry and frustrated about lots of things. You feel you’ve paid taxes–what sometimes feels like usurious taxes, I’m sure–with what often feels like a very low return on investment. You see a government that wastes trillions of dollars on military spending with results that are opaque to you. You hear promises that seem to be broken on a regular basis and with impunity. And you’ve been lied to by representatives of that government on more than one occasion.
Let me just say that I share your frustration and anger over those sorts of things. I’ll go even further and contend that if we spent half as much on medical research as the DoD spends on–whatever it spends money on–maybe we would be further along than we are in finding cures for many diseases.
That said, I also need to say two things:
1). You said earlier “as long as I pay my taxes then I have every right to complain.” Yes, you do, and our form of government gives you many avenues through which you may do so. However, making unsubstantiated allegations that imply that a vast network of conspiracies lies behind our failure to have reached the level of achievement you believe your tax dollars should have enabled does both you and us a disservice. Write your elected representatives. If you get form letters back (you will), call them. Write letters to the editor of your newspaper and to other media outlets complaining that your interests are not being represented. Call out your representatives publicly in those letters, saying that they are your servants and you deserve more than a form letter. Lather, rinse, and repeat. It’s an uphill battle, but it will yield more result than arguing on this blog about conspiracies (which, BTW, I don’t suggest you mention in those letters).
2). You also said “I can remember in the 1950’s them saying that a cure for cancer was right around the corner. If I contract to your company to provide a service or product then you have to provide what you agreed to in that contract.”
Others have pointed out some of the fallacies in this line of reasoning, but again, I understand the frustration that underlies it, and there are probably many citable cases over the past 100 years where research money was not wisely spent (though often that wisdom only comes through retrospective analysis). Still, looking at research toward a cure for a disease as if it were a contract to build something to spec is pretty simplistic. Do you honestly believe that everything in the world, even scientific research and discovery, is a matter of contracting a service and having it delivered per the contract? If only that were true.
As a final aside, look at these links (really just some highlights) to begin to reset your thinking on the supposed lack of discoveries in the 20th century:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/eventindex.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century#Developments_in_brief
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
[...] Happily, we don’t have to stand in front of a jury and describe science. I can post a picture and go a little nuts if needed. That helps, [...]
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
WOULD U PUT YOUR LIFE ON IT FOR SURE IT’S THE LAND SITE?…PERSONALLY I WOULD NOT
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
We Never Went said: “You all act as if so many people would have had to lie to pull this off. No, just a select few.”
I covered this once so I’ll just re-post my original….
1) If everyone involved knew…then there should be thousands of people trying to cash in on their “secret” knowledge with “Xtra” or “Inside Edition”. You can’t convince me that such a huge number of people kept their silence for 40 years. As the old saying goes…”Two people can keep a secret…if one of them is dead.”
2) If only the 200 or so “top level” people knew it was faked…then all the engineers involved would be designing and building equipment that actually works (and mind you they are spread across several hundred contractors and sub-contractors who had to make ALL their designs integrate with each other)! They can’t design fakes because THEY AREN’T IN ON IT! Soooo….If you can build the equipment to actually do it….WHY FAKE IT?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
If RST is so anxious for a cure for __(insert malady here)___ why doesn’t he get off his lazy ass and find one himself?
Some of us taxpayers like our space program and think it’s a damn fine investment. Yeah, he’s got a right to complain. But rest of us also have the right to tell him he’s full of it.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
amazing pics, dispells a lot of the moon hoax nonsense which has been used to dismiss rather a lot of conspiracy theorists as nutjobs, tinfoil hat wearers etc.
im quite concerned about the nature of some of the comments though, i do not believe in alien conspiracies, moon hoaxes etc. but i am a firm believer in the laws of physics and the fact that steel buldings dont just fall apart without rather a lot of explosive assistance, you all seem like scientifically minded individuals maybe this will allow you all to separate real hoax from real conspiracy evidence. just because there is now incontrovertible proof we visited the moon doesnt change the fact that kerosene doesnt melt steel and that things dont fall at freefall speed through tons of steel.
this moon hoax business is very easy to use as guilt by association with nonsense theories like little green men etc to stop questions being asked about real political conspiracy fact that roots itself in solid physical analysis, like one of the posts above mentions the “photo evidence of WMD”
which everyone bought hook line and sinker and turned out to be as truthful as “the moon footage was shot in hollywood”.
there is an air in a lot of these posts that cos theyve got new evidence of the moon landings you can dismiss things like the impossible magic bullet that hit jfk several times and just like the twin towers subverted the laws of physics.
but hey im a tinfoil hat wearing nutjob commie arent i?
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 am
@daveydave
twin towers subverted the laws of physics
Maybe when they put them up. I feel that way about jumbo jets and A380s. They obviously break the law gravity. How else do they get those monsters into the sky? Which is the point. When the towers came down it was all gravity man. No subversion there.
the fact that kerosene doesnt melt steel and that things dont fall at freefall speed through tons of steel
Kerosene doesn’t have to melt steel.
Things don’t fall through tons of steel. They collapse on top of… and so on like a house of cards.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:17 am
Let’s get one thing straight: we NEVER went to the moon! That’s right, we NEVER went there.
Neither you nor I have ever been there. A few guys DID make it there though (N. Armstrong et al.).
I’m just being jerky – for a bit of fun – and adding my 2.5 cents of nonsense – even though I’m right (or so I believe).
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 am
Oh, my. I go away for a couple of days and find this thread still burning!
OK, at 421. “We Never Went Says” goes a bit ballistic. It seems that all of your ignorance of physical phenomena have been addressed by others above, so I’ll just address your personal attacks on me:
> Most of you all don’t cut and paste very valid points in my argument
> because you don’t know how it possibly could have been done either,
> so you avoid answering.
It seems that most of the people above posted EXACTLY how it was done. How is that avoiding answering?
> And for idiots who use the “bad grammar” as any kind of argument, that
> is just stupid. We are on a message board, not in a master’s level literature
> class and I don’t give crap about how proper my grammar comes off to you or not.
Well, now that we’ve established the level of discourse here…
> You would not be able to tie half your brain behind your back to take me
> on in a mental challenge because that is 1/4 more brain than what you
> are working with presently.
Finally, down and dirty! OK, I’m untying the other half of my brain.
1) I don’t hide behind a screen name. Jack Hagerty really is my name (google me).
1a) I have an IQ of 127.
2) I have a degree in mechanical engineering from UC Berkeley.
3) I have 35 years experience in the field in five major industries (aerospace, automation/robotics, high vacuum, semiconductor equipment and medical device testing).
4) I’ve worked in hardware ground support for US reconnaissance satellite programs.
5) I’ve worked on the Trident missile program on the Mk. 4 and Mk. 500 warheads.
6) I’ve designed thermal/vacuum testing chambers for Loral for burn-in of comm-sat transponders, and similar chambers for the burn-in for the ISS batteries.
7) I designed the cathode for the first commercial “trench memory” etching chamber, which makes all of the memory-intensive gadgets we enjoy today possible.
’8) I’ve written two books, totalling nearly 1,000 pages, on theoretical, fictional and real spacecraft and how they work (or could possibly work in the case of fictional ones).
Bottom line: I know what the f*ck I’m talking about.
Your turn.
> I’m not sure where these huge battery packs were stored, all these huge
> cameras, these hundreds of gallons of fuel, all the neat-o gadgets that
> you claim they “had with them”.
Some batteries were stored in the descent stage, others in the ascent stage. The cameras were the size of a shoebox. I have the original NASA design report if you want to see it. The fuel tanks were spheres under those odd shaped covers on either side of the pressure cabin. The neat-o gadgets were stored on the four sides of the descent stage and removed as needed.
> Why is it taking so long since it was SO EASY to get there before?
Remind me again who said it was easy?
> I bet you, Mr. Rocket Engineer, probably would have to figure out how to
> build a dishwasher before you could actually load one and turn it on while
> you work at your dish washing job in a restaurant.
You say that likes it’s a bad thing. Besides, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here. Anyway, I did work as a busboy while going to school, but never a dishwasher.
- Jack
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 am
Oh, on the google thing, I am NOT the football player from the ’20s, nor am I the guy from Michigan with the Porsche.
- Jack
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 am
@daveydave
Let’s cut to the chase here. For 9 years I was a combat engineer in the U.S. Army. Part of my job was working with explosives… LOTS of explosives. There is no way that the amount of explosives needed to have brought down the towers, such as you and others would like to claim, could have been placed in a short period of time, and definitely no way that they could have been hidden. One of the problems is that too many movies show some little small package of explosives doing a major load of damage. And yes, they can make a load bang, but in order to do stuff like cut through concrete, or steel, or both, it takes a lot. In fact the tons needed to do what you claim would require so much man power there is no way the activity could have been concealed… and no way every one involved would have kept quite.
No explosion was needed because the towers were designed with a steel ‘spine’ in the center and with additional support provided with the steel girders on the outside of the building. When the buildings were impacted by the planes, many of the steel columns inside and out were cut outright. Buildings and bridges and the like become very unstable once that kind of damage occurs. The others in the core of the building didn’t have to burn hot enough to melt, all they needed was to be heated enough to reach a few hundred degrees at which point steel loses about 50% of its strength. Kerosene and all of the combustibles that were burning inside the building were more than sufficient to heat the steel to its failure point which is well below its melting point.
the September 11 hoax is yet another which requires tons of people staying quiet, yet how often can anyone really keep a secret? the simpler explanation is that two buildings were hit by planes, suffered catastrophic damage eventually led to total design failure. In basic terms, the planes cut the spines of the buildings, just like an ax cutting through your spine. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be able to stand for long after that even if there was no spinal cord involved, and even though the majority of your body was still in good shape and working like it should.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
First of all, I am a true believer that man DID walk on the Moon fourty years ago.
These new pictures are exciting to see. Why did it take so long? I’m sure the conspiracy nuts will just refute these as well. I guess there’s no pleasing them.
I am also excited that they are taking steps to return there.
I do wonder though, why it will take so long to get there this this time. Technology is advancing at such a rate these days that one would think that that in just a short time, we could recreate and improve on the old to get us there faster instead of reinventing the wheel. I suppose this is a different time and safety concerns are much different.
I look forward to my children experiencing the thrill that I did as a child of the whole NASA program of getting man to the Moon. Getting up early to watch the launches. I was 5yrs old when Neil and Buzz took their first steps and studied everything I could during the 70′s (had to learn to read first). My parents provided us with sticker books at frst that had all of the more famous shots in it. We would read the chapter and adhere the picture that went with each one. How I wish I still had those books. I guess we will have to rely on the Internet for this one.
God Speed NASA, Lets do it again!
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
It’s only a matter of time before any conspiracy/hoax thread picks up the world trade center b.s.
These nutcases spend so much time reading quack paranoid websites, too bad they don’t crack open a physics book. The amount of mass in the top floors of those structures, dropping only a few feet, is more than enough to send the rest of the buildings straight down into their own basements. And that same amount of falling mass creates a pressure wave comparable to a small nuclear bomb, or, the better analogy, a pyroclastic flow zooming down a volcano. Hence the collateral damage/destruction to the surrounding buildings.
Anyone with half a brain and a remote awareness of science could discover these things. Charles Pelligrino did a fine job summarizing the pressure wave physics in his book, Ghosts of Vesuvius.
But no, conspiracies are more fun, and those who believe in them know that they can become an instant expert in arcane knowledge, an expertise that requires no work, no independent thought, no long nights studying for exams and term papers. Quick, easy, and utterly and immensely stupid.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
I wonder too why it is that conspiracy theories must be so mindboggling? I mean there are a lot of reasonable conspiracies around to pick them up, but I guess that doesn’t catch the crowd.
For example picking from the offtopic 9/11 events. If I’d make a conspiracy theory I’d said, the 4th plane was obviously shot down by U.S. air force, they just covered it up, since it is a breach of the constitution (in no way the state may harm an innocent citizen). [and please don't start an argument here if it should be allowed in these cases or not, thats offtopic from offtopic]
However does such a theory thrive in the hoax crowd? No, its just not mind-boggling enough, it just a bit too realistic, a bit too possible.
I’m sure there are a lot of other cases, where one can make senseable conspiracy theories, but they aren’t “cool” enough, or whatever reason it is. [just coming into my mind, was Lady Di murdered?]
I consider this a very fascinating fact of conspiracy theories….
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
RST at 487 said: “My crowd would question why we drive in cars powered with a gasoline engine that was invented around 1910. Thats 100 year old technology. Do I think they can do better than that? Yes but you don’t seem to think so, you seem to think they are not up to the challange…Even the rockets are what? 60 year old technology?”
The wheel is 5000 years old, yet we still use it. What sort of replacements are being suppressed here?
“Then we wonder why after billions and billions of government grants as well as donated money to find cures for diseases we have zero cures after a 100 years of research.”
I have Crohn’s Disease – chronic inflammation of the intestine. When it’s active it’s one of the less pleasant conditions to have – you’d just about disembowel yourself if you thought it would stop the pain.
Until a few decades ago, I don’t think there were any treatments for it. Then steroids were found to be useful, though they cause their own problems if you use them too long.
A few years ago I took part in the trial of a new drug. It was brilliant, but it wasn’t released for use against Crohn’s Disease because of a side effect it has – rare but deadly.
I’m now being treated with another drug which also has the potential for unpleasant side effects, but it’s also apparently working.
There are other drugs which will be trialled in coming months.
At the same time research continues to understand exactly what causes Crohn’s Disease.
That’s just one condition. I wonder what other people might have to say about the medical conditions they experience? Are you really sure “no cures” is correct?
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
OK, so I went to some HB websites last night just for fun. While I think it’s important to present facts in refutation of some HB claims, I think anyone with basic training in logic can take care of all of these folks just by analyzing their fallacious arguments–no technical expertise or actual leveraging of facts required.
If you go to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/, you can see a list, with descriptions, of common logical fallacies. The HBs use almost every one of them at one point or another, building a matrix of logical fallacies that is supposed to constitute compelling evidence but is really just a series of deflections and misdirections. Some favorites:
Ad Hominem:
Scientist/engineer [insert domain of expertise here]: “Based on my knowledge of [domain], artifact X is genuine.”
HB: “Well, you are a scientist, and therefore are protecting the reputation of the scientific community by making the stand I would expect you to make, therefore your evidence and your conclusions are invalidated.”
Post Hoc (False Cause):
The premise: The Van Allen radiation belts are too dangerous for humans to travel through.
The evidence: The shuttle astronauts do not travel in an orbit that takes them through the Van Allen Belts.
The false cause: The reason the shuttles do not travel through the Van Allen belts is because the radiation is considered too dangerous.
The false conclusion: The apollo astronauts could not have traveled through the Van Allen Belts.
Burden of Proof (Appeal to Ignorance):
HB: “The moon landing was a hoax.”
Reasonable Person: “What is your proof?”
HB: “No one has been able to prove to my satisfaction that it actually occurred, therefore it did not.”
Guilt By Association (also Genetic Fallacy):
Statements: Many politicians are dishonest, the government engages in covert activities, and it would have been to the government’s advantage to claim a successful moon landing to win the space race.
Conclusion: The moon landing must have been a hoax, because the government was involved.
Confusing Cause and Effect (with an embedded Post Hoc):
Statement A: The US claims to have landed men on the moon six times during the 60′s and 70′s.
Statement B: No government has landed men on the moon since then.
False cause: There have been no moon landings since because it is too difficult a problem to solve.
Conclusion: The US manned moon landings were faked because no one has done it since.
Straw Man (this one is very common with HBs):
Position A: Liftoff and orbital insertion from the moon requires significantly less fuel than liftoff and insertion from the earth, because the moon has only 1/6 earth’s gravity.
Distortion of Position A: Since the moon has 1/6 earth’s gravity, liftoff and orbital insertion from the moon would require 1/6 the fuel of liftoff and insertion from the earth. This comes to almost 1 million pounds of fuel.
Attack on Distorted Position: The ascent stage of the lunar module could not possibly have carried that much fuel.
Conclusion: The lunar module could not possibly have successfully taken off and docked with the orbiting command module.
I could go on and on: Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Ridicule, Begging the Question…. All are used. I especially like the photo analyses, which are marvels of fallacious reasoning. “These photos were taken at about the same time and of a similar scene. Because points a, b, c, x, y, and z have the same relative positions, but the tire tracks in the foreground are gone in the second photo, this must have been done in a studio where the footprints of technicians had to be raked away.” Points a, b, c, x, y, and z being the only points in the two photos that DON’T change….
Sheesh.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
DWD, yes that foreground argument got me stumped also for a second. But if one look closer you see the second image (EVE3) is from taken quite some angle more to the right, one sees it at the position of the flag and if you go considerable to the left, the bottom right to your feet changes. Surprise!
There are even more funny things. Photo 1 with Astronaut, Photo 2 same Astronaut but a tad shorter! Fake? Well or he just chrouched, which can easily been seen in his position.
This goes on and on
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
@DWD:
I think anyone with basic training in logic can take care of all of these folks
You made one very basic mistake: assuming the knucklewalkers in question care about logic.
But I grant you huge props for being able to wade through all those websites! Tip o’ the tinfoil hat, sir!
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@kuhnigget: It’s true, they don’t. The only thing that’s important to them is the superficial APPEARANCE of a logical argument. But since I tend to consider logic somewhat important, I felt it might be worth pointing out that, aside from all the evidentiary arguments Phil and others have so carefully documented, the HB position has some more fundamental problems. Others here have alluded to this as well on more specific points.
Wading through the websites was quite an experience, but I couldn’t sleep last night, so I figured I might as well experience some waking dreams instead! If one approaches them as comedy, it helps.
@All: BTW, I see that somehow I managed to change my Posting ID on these last two posts. Apologies; I’m actually a.k.a. “Dan” in prior posts, and I’ll change it back after this one. I think I must have absently typed in an ID from another site. Wasn’t deliberate…
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
@ “DWD”
I think I must have absently typed in an ID from another site. Wasn’t deliberate…
HA! You dropped your cover and now you’re trying to…uh, cover…for it! Well that old “absently typed” line ain’t gonna cut it here, buster, or should I say, “Dan”?
Who are you, really? MIB? Tri-Lateral? Illuminati? Give it up, pal! Your role in this conspiracy (uh, which one was it, again?) is toast!
Wait a sec…is that the face of Jesus on that toast???
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@kuhnigget: Argh. I should have realized I’d never prevail against the likes of a… um… a… Kuhnigget…. Truly you possess a dizzying intellect. The game is over. My match is met. My goose is cooked. My jig is up. My coffin is nailed. I am… found out.
And now, I must sign off and disappear before they find m–
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Since I had some time to kill I thought I would expand on my earlier post regarding:
We Never Went said: “You all act as if so many people would have had to lie to pull this off. No, just a select few.”
While most people can readily accept the logic that several hundred thousand people could not keep the conspiracy intact for forty years, the idea that “only the Top Brass knew” seems to get more traction with the casual listener. This is also a load of bunk. Using the LEM as an example, think about it this way…
Grumman won the contract to build the LEM. Tom Kelly was selected by Grumman to head the project. Since it is ridiculous to assume one man could design, supervise the manufacture of, and test every piece, system, sub-system, and circuit of the LEM by himself…he was given a team of engineers and technicians.
The project was broken down into sections (descent stage, ascent stage, communications, life support, guidance, etc.) which I will call Tier I for the purposes of this discussion. The Tier I sections were broken down even further (landing legs/pads, descent engine, descent fuel, ascent engine, ascent fuel, cockpit/instrumentation, landing RADAR, hatches/airlocks, etc.) just to name a few, which I’ll call Tier II. Some tiers were broken down even further depending on the complexity, with some systems having 4, 5, 6 or even more tiers.
Since Tom Kelly was part of the “Top Brass” and dealt directly with NASA he would be “in on it” by the “Just a Few” theory. The majority of Tom Kellys’ responsibilities were budgetary and administrative. While he did have enormous input (and final say in many cases) on the design, most of the hands on design work was done by the engineers in Tier I and below.
So now we get down to brass tacks…did Tom Kelly tell his Tier I people? If he did then you add another 10-12 engineers at minimum to the conspiracy. This doesn’t jibe with the “Just a Few” premise since the same thing would be happening at every contractor and sub-contractor involved in the entire Apollo project. That adds up to at least hundreds, and more likely thousands of people being “in on it”. So to keep the theory intact let’s say he didn’t tell the Tier I folks…
Let’s assume there were 10 Tier I engineers who each had an average of 10 engineers working for them at Tier II or lower. There would be at least 10 Tier I systems and while some tiers may have had fewer than 10 Tier II or lower engineers, some had far more so I think this is a fair assumption. You then have a minimum of 100 engineers who were designing equipment that they intended to work! They couldn’t build fakes because they were not “in on it” and didn’t know that the whole thing was a hoax. So they were designing and building equipment with the belief that it would be used to land on the moon…meaning they were designing it to WORK!
Note that I said “designing and building” equipment. These people were designing something that had absolutely no precedent. The engineers were fully involved in the manufacture and assembly of each individual LEM including delivery and final prep at NASA. This makes it impossible for Tom Kelly to have altered the designs so they would not function or substitute fakes in place of the real equipment. Any engineer will tell you…if you are manufacturing and assembling your own design you WILL notice if it has been altered or replaced.
Don’t forget all those other contractors and sub-contractors I mentioned above. Not only did the Grumman engineers have to design equipment they believed would work, it also had to integrate with all the other Apollo systems being designed at the other contractors and sub-contractors. And remember…since only the “Top Brass” were in on it, virtually all the engineers at these contractors and sub-contractors were also designing equipment they believed had to work.
So where does this leave us?
We have hundreds, and more likely thousands, of engineers who designed equipment that would actually do what they intended it to do…LAND ON THE MOON! They then actually built this equipment.
So if you designed and built the equipment to actually do it…what would be the point in faking it? Why even bother since you have the equipment TO ACTUALLY DO IT?
Ain’t logic COOL!
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 pm
@Pat: Nicely done!
Simulated HB Response: Ah, but what you don’t realize is that top officials of the federal government (who have always been much smarter than engineers) knew that, in spite of years of design, construction, and successful testing of all these systems and processes to mission-critical quality standards, when it was all assembled, it actually WOULDN’T work at all! (Silly engineers…)
Armed with this foresight, the government enlisted the expertise of Stanley Kubrick’s half-brother Saul who, using a butter knife and phenomenal Claymation skills, FAKED the moon landing photos and video. Then, using some surplus Jedi mind tricks from the Star Wars set, he FOOLED all these same engineers as well as Mission Control into believing (they are such silly creatures) they were communicating with men who were actually 6000 bazillion light-years away on the moon! That Saul Kubrick was a genius.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
This thread is getting so ridiculous – back and forth and back and forth. I, personally, know humans were there in July 1969 and at other times until 1972 but why are we all trying so hard to turn non-believers into believers. Who cares if they don’t believe humans walked on the Moon. In the end, it doesn’t matter. If the non-believers live long enough, they will eventually see for themselves how absolutely wrong they were and then they will feel….well, who knows what they will feel and who cares. Ignorance, as they say, is BLISS. haha.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
This thread is getting so ridiculous – back and forth and back and forth. I, personally, know humans were there in July 1969 and at other times until 1972 but why are we all trying so hard to turn non-believers into believers. Who cares if they don’t believe humans walked on the Moon. In the end, it doesn’t matter. If the non-believers live long enough, those skeptical fools will eventually see for themselves how absolutely wrong they were and then they will feel….well, who knows what they will feel and who really cares? Ignorance, as they say, is BLISS. haha.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
@J-C
Although this has been stated several times above…once again…we are not trying to convince Hoax Believers that they are wrong.
We know they are wrong and we know they can’t be convinced to see the evidence in any kind of rational manner.
The point is to prevent them from convincing other people, who may not be as well versed in science as some and are reading this and other blogs the HBs troll, that their ridiculous conspiracy theories have any merit.
In other words…the goal is not to “cure” 1 hoax believer but to “prevent” 10 new ones with science, logic, and a rational assessment of the evidence at hand.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
@Pat Montana
You’ve completely missed my point – in the end, it doesn’t matter if they manage to *convince* others of their ridiculous belief as well as it doesn’t matter that you believe and I believe. It’s a FACT and given enough time – everyone will know the landings to be a FACT. Who cares if they don’t believe – I certainly don’t and it won’t affect my life in any way, shape or form.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
529. J-C Says: “This thread is getting so ridiculous…why are we all trying so hard to turn non-believers into believers. Who cares if they don’t believe humans walked on the Moon. In the end, it doesn’t matter.”
I agree that the horse in this thread has been dead for some time and yet we’re still beating it. However, it’s not the HB’s that we’re trying to “convert,” it’s the fence sitters who may have heard some of the arguments and, on the face of it, seem to make sense. Some of these folks have influence far beyond what they should (e.g. Woopi Goldberg) that could sway a lot of people. Believing a lie is wrong, even if it’s harmless, but I don’t consider this one so harmless. It breeds a distrust of all technology, and rewards conspiratorial thinking.
- Jack
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
@ J-C,
Jack H. makes a point I was trying unsuccessfully to edit my previous post to include.
The percentage of people who know the Apollo missions only as something they read in a history book is quickly increasing. These are the people who have the potential to be our future space explorers and the ones most easily swayed by the HBs. If the HBs can convince these people that Apollo was a fake, either directly or via “celebrity influence” as Jack H. suggests, then they have essentially deterred them from pursuing or supporting space exploration. Why would someone want to work for or support NASA if the biggest accomplishment in the history of NASA (or in ALL of history some would say) was a fake?
Jack is correct, the “Moon Hoax” is not a harmless belief. It has the potential to deter both the pursuit and support of space exploration by future generations and that is a truly dangerous proposition.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
526. Pat Montana Says: “Since I had some time to kill I thought I would expand on my earlier post”
I agree with Dan, very nicely done.
I have a somewhat shorter version that you’re welcome to use (adapted from the version on the clavius.com site).
Apollo tasked the brightest and most talented technical people on the planet to do something immensely difficult. Since the entire premise of the HB’s argument is that human flight to the moon is intrinsically impossible, eventually these scientists and engineers are going to run up against whatever it is that makes the job impossible. They’ll report it to their managers who will report up the chain until it eventually reaches someone on the bottom of the “in on it” level. What are they going to say to these managers, “Don’t worry about it”? This huge, time critical program, tasked by a martyred president, bumps into a complete show stopper and the response is “Don’t worry about it”? Remember, these are the brightest and most insightful people in the country, chosen specifically because they can intuitively sense the cause of a problem and fix it. They’re just supposed to go along with this answer? Not hardly!
This will be happening hundreds of times in all of the design offices all over the country. Offices being monitored closely by the Soviets. What do you think would happen when whistle-blowers all over the country start tooting off at once?
- Jack
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
@J-C
Who cares if they don’t believe – I certainly don’t and it won’t affect my life in any way, shape or form.
It’s how religions start and look how they generally turn out.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
@ Jack #534,
First of all…thank you, and a belated thank you to Dan as well.
I do like your version for it’s efficiency of explanation. It is similar to the “short version” that I usually use. I have also read clavius.com and it is one of my favorites regarding busting the HBs.
I wanted to expand my earlier post because ‘We Never Went‘ directly argued with the shorter versions myself and others had posted earlier. I wanted to take folks step-by-step through how many people are involved in something like Apollo and how illogical it is to say “only the top guys knew”. The HBs would like to believe there is a very definite line at which you can limit the knowledge of the hoax. However, if you go through it level by level it becomes clear that either you build the stuff that works or there will always be that point at which someone has to tell a intelligent and trained person “don’t worry about it” and have to explain why. The “don’t worry about it” is a point I did not specifically address but will be added to my presentation in the future.
As you said…either we went or we should be armpit deep in whistle-blowers.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
@ shane
Religions are started by people who believe in faith not by people who accept scientific facts. Scientific facts are the opposite to religious faith. I miss your point.
@ Jack Hagerty & Pat Montana
OK you guys make a good point so some of us should continue to try to convince the nonbelievers – I, personally, am done trying to reverse ignorance. The percentage of non-believers is pretty low from everything I’ve read online, in newspapers, etc. and many more humans believe that we did go than don’t. I do believe that once we’ve returned to the Moon the evidence will be irrefutable by even the ‘Whoopi Goldbergs’ of this world. The truth will prevail. Peace out.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
@J-C
Religions are started by people who believe in faith not by people who accept scientific facts. Scientific facts are the opposite to religious faith. I miss your point.
Exactly, HB is faith based. They are almost cult like in their fervor. There is no science behind HB. HB is a religion. Thank the FSM people like Jack and Pat take time to try and convince the waverers.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:47 am
if they can fake a moon-landing, why cannot fake a blury blck and white picture ?
c’mon!
July 24th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Phil Plait and the rest of the NASA sympathisers in here are all hypocrits. Imagine using this grainy footage that proves NOTHING as “undeniable proof” yet ignoring the myriad of photos from NASA shuttle missions that prove something else is going on out there.
http://208.106.234.11/Blogs/tabid/118/EntryId/3/Bad-Astronomy-Phil-Plait-hypocritical-over-proof-of-Moon-Landing.aspx
July 26th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Chuck Boldwyn, Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor has very extensively researched the Twin Tower Collapses and discovered:
The following is the Equation that proves that the 911 Twin Towers could not possibly have collapsed due to exploding plane crashes and extremely widespread and intense fires.
CL(95) = 20*LL(95)
= 20*[5*DL(95)]
= 100*DL(95)
= 100*(95/15)DL(15)
=100*6.33*DL(15)
=633*DL(15)
= 633 Force Units of upward support
where,
CL = Collapse Load for 100% & Total Collapse
LL = Live Load = Occupied & Furnished Weight
DL = Dead Load = Unoccupied, Unfurnished
110 = 110 Floor Steel WTC
95 = 95 Floor Steel Block (Lower Block)
15 = 15 Floor Steel Block (Top Block)
20 = Collapse Load Factor of John Skilling
5 = Live Load Factor of Ronald Hamburger
of NIST
Therefore, it required the Force of Weight of 633 15-Floor-Blocks pressing down on one 95-Floor-Steel-Block before the possibility of total collapse could possibly occur.
I am using the NIST and Mass Medias own published and or announced at 911 tour presentations data to make this scientific proof that one 15-Floor-Block could not, even in one’s wildest dreams totally collapse the 95-Floor-Steel-Block below.
The same application of this data will show that the other Twin Tower could not possibly collapse.
I have prepared a MS Word document with photos, data tables, graphs and other evidence aplenty to conclusively prove my assertions. If you are interested in receiving it for your own evaluation and can help me distribute it to the world, please email me at
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
July 26th, 2009 at 4:55 am
@daveydave
Posting crackpot nonsense helps to make your case.
July 26th, 2009 at 5:43 am
J-C (531) said:
Point taken, to some extent. The facts cannot be changed by the belief of a group of people, no matter how large that group.
However, there is a wider context here. Not only do the HBs dishonor the men who actually made it possible for NASA to successfully land men on the moon, they are fostering a culture that contains a bizarre mixture of mistrust and credulousness. On the one hand, the HBs foster mistrust of experts (i.e. don’t trust the people who actually know what they are talking about because they are “in on it”). OTOH, they require credulousness in their audience because their claims do not stand up to scrutiny (which, I guess, is why they must use so many logical fallacies).
In terms of the Apollo missions, this culture does no direct harm. However, when applied to other fields of human endeavour (global warming and vaccinations spring to mind), this culture haas the potential to do a huge amount of harm. So, by preventing the propagation of moon-hoax belief, we are battling against this culture of willful ignorance.
July 26th, 2009 at 6:04 am
OK, allowing a seriously OT digression for a short while…
@ daveydave (539) -
First of all, your “equation” makes no sense at all. More explication needed.
Second, you miss out f = ma, and once one part of the building is moving, the parts below it are then being asked to halt that movement in addition to supporting its static weight.
Third, you completely ignore the effects of the fire (that caused the steel to soften).
Fourth, you call it a “scientific” proof, but it is full of assumptions you have not justified.
July 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Quote Nigel:
“In terms of the Apollo missions, this culture does no direct harm. However, when applied to other fields of human endeavour (global warming and vaccinations spring to mind), this culture haas the potential to do a huge amount of harm. So, by preventing the propagation of moon-hoax belief, we are battling against this culture of willful ignorance”
Although I do believe we went to the moon I also recognize the fact that people who don’t think we did have some legitimate questions about it. I see no point in demonizing them.
I think their best arguments are in these two videos. Actual Apollo 11 footage of the astronauts setting up a false earth through window camera shot in the Apollo capsule while in orbit presumably to dupe people into thinking the earth was FAR away when it wasn’t. I don’t keep up with the Apollo debate all that much but has this been debunked?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fHAISw6bZ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duijen-flwk&feature=related
.
July 26th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
@RST,
Nope. The MH don’t have legitimate questions about the Apollo program. Much less have the honest questions. Their entire position rests on Logical Fallacies as DWD points out in #520. Their questioning is Begging The Question.
July 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Quote Peter:
“Nope. The MH don’t have legitimate questions about the Apollo program. Much less have the honest questions. Their entire position rests on Logical Fallacies as DWD points out in #520. Their questioning is Begging The Question.”
You watched those video and dismiss them out of hand? Why? They came from NASA and there is some strange stuff going on. You don’t seem to have much of a curious mind.
.
July 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
RST
No, I hadn’t seen them. And, yes, I rejected them out of hand. You see, one can treat moan-hoaxer-ism, 9/11 truther-ism, JFK-ism, Creationism etc. as a phenomenon that one can study using the scientific method. During many years of debating moon-hoaxers, 9-11 truthers I’ve developed a pretty good idea of their methodology (hypothesis on the *-ism’s, if you will) that explains pretty good how we hear them argue and has proven to have predictive power. I therefore consider it a theory, far more eloquently explained than I could in #520.
Now I’ve seen your videos and they fit the theory: Begging The Question, Affirming the Consequent, Circular Logic are the ones that stand out.
I’m not going to waste my time anymore listening to their arguments unless they finally start to build their case.
July 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Quote Peter:
“No, I hadn’t seen them. And, yes, I rejected them out of hand. You see, one can treat moan-hoaxer-ism, 9/11 truther-ism, JFK-ism, Creationism etc. as a phenomenon that one can study using the scientific method.”
I think you paint a broad brush over conspiracy theorists. Some believe in certain ones while others don’t but believe other conspiracy theories.
Do you believe in any conspiracies? Even the ones that have been proven like the Gulf of Tonkin?
20 years ago you would have been considered a nut if you said there was a group that called themselves the Bilderbergers but now they accept the fact that people know about them and even have PR people.
.
July 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@RST
Well, I accept f.i. Watergate, Iran-Contra as true because this are solidly founded in the facts. For these theories an evidence driven constructive argument, using valid rules of logical inference, can be put forward that leads to the stated conclusion. These are conspiracy theories in the scientific sense of the word.
With my list of -ism’s I referred to conspiracy theories in the popular sense of the word. These follow a pattern described in #520. I wrote “etc.” because I suspect the list is not exhaustive. In fact, it isn’t: I’ve seen the Hudson river splash down conspiracy in detail and it follows the same pattern, I’ve never seen the Roswell incident conspiracy and Holocaust-denialism in much detail, but what I’ve seen from it, fits.
I would accept f.i. 9/11 Trutherism, if such a evidence driven, constructive argument was put forward. I’ve challenged many a truther to provide evidence and such a constructive argument. Invariably I have found that when pressed for evidence and such an argument they can only come up with incoherent lists of perceived anomalies, half-truths, factlets and quotes stripped from their context, some of those put into another context, falsehoods, etc. etc. that suit the stated conclusion , whilst ignoring the greater body of relevant evidence. They invariably can’t even begin to build their case.
July 26th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Quote Peter:
“Well, I accept f.i. Watergate, Iran-Contra as true because this are solidly founded in the facts. For these theories an evidence driven constructive argument, using valid rules of logical inference, can be put forward that leads to the stated conclusion. These are conspiracy theories in the scientific sense of the word.”
Those are all conspiracies that the government and the MSM says we can believe in. We have their permission. I’m getting the feeling that your definition of “proof” is things they tell us are OK to believe in.
Are there any conspiracies you believe in that would put you in the minority? Puts you in danger of being called a conspiracy nut? Makes you guilty of living life on the edge? I’m guessing you play it safe and wait for their blessings. Wouldn’t want to stick out like a sore thumb.
.
July 27th, 2009 at 12:24 am
@RST
Look, if believe I’ve stated quite clearly what I mean what it takes me to be convinced of theory PQR. How you can mistake it for “your definition of “proof” is things they tell us are OK to believe in..” is beyond me.
Your “I have got the feeling” is way off. Now, bugger off with your paranoia and Appeal To Emotion and seek professional help, it is clear your psyche is not in order.
If you want me to convince of theory PQR: build your case.
July 27th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Why can I zoom in on things as little as cars and even people (they look like little black dots) with the satellite pics of earth in google earth?? But the moon shots don’t have anywhere near the detail. And they aren’t even taking the moon pics through an atmosphere like the earth ones are?
July 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Can anyone explain how a decade old 1 m camera aboard Ikonos can take a clearer picture of my car from 280 miles up through dirty atmosphere than this brand new .5 m camera can capture of a MUCH larger object from 31 miles up through no atmosphere? I didn’t think so.
Just to review… 10 years newer technology, twice the camera resolution, an object twice as big as the average SUV, from 9 time closer with no pollution to obscure the view. Any idiot with google earth can tell the difference.
This latest baloney from NASA is very disappointing, but that’s what you get from an agency that flushes billions of $ down the crapper every year and then tries to cover it up.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
RST (545) said:
Well, this is either disingenuous or immensely naive.
What questions do the HBs have that they could not answer for themselves with a few minutes (or hours in some cases) of research?
What legitimate questions can they have, when they repeatedly reject or ignore the answers that are given?
Have you read what objections the HBs have? I mean, are you genuinely aware of what you are saying?
July 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
RST (549) said:
There are enough common elements that the broad brush is mostly correct.
To believe in any conspiracy, you must believe in a government that is (a) super-competent in covering up information they don’t want the populace to know, and (b) at the same time sufficiently incompetent that they “let slip” the items that the HBs pick on as “evidence”. This is an extraordinary claim in any circumstance, and I simply don’t buy it. Show me the evidence. And I mean real, hard evidence, not speculation.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Skeptical (553) said:
Google Earth is composed of aerial photographs as well as satellite images.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Steve (554) said:
OK, this raises a few questions. First, show me (or link to) the pictures to which you refer. Second, demonstrate (i.e. cite the documentation trail) that these pics were taken using the satellite to which you refer. Third, demonstrate that the satellite was indeed at the altitude you claim when the picture was taken.
First off, the LEM descent stage (viewed from above) is not even twice the area of a typical American car (it measured 14 feet across the diagonal, which is about 4 m). That’s not “much” larger, it’s only a little bit larger.
Second, you are asking me to accept your many factoids about the capability of satellite imaging of Earth’s surface without any support, so for all I know you’re just making it up.
Third, LRO was about 65 miles above the surface of the moon when it took these pics, which, although still substantially closer than the distance you claim for Earth-orbit satellites, is about twice the distance you claim. If you have got this fact wrong, why should I trust you to get any of the others right?
Only true if your facts are correct. One at least was wrong.
OK, smartypants, you tell me what new developments there have been in telescope resolving technology in the last 10 years. Why should that make any difference at all?
Also, Google Earth uses aerial photographs as well as satellite images.
Well, you have yet to make a case, in fact. Your factoids could simply have been made up on the spot to bolster your criticism of NASA. You also have got the height of LRO’s orbit when it took these pics wrong, and the size of the LEM descent stage. Additionally, you seem to be ignorant of how Google Earth acquires its high quality images, which seems to be rather central to your whinge. IOW, with this kind of “argument”, you couldn’t even convince me that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Finally, you whine that NASA wastes billions of dollars but have made no effort to support this libellous claim. As far as I am aware, NASA’s accounts are in the public domain (since they are a non-military government agency), so it should be extremely easy for you to present some evidence to support your claim if you care to show some integrity. If not, simply don’t bother posting again.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:13 am
RST (545) said:
So, you would have me believe that the astronauts filmed themselves while setting up a part of the “hoax”? You must think I was born yesterday.
I vaguely recall reading something about this, and it turned out that the crew were actually doing something completely different from what the HBs claim – there was no “false Earth”. I cannot, however, recall what it was that they were doing, nor where I read about it.
July 28th, 2009 at 6:33 am
558 Nigel said:
“First, show me (or link to) the pictures to which you refer. Second, demonstrate (i.e. cite the documentation trail) that these pics were taken using the satellite to which you refer. Third, demonstrate that the satellite was indeed at the altitude you claim when the picture was taken.”
How convenient that this site won’t let me post any links. You’ll just have to type them in. Steve
First: satimagingcorp dot com/galleryimages/ikonos-vancouver-canada.jpg (Look at all those blurry white dots in the parking lot!) Other similar images: satimagingcorp dot com/gallery-ikonos.html
Second: Uh, that’s a tough one. The website could be lying about the source of their images.
Third: geoeye dot com/CorpSite/products/imagery-sources/Default.aspx?keywords=ikonos&creative=1350458344&gclid=COS9staay5UCFQxxHgodvCAIiQ
Quote: “Orbital Altitude” “681 km” which works out to…. well, you got me. My “factoid” was wrong. The Ikonos satellite is actually 423 miles altitude, not 280 miles as I first claimed. This makes LRO 13.6 times closer than Ikonos once LRO reaches it’s final altitude. Unfortunately I didn’t have time to consult NORAD to see what it’s altitude currently is or if it’s actually in orbit at all, so who knows. Again, maybe GeoEye is lying. Maybe a meteoroid hit it yesterday.
Nigel said: “First off, the LEM descent stage (viewed from above) is not even twice the area of a typical American car (it measured 14 feet across the diagonal, which is about 4 m). That’s not “much” larger, it’s only a little bit larger.”
Point taken. I knew that “much larger” was going to get thrown back at me.
“Second, you are asking me to accept your many factoids about the capability of satellite imaging of Earth’s surface without any support, so for all I know you’re just making it up.”
I guess you will just have to Google, read, use uncommon common sense, reserve judgment until you have the big picture. You know – the same way you find out that NASA isn’t making up their factoids. But then again, that will be kind of hard, since their MO is, “this is what happened, this is what you should believe, take our word for it”, and we all know the Almighty god, err I mean, U.S. Government would never lie.
“Third, LRO was about 65 miles above the surface of the moon when it took these pics, which, although still substantially closer than the distance you claim for Earth-orbit satellites, is about twice the distance you claim. If you have got this fact wrong, why should I trust you to get any of the others right?”
nasa dot gov/home/hqnews/2009/jun/HQ_09-144_LRO_moon_orbit.html Touche! I was not aware that LRO is not in it’s final orbit of 31 miles. Your right, it’s easy to ignore the truth of the big picture when working so hard to find “factoids”.
Nigel said: “OK, smartypants, you tell me what new developments there have been in telescope resolving technology in the last 10 years. Why should that make any difference at all?”
I was actually thinking of CCD technology, but again your instinct on this subject is astounding. It seems that NASA has elected to use a 7 year old chip design, and an effective focal length of 700 mm, which would obviously make this camera quite inferior to the latest technology.
kodak dot com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/datasheet/linear/KLI-5001LongSpec.pdf
lroc dot sese dot asu dot edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications
Nigel said: “Finally, you whine that NASA wastes billions of dollars but have made no effort to support this libelous claim.”
“Support” is one blog entry away. blogs dot discovermagazine dot com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/launch-pad-countdown/
Quote: “The purpose of Launch Pad is to help scifi authors learn astronomy and physics so that they can use more in their work. I think it’s a fantastic idea, and it’s even cooler that it’s got NASA funding.” Well how fitting. NASA has always specialized in science fiction.
My Final point:
My original premise still stands, the technology to provide hi-res images of the Apollo landing sites has been commercially available for over 10 years. In fact the images released so far should look at least this clear: geoeyemediaportal dot s3 dot amazonaws dot com/assets/images/gallery/manmade/structures/hires/Moffett2.jpg when taking into account all the FACTS which I previously mentioned. Perhaps you would like to explain the image quality of what has been released so far. I can think of only three reasons. 1. NASA couldn’t afford the best technology (Not likely), 2. They are incompetent or 3. There is nothing to see, so it is easier to blame poor resolution than to explain why a camera that can see an beach ball from 423 miles can’t see a LM from 65 miles.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
@Steve: Your posts may well be the most intellectually dishonest and disingenuous I’ve seen yet on this thread. So let me start by congratulating you for that.
Now, let me see if I can summarize:
Contention A: Technology that would enable the LROC “to provide hi-res images of the Apollo landing sites has been commercially available for over 10 years.”
Contention B: The photos released by NASA do not exhibit this level of resolution.
Conclusions (pick one): Therefore, (a) NASA couldn’t afford the best technology (which you sarcastically contend is unlikely); (b) NASA engineers are incompetent (which you apparently consider more likely than a lack of funding); or (c) There is nothing to see, so NASA is using poor resolution to mask the absence of any artifacts at the supposed Apollo landing sites (which you point to as your most likely scenario by making a smart@$$ remark about the supposed capabilities of a camera you’ve already pointed out NASA didn’t elect to use, as if the use of older technology somehow inherently implies conspiracy).
Really, Steve? Seriously? Go back and read my post #520. You’ll find your particular flavor of flawed reasoning there. As for your conclusions, if this were a multiple choice test, I’d have to require you to provide an option (d) None of the above, because you’ve simply ignored any conclusions that would be based on available facts, instead going for the three most outrageously unlikely ones I can think of. No, wait… I wouldn’t have thought of any of those, so another round of kudos for creativity.
Two additional comments:
1. If you’ll go to the LRO site, you’ll be able to take a look at the mission goals. If you dig a little more, you’ll see that the LRO instruments were specifically designed and built to meet those goals as well as some some very stringent operating condition requirements over the mission’s expected lifetime. What you won’t find is a mission goal that says anything about providing photos of the Apollo landing sites with resolutions to your specifications. So SURPRISE! There’s a difference between what is technologically possible (and what you think should have been done) and what is actually specified in the mission requirements as dictated by its goals. You and your ilk often seem to want it both ways, don’t you? Another HB complained earlier that scientists in the 20th century couldn’t seem to meet the requirements of finding a cure for cancer, as if medical research and scientific discovery were contracted projects with goals, requirements, budget, and schedule deadlines. Then when we DO talk about a project with all those things that is by any measure incredibly successful, you feel you should be able to make up your own additional requirements and then accuse the project of not meeting them. Even more outrageously, you then go on to use that as evidence of collusion and conspiracy.
2. If you’ll look up through previous posts, you’ll see that it is quite possible — and easy — to post links. You just type them in. So there is no “convenient” conspiracy by Discover to prevent you from presenting your evidence by not “letting” you include links. There is medication for this level of paranoia, BTW.
OH, almost forgot. You also made the even more outrageous remark: “Uh, that’s a tough one. The website could be lying about the source of their images.” Thousands of honest, talented, and extremely hard-working people have spent long years dedicating themselves to the space program. They–not the sometimes bureaucratic, undoubtedly top-heavy, often politically hamstrung agency called NASA–enabled man to land on the moon and everything in the space program before or since, including the LRO. These achievements represent the best of what humanity can be, and your petty, casual accusations are an offense against them, not some government-funded monster you feel the need to attack.
So by all means exercise your freedom to criticize and question. But have the courtesy and civility to honestly gather information, build a logically consistent position, and state it clearly without deflection, misdirection, and appeals to some mysterious concept of reasonableness that would demand that we ignore volumes of evidence to the contrary. After all these hundreds of posts, we STILL don’t have a single HB willing/able to step up and specifically address ANY of the logical or evidentiary objections stated in this thread. Deflection, misdirection, obfuscation, bait-and-switch, paranoia, appeals to emotion, and appeals to fear; those appear to be the only tools you have. They won’t work here.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
@ Nigel Depledge (543)
While I agree with you that perpetuating and fostering an atmosphere of mistrust of NASA, scientists, et. al. by the HB is reckless at best and rather dangerous to our progress as a species, I still firmly believe that we will return to the Moon and eventually the HBs will have to see the ignorance of their ways. Progress will always destroy and trump ignorance and stupidity given enough time – that fact has been proven time and again in history. However, I do totally agree with you regarding the dishonour they do to the brave men who risked their lives to push progress forward.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Dan Nigel and others
I apologize for the tone of my previous posts. I raised the level by responding to the tone of Nigel’s post to me, but correctly perceived or not I should not have done that.
I think that there is a host of questions that have been raised regarding this event that haven’t been honestly answered by LB’s, and yes I have read a considerable amount of “debunking” material. I find it to be evasive, unscientific and crafted for shallow thinkers. That said, I should have had the good sense not raise those questions here. You guys can paste another “HB” sticker on the side of your spacecraft.
Bye
July 29th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Just so we got the specs of the camera right:
Two narrow-angle cameras on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) will make high-resolution, black-and-white images of the surface, capturing images of the poles with resolutions down to 1 meter (about 3.3 feet). A third, wide-angle camera (WAC), will take color and ultraviolet images over the complete lunar surface at 100-meter (almost 330-foot) resolution. These images will show polar lighting conditions, identify potential resources and hazards, and aid selection of safe landing sites. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC), developed at Arizona State University in Tempe.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:32 am
Dan Said:
“If you’ll go to the LRO site, you’ll be able to take a look at the mission goals. If you dig a little more, you’ll see that the LRO instruments were specifically designed and built to meet those goals as well as some some very stringent operating condition requirements over the mission’s expected lifetime. What you won’t find is a mission goal that says anything about providing photos of the Apollo landing sites with resolutions to your specifications. So SURPRISE! There’s a difference between what is technologically possible (and what you think should have been done) and what is actually specified in the mission requirements as dictated by its goals. You and your ilk often seem to want it both ways, don’t you?”
Lets say you are correct, then I would submit it is not good business. If you have a hundred missions and all of them are done for the interests of some scientists then its no wonder people are losing interest in what they do. There is nothing wrong with setting aside i mission to pander to the people who actually pay the bills.
I know of no corporation that does not pander to their customers a little bit. It makes good business sense to do so. Your attitude is that the peons are too stupid to understand what they are doing so just shut up. I would say that is arrogant and elitist. If there were a choice of vendors in this matter then I am sure the people would pick the vendor that would listen to them once in awhile instead of a vendor with the attitude that they will do as they wish and you can take it or leave it as they could care less. It should be a two way street but minus the competition its a one way street and the people that pay the bills are the ones left completly out of the equation.
What needs to happen is they need a volunteer civilian board to have a say in at least one of their missions ecery couple of years.
.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:30 am
[...] the horoscope for LRO is really bad, but only a few days after she posted that page NASA released those incredible pictures LRO took of the Apollo landing sites. And maybe someone should tell her that LRO is going to do a wee bit more than "crash a rocket [...]
July 31st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Steve said “Quote: “The purpose of Launch Pad is to help scifi authors learn astronomy and physics so that they can use more in their work. I think it’s a fantastic idea, and it’s even cooler that it’s got NASA funding.” Well how fitting. NASA has always specialized in science fiction.”
Yes Steve…you are correct that NASA spent a few of thousand dollars to promote the use of actual science in science fiction. However, the amount spent on LaunchPad is an insignificant amount when taken in the context of the total NASA budget and was spent on a goal diametrically opposite of your contention.
The goal was to promote the use of actual science in popular science fiction in order to encourage the interest in actual science as a whole. It was NOT spent to “recruit” science fiction writers or special effects people to assist in conspiracies. In case you haven’t heard, the basis of a conspiracy is that it is a SECRET! Having a publicly funded, publicly advertised program to recruit new “conspiracy enablers” would be just a wee bit counter-productive.
I ask you and the other HBs to do the same thing others have asked repeatedly…hold yourselves to the same level of proof you hold NASA. You won’t, of course, do this because your argument cannot survive if you did.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:31 pm
RST says “Lets say you are correct, then I would submit it is not good business. If you have a hundred missions and all of them are done for the interests of some scientists then its no wonder people are losing interest in what they do. There is nothing wrong with setting aside i mission to pander to the people who actually pay the bills.”
NASA has not had to “pander to the people who actually pay the bills” because the missions satisfy 99.9% of the population with no pandering required.
The photos from Hubble are among the most popular photos ever taken…not just the most popular NASA photos mind you…but the most popular EVER! If you show the average guy in the street the “Pillars of Creation” photo and ask him what it is, the response is an almost unanimous version of “That’s that picture taken by Hubble right?”. If you ask the same person if the money on Hubble was well spent…it is an almost unanimous “Yes”. The photos taken by Cassini-Huygens are also some to of the most iconic photos popular culture has seen since the Voyager missions.
It is an amazingly arrogant position to believe just because you cannot find beauty, science, and value in the results from NASA that no other person could. Don’t be so egomaniacal as to think the rest of us should be as closed minded as you.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:47 pm
RST said “What needs to happen is they need a volunteer civilian board to have a say in at least one of their missions ecery couple of years.”
I case you missed it in your high school government class…NASA is a civilian organization that receives government funding. While the head of NASA is a political appointee, the employees are civilian and the vast majority do not qualify for “civil servant” status or job protection.
Also, NASA is reviewed by a civilian board…it’s called The U.S. Congress…and most in Congress would rather shut NASA down as give them a dime.
NASA survives because it has a very deep and very ardent support from the public in general. While there are some very vocal opponents of NASA, the vast majority of “average Americans” realize the amount of technology and science that comes from NASA and oppose most attempts to shut it down. They also have the common sense to realize the moon hoax claims are a load of B.S. They take pride in what NASA did with Apollo and wish NASA could rise to that greatness again. In my experience the most common question asked about NASA is “Why did we quit?”. The answer unfortunately involves politics and budgets, and has nothing to do with actual goals.
August 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 am
I’m sure the readers are smart enough to examine the pictures and come to their own conclusions. Like, how does an 11 foot tall Descent Module cast such a large shadow? We all know the Ascent Module is no longer on the moon surface-Right? Looking at all the photos available and judging by the scale they provide, I would say Photo-Shop was in use once again. Impossible Pic.
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
If people are going to believe in crazy conspiracy theories, it’s probably best for all of us that they believe in theories that will get them punched by Buzz Aldrin.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Look closer !
you can see buzz aldrin chewing gum !
oh there ! Armstrong had a hole in his left Converse, you can see the print !
What the hell do you SEE ?
four pixels
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Steve (560) said:
OK, accepting, for the sake of argument, that Ikonos did indeed take those pics and was indeed at 681 km altitude at the time . . . how big is its telescope? All the website you directed me to has is resolutions. I could not find any mention of the size of the ‘scope.
LRO, by contrast, is bound to be substantially smaller and lighter (in fact, they would have made it as small and light as possible, because it had to be boosted out of NEO to an apogee of about 240,000 miles and had to do this while carrying enough fuel to decelerate into lunar orbit when it got there). As another commenter has pointed out, LRO was designed to perform a mission that was not the imaging of the Apollo hardware. The fact that it can do this is a bonus.
A probe that could image the Apollo hardware in the same detail that Ikonos offers would have been significantly larger and heavier, and therefore would have required a substantially larger fuel budget for every stage from liftoff through to lunar orbital insertion. So, I will concede that it may indeed be technically possible to send a probe to the moon that has better imaging resolution than LRO. However, I feel bound to point out that such a mission is unlikely ever to be funded, because it would add no value above LRO’s capabilities (in terms of lunar mapping and reconnaissance) and would cost several times as much to send into lunar orbit.
And I still say that LRO is a significant technical achievement. To place such a high-performance instrument into lunar orbit is a big deal.
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
John (570) said:
You know, I couldn’t decide if this was a Poe or someone who is genuinely that thick.
However, for the benefit of the very few human beings who have not already spotted the flaw in this statement…
I once cast a shadow that was 20 feet long. Does that mean I have to be 20 feet tall? No, of course not! The length of a shadow depends on two things: the size of the object casting the shadow and the angle of illumination*.
* In fact there’s a third factor: the slope of the ground. I left this out at first to try and keep it simple, then I decided to compromise.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:16 am
“”"I’m sure the readers are smart enough to examine the pictures and come to their own conclusions. Like, how does an 11 foot tall Descent Module cast such a large shadow? We all know the Ascent Module is no longer on the moon surface-Right? Looking at all the photos available and judging by the scale they provide, I would say Photo-Shop was in use once again. Impossible Pic.”"”
You should go out more, especially at late dawn of a sunny day, I also once casted a shadow several times of my size. Was funny to look like a giant if you’d judge by the shadow on the street.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
[...] APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine there’s a satellite called the lunar reconnaissance orbiter (which orbits the moon) that took some pretty damn good photos of the landing site. see above link. conspiricy theories are stoopid __________________ MILITARY CREWE-4 [...]
August 4th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Nice of NASA (Never A Straight Answer) to provide their own photos! LOL!
You think if I claimed I went to the Moon, showed videos of it and provided my own pictures later to prove it I could fool a bunch of gullible people too?
This proves NOTHING, but maybe that NASA can still retouch photos!
August 5th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Thank you Nigel and Muriem for confirming my opinion. A man standing approximately 6 feet tall may cast a shadow 20 feet long. A Descent Module standing 11 feet tall will not cast a shadow a hundred feet long. That was all taken into consideration before I submitted this. Do the math.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
*Attention to all those who have been brainwashed into believing manned moon landings took place, class is in session, I do this for your benefit and hope you appreciate it*
Regarding the Standards of Proof for Manned Lunar Landings
1) I want to first remind those who love science like me about a principle of the scientific method before commenting on the photographs of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter as evidence for manned moon landings which by the way provide a great example on this topic, but not in the way hoped for by those who put such evidence forward. The Scientific Method involves among other things the cornerstone of independent verification through repeatable testing to confirm a claim. More specifically, it involves clearly observing an event or the results of an event.
I am going to now offer some speculation on how thousands could be involved in a fraud and never say anything. First of all, just like in the military in which an operation takes place, it is possible for it to have moving parts in a compartmentalized way involving thousands doing there little part without seeing how it fits or doesn’t fit in the bigger picture or operation. An example would be the Manhattan Project which went on for years before it was revealed in the form of an atomic bomb exploding over Japan. Secondly, there could also be threats to a person or their family if they revealed anything should the promise of bribery or fame not be enough. In fact many premature deaths and accidents have happened to some of the men involved in the on going program of manned moon landing operations (just do a google search).
2) The example I like to use to make the point is the following; if I claim superman just flew behind you the burden of proof is on me making the claim (or a claim that there were manned missions to the moon), not on the one doubting superman just flew behind him to prove 100% it didn’t happen before the claim can be taken back. Unfortunately, no telescope on earth either from an observatory or even Hubble can see the result of a manned moon landing event, the excuse given is a problem of resolution, which means the burden of proof still remains in place and especially more so for those who hope to satisfy those who want direct evidence rather than circumstantial evidence such as radio and video transmissions which can be manipulated as we all know by the feats performed out of Hollywood. All that has been provided is circumstantial evidence with the exception of eyewitness testimony from astronauts directly involved, but definitely not neutral eyewitnesses who have much to gain from such a fraud. This aspect will be looked at more, along with the circumstantial evidence using my superman analogy. It is critical that new generations be able to independently verify an event; for example like an airplane being able to carry people from point A to point B which clearly there is no controversy, short of this standard a claim becomes myth or a legend after a certain amount of time.
3) Now regarding the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the photographs put forward as evidence of manned moon landings (assuming they are actual photographs and not computer simulated) common sense and/or the scientific method should be used. In the first photograph, the object which is claimed to be the Lunar Module of Apollo 11 (the first of six manned moon landings) is approximately twice the size of a similar object to the right near the edge of the photograph which is not commented on (both could simply be natural terrain features which could be ruled out later if more photos of the terrain are provided). What is the other similar looking, but smaller object? Possibly equipment carried there by the astronauts? Unlikely, because it would be too heavy, approximately half the size of the LM that is claimed to be the bigger object, even with the more relaxed gravity on the moon. Maybe it is the famed Moon Rover/MR or a similar device? No it couldn’t be that because the first mission of the Apollo 11 didn’t have anything like that. It could even be man made objects of previous unmanned missions, but objectively speaking it is not conclusive proof of an Apollo 11 manned landing or even of an unmanned mission without greater resolution which will be discussed more later.
4) In the second photograph the object which is claimed to be the LM of Apollo 14 can not be conclusive proof of a manned moon landing either. The object claimed to be the Lunar Module could just as well be an unmanned probe or possibly a crash site for it where the other piece which is claimed to be scientific instruments may have broken off from the main piece and trailed off (the so called boot print path of the astronauts) from the impact point before stopping. Of course, it could be again natural features. Using the same argument of resolution problems put forward for why telescopes can’t clearly see anything as the excuse for a lack of conclusive proof, I could also put forward as one who doubts. Such concerns would be more legitimate because of who the burden of proof is on. In fact why is it that we have spy satellites which can resolve a license plate on a car, but the LRO employed by the same government at similar distances of orbit (probably less and with less atmospheric interference) can’t get more detail of manned moon landing artifacts? Finally, I can’t help but notice the humor in the faith exhibited by the comment “lunar surface was disturbed by the astronauts boot prints” which easily places this person in the category of a high priest of manned moon landings!
5) By the way in the diagram of the LM where is the Moon Rover? I wonder if the Air and Space Museum display accounts for the hauling and unloading of the MR from the LM which supposedly took place on three of the manned moon landings? They would probably say their display of the LM is for missions that didn’t include the Moon Rover.
6) The scientific evidence which caused me to first doubt and suspect the manned moon landings to be a fraud, if you are curious can be found in all the video in which dust is kicked up by the astronauts and the Moon Rover (it can be viewed on You Tube-it hasn’t been put down the memory hole by the ministry of truth yet for those who have read George Orwell’s book 1984). As a side note, some of the original Apollo 11 footage has been destroyed by NASA. This was accidental, of course, but nevertheless any second generation copy would lose some of the quality of first generation original film! Anyway the arc pattern of the dust kicked up follows the same pattern it does on earth just in slow motion (nice touch by the way), and the common argument given can’t be applied to the dust like it has for the astronauts which is they had weights or equipment attached to them so as to account for the 1/6 gravity on the moon as compared to the earth! The dust should continue going up much more since the moon is 1/6 the gravity of the earth according to NASA. I know one could always shift the burden of proof back on the one who doubts by saying the dust is much heavier, now prove to 100% it is not until you do the pro-manned moon landing position will not take back the claim that the dust is heavier than the dust on earth. Could that ever be done by a little guy like me, particularly if it is not true? Are you beginning to see how this works?
7) Final thoughts to tie it all together, regarding circumstantial evidence like radio and video transmissions, it would be similar to a projector putting out an image of superman on a wall behind the person who doubts. This kind of evidence from a circumstantial evidence perspective could easily pass as a true event. However, an example of direct evidence would be a camera on the wall behind or to the side of the individual which would pick up superman if indeed it was a real object, but because it was not a real object, but just a projection of light in the form of superman it does not (operated by someone with the only agenda being to reveal truth and not propaganda). Perhaps some similar excuse would be put forward by those perpetrating the fraud like the camera can’t resolve the object properly, the same argument put forward of why telescopes and even the LRO can not see the objects in detail because of resolution problems.
9) In closing I think much of the NASA mission is legitimate like space probes, satellites, rockets, and space shuttles. Perhaps the fraudulent manned moon landings were necessary in order to get long term confidence and funding for all these other successful projects. After all, look at the times during the 60’s and 70’s, nothing good was going on other than good music and movies, a boost in the public morale was needed and who better to provide it than the criminal administration of the Nixon years in which quite a few members of it were convicted and served time in jail due to other crimes committed. Incidently, all the manned moon landings started and ended under that particular administration. I have heard many in the Baby Boomer generation state that many older people didn’t believe the manned moon landing missions were real. Could it be that they were not conditioned to believe in it as much as Baby Boomers who grew up on Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and Star Trek? All of which I love too, but know the difference between science, science fiction, and science fantasy. These lines are not only blurred, but confused now, just look at the debate regarding Evolution and Intelligent Design as well as Global Warming and if it is occurring and caused by man. These subjects show a population divided and they dominate the many forms of media in an unbalanced way I might add due to misconceptions!
10) Thanks for being true liberals and reading what I had to say instead of blocking it out and repeating the party line. I hope you continue to expand your thinking beyond the confines imposed on you!
August 5th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Dear Bad Astronomer,
Thanks for posting this. Sadly there will still be a few die-hard hoax people who will always believe that NASA faked the moon landings. Thanks also for posting the opinion from “Stacey” as this nonsense is a typical example of the scientific illiteracy so typical among hoax mongers.
August 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@JOHN, theoretically speaking, a casted shadow can be indefinitely long. This is not an argument. A single man can cast a hundret feet shadow as well, given the conditions are set right.
So what math should I do? What math *did* you do? Triginometry? Try again! You must failed basic maths pretty hard, if you don’t know the cathetus of a orthogonal triangle goes to infinity as the second angle nears 90°
August 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Stacey, you assume moon dust is in anyway similar to earth dust which is just false.
Also do you know the laws of gravity? The weigth doesn’t matter for acceleration speed. Just now? You learn this in physics 101 that weigth cancels itself out. A kg of stone falls just as fast as a kg of feathers in a non atmosphere.
“”"I know one could always shift the burden of proof back on the one who doubts by saying the dust is much heavier”"”
Just to highltigth that moon hoaxers have not the faintest idea of physics, yet claim to know it all better. Thats also the same about the astronouts, their downward acceleration will not vary with the weigth they have with them. It will “just” allow them to use more force when walking, reducing the start velocity when they lift of ground.
Well one could calculate the arc dust should fly (which is again independant of dust weight!) however it would require exact knowledge of the starting velocity it was kicked of ground, and in any way an exact messurement of the height it flew. From any camera x feet this is much fragile for any sane calculation. Don’t know how this could be done in a useful way. It only works for somebody totally unaware of gravity physics saying… ohhh.. it does look so similar to the dust i know… this must be fake… idiots, all togheter.
August 8th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Great Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know we are all ignorants in this world and life,
the great thing is that WE ALL DON’T IGNORE THE SAME THINGS!
August 8th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
where are the pics of the moon rovers?
August 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
moon rovers were used on the apollo missions 15-17. As you can easily see at the pictures aboves they are from apollo 11 and 14. Moon hoaxers… *rolls eyes*… i mean this easy facts turns up in a 60 seconds research…
August 9th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Muriem,
please feel free to take as many pictures as you like from any angle you possibly can to prove your shadow theory. Don’t worry about “The Math”, just show me your proof. Create a scale model with artificial light and show me what you are claiming. For the record, I’ve spent eight years in the US military as an aviation analyst. During my time, I have served this country in war and I am proud of what we have accomplished. Just not fooled by propaganda.
August 10th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Some shots:
http://moblog.net/media/k/o/s/kostika/bright-sun-long-shadow-1.jpg
http://www.yogawarrior.co.za/Portals/20/images/WAW86479.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/u27/monish/large/10906839.DSCN9240.jpg
And this is my favorite on ice, a condition with a few obstacles, just like on the moon:
http://polar.home.att.net/march-pics/longshadow1-72.jpg
Note that on the moon without atmosphere the light of the sun is not dimmed if it comes in really flat, as on earth in that condition it has to pass through a lot of atmosphere.
Proof enough, that a lunar module can throw a shadow several times of its size?
About the math, you told me to do it. So the math is:
tan 90° = inf.
Or light coming in a degree of 89,9° will cast a shadow 572 times the size of the object. On earth such conditions are just rare, as there a) will always be too much obstacles in any path. b) light is going to be dimm already, as it passes a real long way through atmosphere.
And just about your theory if such a shadow would be impossible, why the hell should NASA fake then such a thing? Doesn’t make any sense.
August 10th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Also I don’t know how you ever get the idea the shadow is a hundret meters long? I guess you misjudge the size of the craters on the picture. The moon has also very small craters.
So a little more math to use. I take the picture of apollo 11. Zoom it out. You will see the shadow is aprox. double as large as the module itself is in width. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module you see the dimension of the module being 4,3m in diameter and having a 6.4m height. The shadow is thus aprox. 2*4.3m = 8.6m
Now a thing with 6.4m heigh casts a shadow of 8.6m in length! What a miracle!
If you want to know, this means sun came in an angle aprox. 53°. Must have been mid afternoon or morning on the moon.
The picture of apollo 14 has an even shorter shadow, aprox. 1,5 times the diameter of the lander. Thus must have been closer to moon-noon.
So I hope this nonsense about this shadow is settled once and for all.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Wow! You are quite the believer. You can take one photo out of the many posted and get it to work for you. My co-workers and I looked at all the photos available at the time and used the scale provided in those pics. There will be no convincing those ignorant enough to believe we set foot
on the moon and YET nobody else has ever accomplished it, or can figure out
how to. I hope you live at least another 50 years. After all the talk of returning to the moon, maybe fifty years from now, when we never return and nobody else accomplishes it, maybe then you will understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE. Then again, you will probably use the same excuse as the other loonies and say that going back had no benefit, so we didn’t. XOXOXO
August 12th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Bla, bla, bla, now without any prove left you are just wildly attacking around. Thats really really bad. Whos on the propaganda here believing in something (we were never on the moon) without *ANY* sane proof that holds against even short testing.
I’m not “the beliver” I just analysed the photos on the critism points *YOU* brought up. And the critics failed pretty hard.
Why hasn’t there been any more maned missions? Because there was no need to. The apollo programm was very expensive. And after the race as game of muscle meassurement between the systems of capitalism and comminism has been won (without futher consequences), there was really no need. Scientific output of continued missions was getting very small. Also for most scientific endavours you do not need man on the moon, a probe will do it much better, much cheaper, much safer. Thats what for example exactly what the LRO is now doing.
Just to quote myself:
“”"”I guess one could build a moonshuttle, bring you hoax-people up there, and headbang you on the lunar lander, you’d still say, “oww, oww, this proofs nothing, oww, oww, you just put it there. See the metal isn’t any rusty… oww, oww… after this years? unbelieveable. oww. owww ” [of course it isn’t in no oxygen atmosphere]“”"”
August 14th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
To Muriem
And there you have it!!! We were in a war, of sorts, to show the entire world who the true Superpower was. By demostrating such amazing technology, the United States would benefit enormously, at that time and from future endeavors, both financially and politically. Not talking Space, I’m talking Technology.
Now that we won, maybe we should send a manned-mission to ORBIT the moon. Take
along some unbiased, influential people, and let them see for themselves. The only
problem we would have there is, we have never put man into OUTTER-SPACE. We send
them to INNER-SPACE on a regular basis but still need to work on launch and recoveries.
“Nothing more to gain”? That’s been the point since we said we did it. The GAIN was made and nobody should fault the actors who participated in it. Great job!!!
As I stated in an earlier comment: I am proud of this country, more for the working class and the service man (Yes, that means women too – I just don’t like Political Correctness),
than for our government. But hey, I’ve fought in a war for them and would return if needed. I work in a field of cutting-edge technology. So for the gains I have from all of it,
I am grateful. Just not angry or ignorant about it.
Maybe the other countries who have lunar orbiters mapping the moon can send in some of their photographs of something other than space junk that has crashed on the moon.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
John, first there is a propbe now around the moon making photos. You don’t trust it? Your problem. And even if, in no way, you guys would trust any people sent there if it wasn’t themselves, why should they? They don’t trust the thousends of people involved in the apollo progam. Why should 3 “unbiased” ones make a change? And even if, you’d get on a roundtrip the moon yourself, as hoaxer idiot you’d still didn’t believe the apollo 11 was true, you’d just say “oh man, you’d guys just brought this evidence up”….
Did you bother to read through this whole page? IF not do so, most arguments were said.
1. Just suppose there is an apollo hoax… then *thousends* of people need to be involved. How did they even manage to shut them all up? You now, a secret can at max be kept by 2 persons, if one of them is dead. Okay, now suppose not all of the apollo program was involved only a very small group made the fakes (and just suppose the miracle they made, afar as ignoring stupidy of hoaxers, they “faked pictures proofs” were refuted here also several times, they made a *perfect* fake. For example a group of students recently calculated the distance of the moon by the time delay of apolos speak transmissions, they thought even about such minature details like that!
2. But okay lets suppose only a few people faked all that, then all the *thousend* of others involved made equipment THAT ACTUALLY WORKS! And all being scientists and non involved in the hoax, you suppose they were all so stupid to realize their stuff might not work? Redicolous. With all the working equpiment you’d could just go fly to the moon.
3. When apollo landed radio transmission were received all over the world. Even many, many amatour radios received the transmissions directly. And guess where did it come from? The moon.
4. There a several hundrets of moon rocks on earth. Some with materials that do hardly exist on earth like He3. Without doing much research I think the amount of He3 brought within moon rooks exceeds the total found naturally on earth.
5. With one(two) of the apollo missions a mirror was set on up on the moon facing earth, with some medicore amateur equipment everyone can laser it, and confirm that there is an artifical mirror on the moon facing earth. How did it get there? (and measure the earth moon distance along with it).
6. Even the USSR and many other organisations not befriended with the US believe the apollo program was genuine. And note that the USSR intelligence service was really not bad, at least at that time. They would have taken any chance to call a fake if there was only the slightest hint.
7. Note that faking one moon landing is already indefinitly complicated, why did they fake several of them? (and a near miss?) only to increase the amount of people involved? so even if only the very core was involved of astronauts “supposely” at the moon. how many are this already. 21? So you keep a secret within 21 people? And note there must have been at least several others of people setting up the stupidos, handling the cameras, building all the fake equipment etc. etc.
8. We now have in this very article LRO images of the moon landers. Now suppose the conspiracy is still going. How many people are now again involved? It gets more and more.
9. 3 people died in apollo testing, did the U.S. goverment just decide to burn em up to make the hoax more believable?
and so on and so on. And you have all that, and no single sane proof of fake.Any “proof” that got presented fails even on short testing, like not being able to read scales correctly, not understanding basic physics and so on.
Okay. one can have a very philosophical standpoint that all that is still no 100% proof. I agree in that. Take David Hume for that. But on the same standpoint, you’d also have to refuse that any other person might truely exist. That bread nourishes? (Maybe it was always just coincidence that you feel satisfied after eating breat?) And all that. Oh there is no singly100% *proof* that the sun will rise again tomorrow, or that gravitation not just would randomly change. Okay, if you want to be one of the ignorant philosphical sceptic, just be that, but don’t tell me of any “proof” that we weren’t on the moon.
BTW: I’m not U.S. citizen. So any “propaganda” does not apply to me like millions of others who view the actions of the U.S. with a critical eye, but that doesn’t affect in any way the moon landings.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
with no moisture, no water, no humidity,no mud no air on moon air is it possible to leave a footprint on moon as the picture shows.
NOTE:(THE SURFACE TEMPRATURE OF MOON IS SO HIGH CAUSED BY SUN THAT IT SEEMS UNLIKELY TO HAVE ANYKIND OF MOISTURE OR WETNESS TO REMAIN THERE)
August 15th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Even when it was proven the world was round there were sceptics who still believed it was flat.
We walked on the moon. If a government couldn’t keep a third rate bugulary (Watergate) involving a few people a secret, you really think they could keep a hoax involving thousands of people a secret for 40 years. No way….
August 15th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
This picture sums up very well the points that muriem above was making:
August 16th, 2009 at 8:31 am
@ CHANDAN,
Dude, the lunar regolith, or lunar soil, is not like the sand on the beach that have been finely polished into smooth, round grains over millions of years by repeated pounding from ocean waves. Lunar dust has a similar consistency to volcanic ash, and because of its coarse, abrasive texture, it has considerable cohesion properties which causes it stick together and also to everything else it comes into contact with.
Here is a PDF file on Lunar Soil Physical Properties.
P.S. THERE IS NO BLOODY NEED TO SHOUT!
August 17th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Never doubted it. I’ve been saying for years “Hell, just point the Hubble at ther moon for half an hour! We’ll see serial numbers and children’s initials carved in the moon dust!”
But did anyone listen to me? Noooooooo… (rant-rant-rant…)
*laughing* … take THAT all you “nattering nabobs of negativity”!
August 18th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I was looking at the apollo 16 pic http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369443main_lroc_apollo16_lrg.jpg . there is a second long shadow about 300m to the left of the lander. Anyone know what that is?
August 18th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
@IVAN3MAN :-
Thank you, for your information on Lunar Soil Physical Properties:-
Is the only footprint existing there or print of other things like
legs of lunar module,vehicle driven on moon surface etc. also there
August 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Jeff, honestly I’m not seeing anything on this picture. But apollo 16 mission had a moon rover with them, maybe its that?
August 19th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Judging from google moon, it looks like these may be just large rocks that are present in the highlands area where they landed. The recent pictures with the low angle light real make small craters look big. The one that the lander is on the edge of is realy just a slight depression. You can see this on google moon with a higher light angle.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
CHANDAN:
Indeed there are other prints on the surface of the Moon, such as in this picture below of a footpad print of the Surveyor III lander, which bounced a couple of times as it was landing, due to its engines failing to cut off at the predetermined height of 14 ft (4.3 m) because the highly reflective rocks confused Surveyor 3′s descent radar.
When Surveyor 3 landed on the Moon, it bounced a couple of times. The fine, delicate “honeycomb” pattern on the bottom of one of the footpads was preserved in the cohesive lunar soil, as shown in the lower right-hand corner of this Apollo 12 photograph.
Zoomable pictures of astronauts’ footprints and tracks from the Lunar Roving Vehicle on the surface of the Moon can be found here.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Deleted by author.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Silly question – What is the resolution of objects from Hubble — to the moon? Are there not any telescopes that can resolve to a few centimeters from earth orbit or ground?
August 24th, 2009 at 5:40 am
Why can’t we see a patch of light between the lunar module and its shadow in the photos? There should be one, as the module is standing on feet that are quite tall, and there would be sunlight passing under the lunar module.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:28 am
@ xana01,
Not a silly question, and to answer it, I’ll refer you to Dr. Phil Plait’s article on the subject:
Moon hoax: Why not use telescopes to look at the landers?
August 25th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Josef Birmann, because your eyes are dimmed? Zoomed in the picture of the apollo 11 you *do* see the shadow being rather dimm at its feet, changing to saturated a few meters on.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Stacey, absolutely 100%. Thanks for the effort.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/#comment-204092
Americans are so stupid, they don’t want to question. They believe in their government as some believe in God: that government never lies.
Well, let me tell you something. Look at the proof you have, and work from there. Don’t be silly and beat around the bush, providing “explanations” for inconsistencies that we know shouldn’t be there.
Bottom line is, as long as I know the truth, I am satisfied personally with the evidence I have seen, and I have seen anything logical to disprove it. Which is why I will make sure I teach my kids, and their kids to appreciate the truth, and work for it. I always said being stupid is easy on the brain, and if you don’t know what that means, its best you not injure yourself thinking.
I know the truth, and those who don’t.. simply follow in the footsteps of their ancestors.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Techydad – you made a comparison between Holocaust denial and Moon hoax believers.
There is a similarity but the more I look the more I look into both the more I see a worrying problem, its not the one you think.
I have no doubt the Apollo moon landings took place, the hoax believers otoh seem to rely on a collection of misunderstandings and contradictory theories to make their case.
And this is the problem; when reading the defenders of the conventional Holocaust narrative I am reminded of the Moon hoax believers. Defending their position with scraps of evidence and when that evidence is undermined, shifting their position again, while clinging just the same to their core belief.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Why Nasa cannot get a bigger picture of the landing site. Can any one see foot prints or lander clearly. If nasa pointing at a rock and say it is the lander all the idiots believe it. Wake up people and ask Nasa for a clear picture. If NASA can take clear picture of billions of light years away why they cannot take clear picture of the moon surface bigger photo. Lighten up people
September 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
@ Tiro,
Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I am not a moon conspiracy buff, but these pics really don’t prove anything. They are too fuzzy, pixelly, and low rez. Anyone can superimpose an arrow pointing to a dark blob on the pic and claim that “this is the lander”. This is not going to silence doubters. It’s a known fact that we have military satellites that from high earth orbit can clearly photograph things as small as one meter in length and clearly be able to tell what it is without “interpretation”. Most people are aware of this, and this is the sort of visual confirmation that they expect. We actually have orbiting satellites in orbit around Mars that can do similar photography. These moon pics look more like something taken with a serious amateur astronomers telescope. What people are looking for is incontroverible visual evidence that can be verified by someone other than an agency of the U.S. Government. Don’t get me wrong – I do hope that these are only initial pics, and that closer, more detailed pics are on the way. I’m waiting to see them….. We’ve heard lots of talk so far – I think everyone is waiting to see something a bit more conclusive.
September 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Moon landing conspiracy theories are the legacy of everything that happened in the 60′s that the government was not straight-up about. Vietnam, assassinations, govt “black projects”, etc. It has gotten to where it taints everything now, even things that probably did really happen like the moon landings.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:06 am
@ahmad general blah blah, you don’t even care to mention any “evidence”.
@tiro it has been posted over and over here why the achieved resolution is exactly the way it is. Secondly this pictures are not the only proof, there are tons over tons over tons of proof (moon rocks, videos, dozends pictures, radio transmissions, mirrors on the moon, hundrets of involved people, etc. etc.) So don’t go like “the bad resultion of this picture proofs its a hoax” it should be easy to see how stupid this argument is.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:21 am
lol. these pics are a joke ! in the year 2009 they can do nothing better? oh i saw really better pics of saturn and march … but NASA didn’t send any man on the moon, may be some automatic vehicle …. it’s so obvious (but in the world there are millions people that believe in a God against all evidence, it isn’t? !!!) poor stupid men …
September 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Wilbeck. Yes it is obvious how limited your mind is.
Well saturn and march (I guess you mean mars?) are WAAAY bigger than a landing module. So you compare taking a picture of an object that is 120,540,000.0 meters wide with an object that is 4.3 meters wide? Surprise the second is way more difficult. Considering that the pictures are excellent!
September 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@IVAN3MAN:-
WELL,NASA LOST THE ORIGINAL TAPES OF FIRST MOON LANDING,DOES THEY HAVE THE ORIGINAL TAPES OF OTHER MOON LANDINGS ?
CHANDAN
September 10th, 2009 at 10:56 am
The burden of proof is on those who make the claims. If I told you that I just visited the moon, you would probably expect more proof than some video, rocks, and these overdue, low-res pictures.
Could NASA have sent men to the moon? Yes. Could all of the “evidence” have been faked? Yes again.
So where does that leave us? Let’s put aside all of the name calling and emotions, and have reasonable, logical arguments.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Great pictures, especially the new Apollo 12 landing site image!
The true sadness about the HBs is not that they choose to remain ignorant, but rather:
1) They are allowed to vote (assuming they are old enough).
2) They are allowed to reproduce.
No more will I waste my time on them. Keep up the good work, Phil!
September 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Ive questioned the moon landing. And I always said, all I want is some pictures, taken recently, of the stuff thats still there. Then the argument is over, no problem. This is perfect, although I would really need a higher res pics than this.
Do any of you have friends in other non english speaking countries? Ask them about this, we are the only country that thinks we went to the moon. Its like a running joke that they dont bring up around americans, kinda like nazis to germans…they are scared to tell their american friends that they think its funny the whole country thinks we landed on the moon when the whole world doesnt.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:18 am
to BD
Don’t worry pal – EVERY one who has a bit of brains and some common sense is sure we – not just you, Americans but we, Earthlings – wen’t to the Moon. It’s not a matter of belief, attitude, political views or taste – it’s a matter of basic logic. And that is common to (most) people all over the world.
If conspiracy theorists don’t bother to learn some simple things to proove they are wrong or they are just too stupid for this, then why should we bother to try to convince them. You can’t appeal to the logic for someone who denies the logic itself.
September 12th, 2009 at 3:09 am
@Johnny, there is TONS of evidence for the moon landing. Yes the burden of proof is on the one who makes a new claim. So where is the proof of the claim we did not went on the moon? And I mean proof that holds even a minute of testing when you have a little knowledge about phyiscs.
@mark, indeed this is makes me sad too!
@BD there are very high res pictures, back from the apollo missions themselves. high res or low res, it doesn’t matter to Hoaxers. Also I’m european and I don’t know a single person who believes moonlanding is hoax. If we want to be nationalistic I say most hoaxers are likely to be american, possibly a result of the bad education system.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
These photos prove nothing. They would be thrown out of any court of law as being insuffient. A photo should be worth a thousand words not a butt of confussion. I’ve seen better UFO photos. I worked in the industry. The Appolo program was a means to an end. The program had to be shown as sucessful for the shuttle program to advance (a military bomber in space to drop the MX MISSLE from directly above. We were in a cold war and the public had to be made to believe that we went to the moon. IT WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST HOAX IN HISTORY.
September 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
@ CHANDAN,
Extract from Wikipedia; Moon landing conspiracy theories — Tapes:
[Emphasis mine.]
September 12th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Charlie:
Yeah, that’s it, the Cold War… and the Soviet Union would have just loved the chance to call bull**** on the whole Apollo project and score a massive propaganda coup against the U.S. during the Cold War by embarrassing and humiliating them. However, the Russians were strangely silent though, despite their enormous network of spies and surveilance equipment, back in the ’60s and ’70s, and having been (allegedly) beaten in the Space Race, but that’s OK because there are always a few guys in tin-foil hats, like our friend Charlie above, who are more than happy to pick up their slack(!).
September 15th, 2009 at 5:01 am
It’s All Lies, Believe Me, I Know.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Those people who think we never walked on the moon will never be convinced and that doesn’t bother me any more. People like that are simple. I know this one person that doesn’t think we have been there and then he witnessed a shuttle launch while in Florida and also visited the Cape and saw the Vehicle Assembly Building. I’ve been there in 1968 and it all is very awesome. I think it would cost more to fake it than to really do it as they did. My friend is a believer now! I’ve witnessed more technological breakthroughs in my lifetime than in all the generations before me combined. The Internet and computers, the space program and much more. Mind boggling! Look at TV’s now (HDTV) and not to mention digital photography. You can be half way around the world and send photos home in seconds. Quite a feat if you ask me but it’s all true whether we believe it or not and it is not technology gleaned from aliens (LOL).
September 16th, 2009 at 6:27 am
So far the LRO pictures have proven nothing. For all I know, the arrows could be pointing at Itchy and Scratchy. Maybe we could settle all this by sending a rover (like the mars rovers) to feed back live footage of Apollo’s landing sites. No, not NASA, thank you! But an independent. With all the “Believers” and those “Who know Better”, I’m sure we can find a way to fund this project. Hell, make it a university challenge with the winner of the competition receiving grant money. Hmmm, but will the government allow such a thing???
September 16th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
JL, even if you’d hoaxer just say its faked, no matter how good. remember there *was* a life stream coming from the moon while the apollo landings took place. You’d just come up with a story, look this person X worked first at NASA and was now heading in this project, of course its all faked! bla, bla, bla.
There are tons over tons over tons of evidence. I don’t see why we need to waste any money just because some ignorant fools believe *all* of the evidence is faked. Why should any more evidence make any difference?
September 17th, 2009 at 11:27 am
To all: I am not sure what I believe about the manned moon landings. From these comments here I can honestly say that I could not decide or reason out the pro or con. I do know this though, we spend millions of dollars to use satellite technology to watch our precious tv and to spy on countries or google the earth and zoom in on people. We have not arrived at some great crossroad or junction from going to the moon. We have only began to be afraid of life and each other. i.e. nsa phone taps, increased military in a war on terror, world government and control. Why can’t we see that there are thousands of homeless, hungry, sick, and uneducated people in the world that can be helped. We have the resources to feed, house, educate, and care for everyone on this planet. The one we have, EARTH. We just don’t have the money and we all have to get paid. However, we spend billions of dollars on military campaigns, which we all know innocent people die in, and millions of dollars on our precious tv, and how about millions of dollars on a building that is open 4 hours a week that we go to and learn that we need to love our neighbor and care for the sick, but it is closed the rest of the week. I want your children and mine to have a better life. So, if we went to the moon, then what has been acomplished.? Why not go back? We can’t. Only because we are too busy in keeping up in this rat race.
September 18th, 2009 at 5:31 am
if they faked a moon landing i think a couple of weak looking pictures are a walk in the park what crap
September 18th, 2009 at 8:03 am
these pictures show nothing, dave u hit the nail on the head, if we traveled to the moon in the 60′s with technology so crap back then and u talk about how technology has developed since then and how state of the art the technology is now , is this the best evidence that they can put forward now that they have been on the moon,these crappy pictures?
September 18th, 2009 at 10:38 am
jj, no, it proofes if there is a conspiracy not only thousends of people have been involved, but still thousend are involed as new pictures would have to be faked. Compare it to watergate. Its just sooooooo unlucky so many people could shut up.
able, just proofes you are an idiot, because this has been explained over and over. First this mission is not engineered about making highres pictures from the moon landers. If it would be, you could want better results of a lander, but it just isn’t. Its about mapping all of the moons surface, that the moonlanders show up on some is a nice sideeffect. Second the probe doing the pictures is not yet in final orbit, its still quite far away from the moon. The pictures were just released to have them for the anniversary. When the probe reached final orbit there will be somewhat better pictures available. That is, when it hits the landers on its scanning procedure.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
@IVAN3MAN
THANKS FOR THE FOOTAGE OF TAPES:-
Extract from Wikipedia; Moon landing conspiracy theories — Tapes:
what I have come to know that the flag is not standing and it can’t be seen from earth now.(the picture shows).As it had fallen down on apollo 11 lift off from the moon,but what about other flags which were carried on others mission? Are they standing alright? and moreover when all the landings were on the same site why didn’t the later mission astronauts attempt to set the grounded flag upright?
If the remains of one of the soviet missions spacecraft on MARS can be traced out (which entered the MARS atmosphere but unfortunately failed to gear up further)is it not possible to trace the grounded or standing upright flags on moon left by astronauts?
What I have also came to know from a (T.V. DOCUMENTRY) that first moon
landings which was so precisely scheduled has actually landed one day before?One day prior to soviet unmanned mission on moon?
How this miscalculation happened?
September 20th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
chandan, on the moon the temperatur difference between a moon-day and a moon-night are over 200 degrees (-153° on night, +107° on day). No textile takes that for long. While the metal of the landers is unharmed the textile just crumbled to dust by long for now.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Muriem seems to have found an outlet to call other people IDIOTS on a regular basis, but still has a problem with spelling and grammar.
I’m also starting to believe that Muriem works for, or is affiliated with
NASA, based on all the input he/she has put into this site.
Whether you believe in the moon landings or not, does not make you an IDIOT!
Stating that you are right, and others are wrong when you have no evidence yourself might make you one though.
September 21st, 2009 at 1:17 am
JL, If you would only bother to read this whole page you would see that most points have been covered up already several times, from several people.
I’m affiliated with NASA? Lol, im not even near the U.S. Must be the overall paranoia typical for hoaxers. Go to the doctor.
September 21st, 2009 at 2:48 am
And right on cue, Muriem responds immediately. I have no doubt this persons sole purpose in this world is to monitor this site to contradict, or in many cases, insult other people who use this to express what they believe.
What Muriem has to say is about as convincing, or meaningful as that rude driver out on the roadways who will flip you the bird as they feel protected in their vehicle, only to swear up and down that it wasn’t them, or they were just scratching their nose if you pulled into the same parking lot to confront them.
It’s obvious that you are not from this country. Too bad you don’t realize when you are being baited! Of course you are not affiliated with NASA!!!
Did you miss the SPELLING and GRAMMAR remark? Still, no one can argue that you have an unusually strong interest in this site and trying to debunk the hoaxers. You have numerous REPLY’s, and at all hours of the day… Just an
observation. Hope that word wasn’t too big fo’ ya.
September 21st, 2009 at 7:01 am
Also typical for hoaxers. If all their lies and paranoia resolve into thin air by applying simple logic and physics, they start to make it personal. Not impressed. Not at all.
About this “other people who use this to express what they believe.”. You are confusing this with religion. This here is about facts. If someone “expresses” he “believes” gravitation is a lie, I’ll “express” that I “believe” this shows him as an idiot. Simple as that.
September 21st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
@Muriem…and what does your comment say about you? You have made this personal in so many of your replies, yet you’re too ignorant to realize it. I am not a religious person by any definition of the word. I also feel that people like you, who keep referring to the other group as HOAXERS and IDIOTS, are the ones who are too closed-minded to accept anything other than what you are told. When you get a photo of something other than dot with a shadow on the moons surface, feel free to chime in. For now, you are giving my co-workers and myself a good laugh with all your nonsense and tough-talk. Everything you have typed so far is that of someone who thinks they are superior to others. That’s TYPICAL of someone who is not from the U.S. My comment is simple: I don’t believe we ever set foot on the moon! If that makes you feel like you can call me an idiot, hoaxer or any other negative term to make yourself feel better and more convincing, so be it. It speaks volumes of who you truly are.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:24 pm
are you fooling anyone but yourselves? there is nothing in these pictures that suggests the landings aren’t fakes, even if they are real – which they may be not. not a single thing.
besides, even i can take a picture of the moon with my telescope that will look the same, and i can photoshop tracks and shades too.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 am
JL, you can believe what you want, but you got zero evidence, so don’t tell anyone its “right”.
JL, also I do like an intelligent discussion. I don’t call anyone an idiot just because he is a hoaxer, I do call people idiots if they bring up stupid arguments that were covered over and over. And if you say “why dont they zoom hubble onto the moon” I do call you an ignorant idiot. My notion to categorize some of the posts as “idiots” has developed in this discussion, as many of the hoaxer arguments are really, really just stupid. Just some examples seen from above:
* Look the two picuters are very different. hoax! [one is apollo 11 the other 13, of course they are different. duh]
* Where are the moon rovers! Hoax! [The first mission with moon rover was apollo 15]
* How can there be a footprint in the sand without moisture! [who tells you moon sand is in any way like earth sand? its mostly nanoparticles]
* The picutres are far to blury, we can do better! Hoax! [the achievable quality at the current state of the mission has been explained here very detailed]
* The pictures proof nothing! [As if it would be the only evidence]
* The pictures are blury, therefore they proof hoax! [I don't even know where to start how stupid this is]
* You cannot pass the Van Allen Belt! Hoax! [you can pretty simply calculate the radiation impact thousand of radiation experts on the world can proof it]
* The pictures from the apollo missions are much too high quality than achievable. Hoax! [Aha so now its suddendly the opposite. Not only blurry pictures "proof" fake, also good ones! ha!]
@hoho, right the pictures itself proof not much. But as an jury will tell you, its not the picture alone that counts, a picture has a track. As in the apollo missions also with these pictures again hundrets of people were involved who all needed to be involved in a conspiracy. Also note how much other evidence is there. Its not only the pictures. Just to repeat:
* Thousends of involved people, not only back then but still now! You really think 1000… people can all shut up? [And if you say, only a small core team was involved, this would mean thousends of people developed stuff that actually works, one might just use it to go to the moon.
* There are hundrets of moon rocks on earth. And you can easily proof they got some elements like HE3 that are not on earth.
* The apollo mission was streamed live from the moon. Hundrets of amateur radio controllers verified that.
* The are mirrors left on the moon facing earth. Also everyone with some dedication can build a laser to use them to meassure the moon-earth distance.
* Just recently some students made another project to meassure the moon-earth distance by checking the audio delays in the original apollo records. So the NASA thought even about such minature details when “faking” it, but are too stupid to realize your simple “proofs” you bring up.
and so on. and so on.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 am
In 1936 American commentator H. L. Mencken wrote:
The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
@murieum
Thanks for replying and increasing my knowledge on moon but please don’t mind I still have some queries:-
How did You came to know that the metal of the landers is unharmed the textile just crumbled to dust by long for now.?
Is the property of moon soil beng nano-particle is enough to leave a footprint ?
How did all the astronauts make their way when the temprature difference ranging between a moon-day and a moon-night are over 200 degrees (-153° on night, +107° on day). No textile takes that for long. If you answer is spacesuit then please let me know whether all the objects they carried out were space suited like golf stick,golf ball,rovers tyre? etc.etc.
How did their equipment & machinery works when the temprature differences
ranges are over 200 degrees (-153° on night, +107° on day). ?
Also Iam eager to know the answers of my earlier posts
If the remains of one of the soviet missions spacecraft on MARS can be traced out (which entered the MARS atmosphere but unfortunately failed to gear up further)is it not possible to trace the grounded or standing upright flags or the unharmed flag metal pole on moon left by astronauts?
What I have also came to know from a (T.V. DOCUMENTRY) that the first moon
landings which was so precisely scheduled has actually landed one day before.(One day prior to soviet unmanned mission on moon in 1969 unfortunately it also lost its contacts during landing). How this miscalculation happened of landing one day before when every details were planned so minnutely?
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:37 am
Metal sustains easily these temperature differences this is well known. Also a lot of other equipment even on earth is designed to hold extreme temperature differences (especially military equipment). If you say apperatus generally cannot do this, then look at the satelites, the moon is even a very comfortable place compared to space around earth orbit. Or do you also believe satelites are a lie?
Or did you ever notice your oven go away if it heads well up over 200°C? Just make an experiment yourself, put a t-shirt in your oven, then in your freezer, switch 100 times, then look at its condition, do the same thing with something out of metal, like a knife, then look at its condition.
Also if you would bother to read this page, you would see that this issue with the flags was already covered up before you.
Yes, spacesuits are the answer, and yes I suppose the golf club was out of metal too. He likely didn’t dare to take a wood one out of exactly this reasons.
You cannot trace the flags, because they are just not there anymore. YOu *can* trace the landers, look on the very top of this page. There they are. You cannot trace a pole. How small do you think the pole is?
About the 1 day early, I honestly don’t know for sure. I saw a documentary and they said Neil (as commander responsible for the touch down) decided to go early, something about oxygen. He had to land on a non-ideal rocky place, it was nearly a miss, flew over the rock plane, and touched down directly behind it, with merly just enough fuel left to get of the moon again. He decided to take rather this risk. Maybe behind scences they decided to rush because of the soviet thing, but I don’t see how this issue should in anyway hint the whole thing was a fake.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 am
I’ve read just about everyone of these posts and I am intrigued about whether there is such a person reading these submissions who currently does not believe we landed yet could be swayed by some sort of ‘Proof’. If so in your own words, what would/could that proof be?
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
@murieum:-
Metal sustain easily we all know that but in a temprature more than
200 degree centigrade where roasting takes place everyday does it
colour, texture will remain the same? you can test it.
As for your example of putting knife in a oven I agree it does not
go off but yes certainly the difference will be very much visible in
its colour and texture in few session.but that is not the case with
your lander or flag pole.
If golfclub (golfstick,golfball) was of metal. what about ROVERS TYRE?
(as seen in picture) AND did the the colour of your so guessed metallic
golfstick,metallic golf ball colour turn red hot in more than 200 degree
centigrade
Regarding flagpole:- if a footprint can be traced why not a flagpole?
which is at least 4-5 feet as the picture shows? and even if the flag
is no more and subject to dust long ago its ashes or remains should be
there as nothing is their to disturb it.
(MOREOVER MARS SPACECRAFT OF U.S.S.R REMAINS WERE TRACED BY AN AMATEUR ASTRONOMER)
why not a qualified agency can trace this signs left on moon?
Regarding one day earlier:- Yes I totally agree with your version
of T.V. documentry as I have also seen that in which captain Neil
and Aldrin landed with very few seconds of fuel left.
But apart from that their is also this T.V. documentry which SHOWS
RIGHT HERE ON EARTH NASA PEOPLES GLUED TO THEIR MONITORING SYSTEM
FOR GETTING MINUTES TO MINUTES DATA OF APPOLO 11 WHEN SUDDENLY THE GROUP
CAPTAIN OF THE TEAM ANNOUNCES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE IT TONIGHT ONLY
( COURTESEY:- DISCOVERY CHANNEL ) YOU CAN CONFIRM IT.
soviet unmanned mission crash landed only 800 kms.away from the so called
appollo 11 landing site on the very next day
( courtesey:- editorial magazine,newspaper)
you can confirm it too.
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
So what, maybe the landers are colored. Very likely even, but not from moving -150 to 100° but likely from solar wind and UV-radiation coming in unfilitered by any atmosphere. Stil they are there standing, this is what I mean with “unharmed”.
Why should a pole proof anything more than the footprints or the lander. I don’t get it.
Also typical for moan hoaxers, they confuse everything. I told you there is over 200° *difference*. At day the absolute temperatures is aprox. 100° in sunlight. Even plastic can sustain that for quite a while. It just not indefinietly cooling down to -150 and heating up to 100° that many materials sustain undamaged. But they were just a few days there..not ?
Also no need to yell around. Doesn’t make anything more important or more right. This “astronoemr” who proofs remains on mars i want to see. Otherwise I consider this total nonsense
About the one day early. And so what. Neil was the one trained for the landing. Neil was responsible. His decision. What does this story proof about the hoax? Nothing.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am
First of all let me congratulate every one about todays news of finding of water on moon
by CHANDRAYAAN-1 FROM INDIA..(first time very conclusive and unmistakable sign of water)
as quoted:- one spoonful of water. Now, thinking of making a base on moon.The most successful mission till now in space as described by NASA.
@murieum:-
continuing the discussion what Iam eager to know is that:-
By any mean either by uv-radiation or absence of atmosphere or by a dip of temprature from a
moon-day to moon-night – I guess the colour or texture of either a metal or non-metal sent from
earth should change in last 40 years.Is it so on moon?
You are focussing much more on ‘LANDER’ in your every says:-
PATHFINDER,SPIRIT,OPPORTUNITY AND SOME OTHERS SATELLITE
are standing UNHARMED on MARS (EVEN CRASHED SATELLITE).
Does it mean mankind have set their foot on MARS ?
why Iam saying about (‘FLAG’OR ‘FLAGPOLE’,OR ‘FLAG-ROD’)?
Yes,along with the flag pole or (flag-rod )the shadow of the flag-rod at
different angle,different time,different position caused by sun of an
object which is at least 4-5 feet in height and standing unharmed and
alright on the surface of the moon will make us know many more things.
Moreover, I have seen many photos and pictures of astronauts fixing the
flag pole and saluting it on the surface of the moon.
So when a footprint of not even 1 feet can be traced why not a flag pole
of 4-5 feet on the same site, same place, same context can be traced? and
what about the remain of the fabric and textile of the flag even it is
is subject to dust?Doesn’t it should remain there?
About remains on mars:- the news is of few years back and its details were
make known world wide (I got it through a science magazine)moreover,it was
published in many leading astronomy journal.Just check it.
About the one day early:- “If you fail to plan you plan to fail”– a simple
quote:- followed by even simple and ordinary organization,and with an organization
like NASA where every thing is monitored and controlled right here from control
room on earth and where the astronauts are trained to follow every single instruction
given by the control room.Do you think Neil could have gone against the control
room instruction?
And assuming Neil could have decided to accelarate the momentum of the lunar module
of his own then even a laymen like me know the difference of speeding up on road and
accelarating up in space
Just for reference :- I would like to remind you of the tragedy happened during the
launch of a satellite by NASA whose everything was alright but just a suicidal mistake
of putting a wrong computer software program by enginners which instructed the spacecraft
to accelarate its velocity more than what it was required – resulting in blasting of the spacecraft into pieces.(Courtesey:-T.V. documentry relayed on DISCOVERY channel)
October 4th, 2009 at 4:34 am
chandan, first if you chose any evidence, “layman traced X on mars”, then you say: “I got evidence, well i don’t have it, but I vaguely remember it, actually I don’t remember the specific claim at all just somebody has seen something. Dont ask me on details. But you got to find it. its your problem”, is so utter fail. It is your problem. As it stands, this claim is still utter nonsense.
second, it doesn’t matter if the landers are colored or not. why should it? They are out of metal they are there. Textile is not. Can I say it any more simple?
third, the apollo moon landings themselves were not automatic but manual. Neil was trained a lot to do this. Basic knowledge. basic knowledge.
fourth, i do see a pole-like shadow on the apollo 14 picture. Its right above the lander. Done now? [Aside from that there is not *single* footprint visible, it is a whole series. Anytime noticed its easier to see hugh pile of balls in a large distance, than a single one. Also you seem to deliberatly ignore the pole is only a cm or so in diameter.... pleh]
October 8th, 2009 at 8:50 am
the picture you showed is as use full as a hand brake on a cannoe
October 11th, 2009 at 3:09 am
LCROSS – Another over budget NASA failure. To think we keep throwing money at NASA and still can’t get a handle on education, health care, social security, environment, waste management, employment, and so much more. I understand they feel the need to keep up the illusion that we set foot on the moon. Imagine the embarrassment to the astronauts and their families, to the engineers and scientists, if it was ever proven that we never put a man on the moon. And what about the integrity of the U.S. in the eyes of the rest of the world. I feel we should finally say, “Yes, it was faked, but we had a good reason BACK THEN”. Then we can start focusing on REAL issues that matter to all of us right here, right now…
October 11th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
It seems some are already deciding that those who doubt the moon landings will call the pictures ‘fake’.
Well heck, half the reason people question if the US went to the moon, is because of the obvious hints in many of the images of the landings that suggest that those images were taken in a studio and not on the lunar surface. So it is not a massive stretch of the imagination to wonder if they did it again. Now everyone believes we went to the moon.
Not.
I was alive during the Apollo missions, just. It is one of my earliest memories watching it all on TV. I only questioned it in recent years. Sure there is total rubbish on the subject, there is also a number of questions NASA do not answer which nag at me.
I hope these are pictures of the landers. I really do. It will stop me wondering. But as I think, I can’t help wondering if the world was lied to. We are lied to about so many things – I have seen events, events which under government pressure the media re-wrote, the public now ‘believe the truth the government wanted them to believe’. But as a first hand witness I know the events were other than the ‘official myth’. Yes that makes me doubt. Perhaps I would need to go to the moon to really believe it. But these pictures obviously satisfied the most learned among you. I guess you mock those who doubt the existence of Santa Claus also.
Someone suggested that those who doubt should be sent there, I would love to go, buy me the ticket. I would love to think ‘we’ as a species ‘went’ – trouble is I’m no more convinced of it than the existance of an all powerful ‘god’.
There is a banner above stating the whole aero industry believes man went to the moon. It’s wrong. Not all of us do ‘believe’ it. I would like to believe it, but I doubted a number of issues long before it was made popular to doubt the landings on the internet.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
@murieum
No, the matter is not that simple dear as you are presuming
———————————————————————–
.The landers are either coloured or uncolured,its metallic or non-metallic its texture is likely to change in last 40 years either by uv-radiation,absence of atmosphere or by dip of temprature from moon-day to moon-night i.e.from (extreme + to extreme – )
.I just want to know does it had happened in last 40 years with the flag-pole(s) or flag rods.As all the (flag-rod) are also out of metal..or even (non-metallic)
I don’t know why you are afraid of flag poles ?
Nasa have made it 6 times on moon then there are more than one flag and flag-rods fixed on the moon surface, so all their shadows (all the flags -rod-pole shadows) casting every day on moon at different times, different angle must give a relevant picture.Isn’t it?. why till now none of the satellite has had been able to catch those pictures.of poles and its shadows?
Regarding pole is only a cm or so in diameter :- With today technology the object of even mm in size can be taken why to ask of c.m.?
And what about flags even it is subject to dust long ago ?Doesn’t it remains should Stay there ?.as nothing is there to disturb it.(remains of flag fabric & textile in any form ash or disposed)
Regarding moon landing manually:- Either automatically or manually landing one day before —it has to gain the velocity which is bound to failure EXAMPLE-as it has happened with one of the satellite launching of NASA .You say Neil was trained for this .—- A trained person will never commit such a suicidal mistake.
.
Regarding tracking on mars :- If you are not willing to accept it .Its o.k. But if you wish to check for sure .you will know the truth .of the claim published. Just tell me is that only
NASA capable of tracking?(distant stars and galaxies ).Don’t you think others too can?
Few more questions:-
——————————
Nasa made it six times in a row without fail? but can’t handle Columbia just an outer space mission & some others spacecraft and satellite too after 1969 moon landings. Has NASA technology deteiorated in last 40 years?No manned mission after that?
NASA MADE IT SIX ITIME IN A ROW AND THAT TOO IN A SPAN OF FEW YEARS BUT:-
had never founded water on moon even when their so many of men toured
the moon .Now as water has been founded by chandrayaan –1 from INDIA even
confirmed by Nasa ,Can’t they make one more tour to moon?As for NASA WHO
HAD VISITED SIX TIMES— ONE MORE VISIT – IT WILL BE A CHILPLAY FOR THEM !?ISN’T IT?
October 13th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Try watching the original Apollo 11 landing, and notice the large crater that Mr. Armstrong is avoiding, just before touchdown. Youtube even has this video. Notice the protuberence on the right side of this crater and approximate where the LM touches down. Now look at the recent photo taken by the LRO and check out that crater. Same crater, right where it’s supposed to be! So COOL to see the 40 year old film and now, to see the exact landing location today!
October 16th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Wow, you say these are evidence but any intelligent rational person who isn’t just ouhing and ahhing over some pictures would realize the shadow of the supposed DM in your first picture is for some odd reason 180 degrees out. Gee, I do suppose this photos are proof!
Those who choose to be led astray, will be!
October 17th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
“[T]he shadow of the supposed DM in your first picture is for some odd reason 180 degrees out.”
What the bloody hell are you talking about?! As far as I can see from that picture that you refered to, the shadow of the Lunar Module corresponds with the shadows of the craters on the Moon’s surface.
Dude, you really need your eyes tested!
October 17th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
@ #652. JOHN: “Imagine the embarrassment to the astronauts and their families, to the engineers and scientists, if it was ever proven that we never put a man on the moon.”
Yeah, dude, but I wonder why the communist Russians — with all their bloody spies and radar tracking equipment — missed that golden opportunity in the ’70s to totally embarrass the Americans by exposing the entire hoax?!
October 19th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
really rational says “intelligent rational person” ? Who’s opinion is this? theirs? Yeesch!! Jacques, it doesn’t matter how much evidence, how much proof, how much common sense, how much truth, you show these hoax dummies, they’ll never change their lame opinions. It is rather entertaining, though! The obvious commonality between theses hoax dummies is thier total lack of knowledge about the history of the Apollo missions! They don’t know anything and don’t WANT to know anything. DM? (reeeally rational) Is that short for “lunar module”? Hey, chandan, U gut any more of dat stuff Uwr smokin’?
October 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
“Regarding pole is only a cm or so in diameter :- With today technology the object of even mm in size can be taken why to ask of c.m.?”
Now this is so idiotic of an argument i dont even know where to start. While you start on top of the page and read it all down, this has been covered soooooo often.. I don’t know why you are so fixated on the flags, the landers are right there…why should a flag or a pole prove more than a footprint, some instruments or the landers. Flagpoles are very thin, therefore very hard to see, impossible from earth, near to impossible from satellites. Maybe when the LRO has reached its final orbit, we’ll get pictures with them. (And even if, you’d hoaxers would just say, o a black line i can draw with photoshop as well)
“Regarding tracking on mars :- If you are not willing to accept it .Its o.k. But if you wish to check for sure .you will know the truth .of the claim published. Just tell me is that only
NASA capable of tracking?(distant stars and galaxies ).Don’t you think others too can? ”
You make a claim, you provide a link. Not a faint “I remember something, but actually nothing, not even who has seen what, just that i’m right”… again utter fail. Link or begone.
About the waterthing, again you don’t understand a second of the physics involved.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
[...] For those not wanting to chase the link, here’s a picture courtesy of discovermagazine showing one of the sites and analyzing the picture. For the full article, go here. [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 4:49 am
658 “DUDE”??? Really, someone still says that? And what proof would the Russians have offered up to the rest of the world and in what format? Let’s say they presented the proof today. What do you think would actually happen? Would it change the minds of people who believed we set foot on the moon, or would those people call the Soviets “Conspiracy Theorist”? Yeah, a lot to think about!!!
October 28th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
JOHN 662., the Russians don’t play games. Jacques is right about their tracking equipment. Americans were humiliated when they launched Sputnic, and were the first to put a man in space. They boasted to the whole world about it! Do you really think they wouldn’t have said anything if the moon landings were faked? We would STILL be hearing about it! This humiliation is what prompted the U.S. to join the space race and put men on the moon! Do us a favour, JOHN, DON’T THINK! The result of your thinking will only add to the pile of dung that you and all of the other hoax dummies excrete. READ THIS BLOG! Is that too much to ask?
October 30th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Looks like some higher resolutions pictures of the Apollo 17 landing site are available. You can even make out the flagpole. Sort of.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20091028_apollo.html
October 31st, 2009 at 9:46 am
Check out “spacefellowship.com” for a wicked apollo 17 landing site image. You can clearly see tire tracks from the lunar rover! Holy %@$#! Go ahead, NASA, make my day!
November 1st, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Dear Ross (663), after reading your comments here and on other sites such as doomdaily.com, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a complete idiot. Are you aware that the US is not the only country that have mirrors on the moon? Now, do all of us a favor, get educated, get anger management or give me an address so I can put my size 12 spaceboot up your moon crater!!!
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
JOHN, I think it matters less who put the mirrors on the moon, but anyone with a bigger laser can testify that they are there!
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
JOHN (666) , I suppose we’re both idiots, and obviously passionate about our beliefs. The Soviets did leave 2 reflective mirrors from unmanned missions, 1 did not work, but you have to point a lazer to the proper location (3 apollo landing sites or 1 Soviet site) to make it reflect- so you will decide it’s the much smaller Soviet mirror, of course. Did you watch the Mythbusters episode? It explains the mirror reflection quite well. I suppose, I should apologize to Discover magazine and to Phil, we don’t want this blog to end up in fist fights! I just get so disgusted with ALL hoax believers as leaving this planet and walking (driving) on the moon is the most incredible journy in human history. I feel privileged to have been alive when it happened! I also realize that it’s a waste of time, trying to change someones mind, who is more interested in pride, rather than realizing that they could be wrong.(Time now for wasting time) O.K., size 12, let me see how educated you are. How many manned lunar missions were there?(faked in your mind of course) How many men went to the moon (all liars to you) ? How far is it to the moon? What was the parked earth orbit velocity of the apollo spacecraft before leaving for the moon? What altitude? What was the TLI escape velocity? What was the name of the booster that acomplished this? How long was the burn? How long did it take to get to the moon? How long was the burn on the service module to decrease the velocity for lunar orbit? What was the altitude? Velocity? READ the commet 374 from Nigel Depledge…someone a lot smarter than you or I, and have a nice day! P.S. Don’t call me dear!
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 am
To add to the laser reflector information, the lunar reconnaissance orbiter pulses a single laser beam to create a high resolution global topographic map of the moon. However, the LOLA (lunar orbiting laser altimeter) is turned off as it passes over the apollo 11, 14, and15 landing sites as bouncing the laser off of any the retroreflective mirrors on experiments left by the astronauts might damage the instrument. In fact, the light bounced back would be 1,000 times the detector damage threshold! Also, the Soviet Union’s Lunakhod spacecraft deployed 2 reflectors, 1 of which has never been found by laser, and the other works properly. The Russians were helpfull in locating these reflectors. While conspiracy nuts debate the reality of the apollo landings, scientists must deal with some of the practical consequences of what astronauts put on the moon.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
…another thing, nobody has said enough about the astronauts themselves. All of them except senator Shmitt were test pilots before they entered the space program. Neil Armstrong among others flew the x-15 to the edge of outer space and speeds beond mach-6!. Buzz Aldrin was a fighter pilot in Korea and shot down a mig-15. Most of us can’t imagine the level of fear involved. Most of these men flew fighter planes in the cold war…some of them carrying nuclear missles under thier jets. Can you say HUGE B—S?!!! What about riding atop a converted titan missle on the Gemini missions? Space walk? Any first hand accounts of riding a Saturn V was close to horrific! Bill Anders (apollo
thought they’d bought the farm because of the tremendous shaking. My point is, obviously, that these men are (and were) UNBELIVEABLY COURAGEOUS!!!! They’ve looked death in the eye more than once and they’re NOT the kind of person you can BUY OFF, or convince them to lie for ANY REASON!!!! That is what makes me so stinking furious about this HOAX GARBAGE!!! You JOHN (size 12) being in the military should know this!
November 4th, 2009 at 9:26 am
@ Ross Hagemann
Hey, chandan, U gut any more of dat stuff Uwr smokin’?
Yes sir,its in plenty but r u ready to inhale?
in fact many of other guys around me also have lot of dat stuff to smokin
because they know what the fact is:-
@ murieum:—
I was not knowing that my queries will catch so hard on you that you even forget the spelling of your name {660. ((( muriem))) Says: } Anyway:–
Within few days after confirmation of water on moon a rocket hit the moon sent by NASA but I don’t know when the LRO will reached its final orbit to get those pictures[its more than a year now]Just confirm when it will comes to its final orbit.?
If Iam bend on flag poles or flag why are you running away from this? If LRO can catch and send
the freaking cool pictures of landing site why not the poles or its shadow of many a metre in length(if not c.m or mm)
About the waterthing, again you don’t understand a second of the physics involved.:—
you don’t worry about my understanding on the physics involved. you can continue with your explanation.May be I can’t understand a second of the physics involved but now I can understand a bit of the chemistry involved in your explanation.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Chandan, the orbit of the LRO is much better already, and as has been posted already, here is your pole:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20091028_apollo.html
November 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
It is just like I said: “If you can fly one of those hoax Believers to the Moon, and let them touch Apollo hardware, even in that moment, they still won’t believe that Moon landing actually happened”. Long time ago I decided not to try to convince any one of those morons or argue with them, about Apollo program. Greetings!
November 15th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Hello, Rick. Maybe the hoax dummies have given up. (dare to dream) One of the many indisputable facts about the reality of the apollo missions were the tracking stations in Australia. Spain, and California. One of Bart Sibrel’s brainless claims was that nasa used a TETRA- A training satilite to fool the MSFN (manned space flight network) operators into thinking that this was the spacecraft! They have to precisely aim the antenna (85 ft. diameter at Honeysuckle creek, Australia) to an inbound or outbound apollo spacecraft (towards the moon) while this satilite orbits the earth every 92 minutes. Maybe Buzz Aldrin is embarassed by punching Sibrel in the face (I hope not), but it sure is fun to watch! It sort of illustrates how all of us who know the truth, feel about these twits. Yes, we should ignore them , but some of this hoax crap will reach young people’s ears and totally missinform our future generations. That IS something to think about!
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
i am so glad i have seen this picture, i luv space and stuff like that but im a plumber and i dont raly know whats tru and whats not i had seen all the stuff saying that the landings were fake and i actualy started to belive it but now i have seen this i have no doubt so thanks to who ever posted the pic for people like me who dont know enough to make good decisions lol cheers
November 25th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Please, are you really going to believe some silly contrived pictures that are 100% fake, perhaps you also think that a Chevy is better than a toyota!
During the 1960’s, the USA (NASA) did not have the technical expertise or materials knowledge to travel outside of the Van Allen Belt. Today, we are closer (possibly 12-15 years) but still could not travel the 0.24 million miles, land a craft, go for a walk about, place a flag and perhaps swing a golf club. Really! I am not surprised though – the majority of the populous are not technically inclined through professional training. Consider for a moment what you are thinking. In the 1960’s, The transistor is in use, no DSP’s or CPUs, software is a new concept, radios are analog and the computing power in todays calculators would have been 50 times greater to that of a space craft. From a pure engineering standpoint, it would have been impossible. Sorry chaps, but you have all been duped for too long. Regards – Mission critical Aerospace electronics development engineer.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
To Para2122, The Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons which are not that difficult to shield against. A layer of polyethelene between the inner and outer hulls of the command module spacecraft was used. Also, the trajectory and velocity of the trans lunar injection only kept the spacecraft in the edges of the Van Allen belts for a relatively short period of time. Short doses of higher radiation is safer than long doses of lower radiation. The astronauts wore dosimeters and thier radiation levels were reported to mission control. The average for the 24 astronauts that went to the moon was aprox. 2 rem.
It’s true, of course, that the guidance computers in the comand module and the LM were very primitive by todays standards, but are you forgeting the large room in mission control full of computing power in constant communication with the spacecraft?
It only took 3 days to reach the moon, so 240,000 miles or not , 3 days!
You say technology wasn’t advanced enough, but what about the atom bomb developed in 1945? As an engineer, you should realize the math and science needed for that!
How can someone with your “profesional training” know so little about history?
The LRO images are NOT NECESSARY to prove the reality of the lunar landings. 400,000 people, including tracking stations from around the world, the Soviets, East Germans and other eastern nations also tracking the 9 Apollo lunar missions would have obviously said something!
It’s just total blindness to think that thousands of people from around the world could keep a gigantic secret, like faking the moon landings, QUIET for 40 years!
November 26th, 2009 at 5:23 am
To add to the radiation concerns, when the Apollo spacecrafts were beond the Van Allen belt, solar flares were not enough to be a problem. A major solar event doesn’t just cut loose without warning. Solar events can be predicted and this was,of course, done on the Apollo missions. And if they did occur, being directional, it’s unlikely the flares would travel directly towards the spacecraft. Space is very big. Traveling in outer space IS DANGEROUS! There is nothing worse, Para2122, than someone who thinks they are superior to the rest of us because of “profesional training” and acting like they’re setting us straight.
You think that nothing can be invented without modern computers? Wonder what they had in WW2…A-bomb, V-2 rockets, and the Germans actually had a prototype flying wing called the XB-35 with jet engines that flew circles around the Me-262 fighter jet…1945!!!
November 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
You don’t need digital radio or DSPs to land on the moon, analog radio quality is just fine enough for that. They did use software, however if you listen to Nils story, the computer failed while the actual landing, but it was done manually anyway. Thats why they used humans then to travel on the moon. Nowadays for scientific missions, if we explore out there with more advanced electronics, we use probes, it may not sound so cool, but it gets the job done better, cheaper, faster and safer.
+Everything Ross said.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
In what possible way does this picture prove that the landings were real? If they faked the moon landings, and got the world to believe its real, then you dont think they could fake a picture of the moon?? I mean come on, weve got amazing technology like the hubble telescope, yet we cant take a picture close enough to 100% prove that it is the Lunar module there? And what makes me laugh the most, is the ‘very well labled’ diagram up there pointing out footprints… Im sorry but how can you attempt to point out footprints, when you can even make out something as big as the lunar module? FOOLS, ALL OF YOU, FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLS
December 12th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Talk about latching on to “far fetched” evidence??? This “photo” proves nothing. In fact, the surface of the “moon” shown appears just in the same fashion as from the photo’s in “orbit”. Much too far away to even notice “footprints” nor any other sort of debris left behind. If this is “your version” of evidence…..then the mystery is still “unsettled” Scientifically. Let’s all forget what anyone “believes” about anything. We can read license plates “in color” with spy satellites (which can alse read a date on a dime) from “our orbit”….we certainly have the technology to “cleary prove beyond a “shadow of a doubt” (which has yet to be done) that these missions did indeed take place with the debri left behind. I would like to see this proof. I am open to this type of “proof” and instead, a fuzzy black and white (when NASA could be using High rez Color) photo of “specs” proves nothing for anyone seeking an “Aha” form of evidence. Just look at the Lower portion of what is claimed to be the LEM….the “shadow amounts to about a “Football” field in length in the top photo….also the “craters” in the top photo do not correspond with the “close up” at the bottom. Hell, I could have used my 9 year old son’s eraser to create the…..errrr…..footprints?? I have no disrespect toward anyone who “believes” we went…I’m just looking for the absolute “proof” with close-up photo’s easily recognisable, b/c we have the technology and we’re not using it to vindicate “the case for” manned Lunar Missions. These photo’s….if given without “description” would lead to a thousand different explanations….some of which could be Europa or some other planetary “moon”. Keep trying, but I remain “unconvinced” based on what you sadly have here, and have made a very practical case for why “not” to trust a picture which clearly does not “Explain” itself as a means to the end without “additional added “information” attached. Nobody would never have known what the hell was in this photo to begin with, if what is alleged, wasn’t already “supplied”. That’s bad science.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Brian (#681): Don’t extrapolate your own ignorance to the rest of the world. I have quite a few years of experience examining space imagery, and I would’ve recognized this immediately. I won’t bother debunking the various fallacies in your argument, since a simple Google search would do that adequately. But the important point here is that it’s not up to anyone to prove to you the reality of the Apollo missions, it’s up to you or anyone to provide even a shred of reason to doubt them. That shred has never been presented, and in my opinion does not exist.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Wow Phil, let me get this straight. You want everyone to “believe” you b/c “you” have “quite a few years” epxerience examining space inagery?? Your lack of information or “substance” to back up your “credibility” actually does prove one thing at this point. Based on what you actually said, you know “nothing”. Google search “proves it all”?? You’re the authority on space imagery?? : )))
Actually, you’re quite wrong about the burden of proof. When someone “makes a claim”, the burden is “always” on those who believe the claim, and seek to “support” it. Unless you just want to reduce this to a “faith” issue, then one can simply “want or wish” the moon landings to be true simply b/c you “believe” them to be so……but it doesn’t make it true though does it Phil.
So please Phil, enlighten us skeptics on the “clarity” of this “proof” you have……..that is what this “blog” is all about is it not?? Another claim to support another claim…..neither of which contains “irrefutable evidence” (to which I refered in my first post, still waiting on feedback from that) of that claim. You are lacking “any” shred of clear Scientific evidence, which, at this point, also disqualifies your “reasoning”….and simply reduces it to just another opinion. Awe…..but that’s right, there was no evidential reasoning from you was there. : ))
Keep trying to “make us all believe”….better yet, try finding some “irrefutable” evidence. I have read, studied, and debated this issue for years, and have yet to be shown “any” irrefutable evidence to back up “prrof” we actually put a man on the moon. Gee, the Govt doesn’t lie for money, we can all believe what we see on tv, and ofcourse, as always, everyone “wants” to believe what makes us “feel” great and heroic as a Nation….but it doesn’t make it true. Stick to the Science Phil, do some more homework, then get back to us later. Like I said, I am open to “irrefutable” evidence……The LRO was a good idea, but “by” these picures alone, provides nothing in the way of “absolute proof”…..just as I said earlier, if shown this photo “without” any “information” attached, there’d have been a thousand explainations of what it “could be” and’or where it was even taken. I would have expected more from someone who truly claimed to be so “experienced” in space imagery….what isn’t “self evidential” can, and should always be questioned, and I’d have to say, according to this blog, there are a “good many” of those objections awaiting “self evidential” proof, of which you still have yet to provide yet arragantly refuse to do so.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Btw….I could spend all day on here providing “links” to the contrary for everything you say is evidence of the “all so patriotic” moon landings. Actually, a true patriot, once they “know” the’ve discovered the truth, has no issue at all standing up for it, instead of “bad science”. Here’s a great example of that!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm
December 13th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Hey Phil, try this one on for size.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm
December 13th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Hey Phil, what are the Scientific Odds of discovering “drinkable” water on the moon refered to as “ice”?? How “optimistic are you on what comprises these sheets…errr…”seeds” of “ice”??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3264859.stm
December 13th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Oh wait….I can see some additional proof of other lunar landing missions in this photo…. in several of the craters there appears to be lunar landing “like” anomalies in this photo as additional proof as well!! Oooops….it’s Mercury…..uhhhh my bad.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/mercury-looks-like-moon-nearly.html
December 13th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Brian, try http://www.clavius.org if you want to learn anything. The Apollo missions are so well documented, that it would take years to digest all the data. Please read my 669 comment which explains the main reason for the LRO’s mission. Did you actually think that Nasa sent it to the moon just to prove anything? I’ve read Andrew Chaikin’s “A man on the moon”, Jim Lovell’s “Lost moon”, “Spaceflight” forwarded by Buzz Aldrin. I’ve read the actual flight journals from Apollo 8 and 11 to name a little of what I’ve reserched, and when you CROSS-REFERENCE several different authors and documentaries (In the shadow of the moon is another) and they ALL say exactly the same thing, that 24 men went to the moon and back, you KNOW the truth! These LRO pictures are cool , but NOT NECESSARY to prove the reality of Apollo. The wood rock that was given to the retired, 83 year old Dutch prime minister was an error on the American ambasador’s part. The ex-prime minister was thouhgt to be a little senile by his own nephew. None of the real moon rocks were given out untill after 1972. What about thousands of scientists from around the world that have examined the moon rocks and all agree that there are NO rocks like that on earth?
You people keep coming up with this so called “evidence” that a school kid could easily debunk and you expect us to lift an eyebrow?
I don’t think any conclusions have been established about water on the moon, but what the %@#$ has it got to do with the reality of men going to the moon?
Thanks for your patients, Phil. Hope I was helpfull!
December 13th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Ross, I have long ago known about the reflectors on the moon. It doesn’t prove “man” set foot on the moon. The Russians never claim to have sent anyone, yet “their” reflector still works up there . This is evidence which only proves not that “man” set foot, but only that Probes can be sent. I don’t debate that. We’ve got a few up there too. Hey, I’m really not all that hard to please with this. Just show me some high resolution pictures of the debri left behind, and I’m on board. How hard is that?? We have an “Intl” Space station up there (forget the hubble, it’s designed for long range deep space) which could easily take on a High Rez Camera to get better photos than what the LRO brought at the top here….I’m actually very surprised at the lack of detail.
Not to mention the near infinite Spy satellites sent up which offer the latest in ooopss….facial recognition technology…(I wasn’t supposed to let that one slip) but it’s true. If you think Google Maps and Virtual Earth offered as over the counter close ups, We already have (and have had for years) the technology to show the areas of each Lunar Landing. Why not show them??
With respect to the LRO, Phil has been quoted as saying, ““In ten years I think this conspiracy theory will be gone,” says Plait, who points out that in 2009 NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will give us clear photos of the moon landing sites” . So much for the “clear photos”. I too would have hoped for something “self evidential”, but it’s not, as I have clearly proven. I would agree with Phil that at some time in the future, this will be settled, perhaps by the “next” voyage to the moon, either by India, or more likely by China or Russia. It’s interesting that a celestial body 1/4 the size of the earth cannot be scanned with “high rez” precision…..(or can it…and they just don’t want to do it to offend all the Pro Apollo Fans. It tuly is the only way to scientifically “prove” we actually did go, Perhaps some other countries “probe” will show what’s there…or a lack there of. But just as I “may” be “enlightened” by what’s there, so too might you all be “shocked” by what isn’t. Don’t worry though….it won’t be the first (or last) time your Govt. has lied to you has it??
What’s interesting about the moon rocks, is that we already “claim” to have had them “before” we allegedly went to the moon. Most all of them were collected in Antartica in the 50′s and shown off during the early 60′s. Some 30 or “so collected” long before we ever “went”. It’s interesting to ask, since we’re on the subject, how anyone really knew they were from the Moon “at a time nobody had ever gone”? Nobody really questioned it, which is why we have a version of an acceptable but “flawed science” in place today. A gullible American Public was already “stage set” for such an event, hook, line and sinker. We all were at that time. Hindsight offers greater clarity as details surface surrounding the missions. All that goes on this blog is an attempt to “discredit” the persons who want more than just circumstancial evidence of a such a Sci-Fi Claim? I’m no more a nutjob than any of you. No more than Ron Paul was about the Economy when “everybody” said “he” was wrong about it getting ready to “tank”. He, was right, and all the jackholes had to “eat” their words. Your Govt. has always been involved in the business of conspiring all over the world…..and you all drop your jaws at the notion of a well organized conspiracy?? Even though most people do believe we went, a growing number of people would contend that if they wanted to have faked it, they could have….even if they didn’t. This is the difference between what you “think” you know, and what really happened. If you always accept outrageous claims without question and proof, we are a people primed and ready for the next dictator leading us down a path of Fascism. Ok, So I don’t believe exactly the way you do about this, and if I feel I need more “proof” I have every good reason to be skeptical about a program which was almost “out” of funding from death and failure until it was “used” to bring in the greatest show “on” earth since Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey!! There are some sensible people on this side of the fence, and someday, you may all be in for a huge shock kicking yourselves as to why you didn’t realize this earlier. You can always expect those who make their living off Conspiracies or Debunking to defend their bread and butter to their last breath. I have no financial interest in this either way, I just need to see what’s up there, and as soon as that day arrives, this will all be settled….and I may in fact “be wrong”….but after all the aruguments, I have seen over the past 45 years, I really don’t think so. : ))
December 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
How many zillion times do educated people have to explain the hubble telescope and it’s resolution capabilities? 85 feet per pixel at 240,000 miles is the best I’ve read, which is amazing. LM decsent stage…12ft! Those hi-def images you see on google are taken by an AIRPLANE! I live in the country and have looked at my place on google earth and it’s pretty blurry. You can barely distinguish the highway.
Your skepticism is based souly on the LRO’s capabilities and NOT on research!
By the late ’90s the entire international geological community had gathered 19 specimens of meteorites from Antartica.
When moon rocks are examined under a microscope, they have whats called “zap pits” caused by micrometeroites. (840lbs gathered) NONE of the rocks found in Antartica had those because of being melted coming into the atmosphere. Do you really think that ALL of the scientists from around the world that examined the moon rocks are a bunch of fibbers?
So tell me, Brian, what do you think happened when 3 astronauts climed into the world’s most powerfull machine in history,(360 feet tall, a million gallons of fuel) risked their lives riding atop the Saturn V, and were fished out of the command module by the navy, and brought aboard an aircraft carrier, for 5000 odd men to witness? Hoax enthusiasts claim that they spent the time orbiting the earth. Nasa had allready been doing this with the Mercury and Gemini missions for 7 years before Apollo. Don’t think the Soviets didn’t have the capability to track trans lunar injections! Have they EVER said anything?
So can you tell me what would be the point of doing this 9 times? Do you have any idea of how SILLY this hoax nonsense sounds?
Nasa had 400,000 people working them (far more than today) with thousands involved in tracking (California, Austalia, Spain), guidance, and telematry people, mission control and the list goes on. Not ONE person has come forward to this day to say that this enourmous project was a farce.
There isn’t a word in the dictionary to describe how stupid, brainless, blind, arogant, retarted, childish, ignorant this hoax puke is!!!!
I don’t care if I’m being rude. I know, freedom of speech and all. If I had much better writing skills, maybe I could make people believe that my dog was manufactured by Buick!
December 14th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Just like Plait, the method often attempted to prove man set foot on the moon, is one of “discrediting” the intelligence of those who simply “don’t agree” that they did. I know that this brings anger to you, as well as others, but it’s all going to be ok….really. Even though someday, you might find yourself to be the “last” person on earth to eventually embrace the real “apollo reality”, you might not even accept that as a pluasable possibility, even if it was true. See?? This works both ways. You can summarize either side of this in varying degrees of “belief”. Some don’t even care either way, but for those who do, one is either “open” to viewing new evidence….or closed to it. I am open to evidence or “supposed” debunkable evidence….either way, show it to me. I have said that from the beginning. Are you as “open” to evidence to the contrary to what YOU believe as I am?
Either way, this will be proven someday….I’m not here to make “personal attacks” to your intelligence nor insult you to show how much “I know” or show how much hate I have for those who oppose me. Only people “beaten” by a good argument or are irritated by an intelligent statement by “the other side” resort to “belittling” or name calling as a form of “proof” which only proves that your own argument has been weakened or has run amuck. I have already mentioned how people often will “dig in” with what they “think” they know (even though they really don’t) for financial gain, reputation, and public posterity. I have no axe to “grind” here. I have witnessed almost every Saturn V Rocket that went up during the Apollo missions first hand. Yes…It’s quite possible that we really did go to the moon! Did you catch that?? Are you as open to changing your position if you saw “credible” information which rattled your comfort zone of “acceptability”? I would hope so if you’re the science loving person/people you say you are. fair enough?? So, instead of saying “ignorant hoax puke” and…..I don’t care if I’m being rude…..why not try respectfully disagreeing and sticking to the content to make your case. Hey, I know you’re frustrated with those who don’t agree with you, I know how that feels firsthand…we all get that way sometimes….but it only damages the ability to make your best case. there is no one person who has a corner market on truth, so don’t worry too much about “the people” debating…and stick to the information, even as silly as you think it may be…..you only create “more terrorists” in your ability to bully nations in search of terrorists, another topic worthy of debate. We just need to stop the Sean Hannity “style” of shuning those who disagree. It means nothing, and frankly, leaves others with an aire of arragance about your character, which is more important than anything being discussed here.
That being said, lets explore the “content” of what you said, minus the mud slinging.
At what point did you feel I needed to know the Hubble Specs?? Why would I need to be concerned with that….reread what I wrote, and I think you will be mistaken for what you “thought” I wrote.
Ok….Google Maps taken by Airplane…..that’s fine….but still missing the point, what about “NASA”s ability to build and create and then connect Spy Satellites with incredible precision and power. They “could” use them to “make” their case don’t you agree?? There’s no Atmosphere in Orbit….or at the most, very very little, the view from one of these to the moon would be uninhibited and clear. The point is, we ALREADY have the capability to see this “debri” left on the moon….if only they wanted to show it….would you agree with that?? And if they do….why don’t they? Why do they deny this and leave our only possible means of seeing debri from a “fuzzy flyby” by the LRO or some “future” mission?
Moon Rocks Point. I think you missed my point about the “knowledge” of where the rocks from Antartica “came from. It was well accepted that we had many moon rocks long before we even claim we “went to the moon”. Does that not strike you as odd?? You can only speculate from where something comes unless you’ve studied the material “already” from which it came. The year we “knew” we had moon rocks on earth was throughout the late 50′s and early 60′s…a full decade before we allegedly went to the moon! How did anyone know that, then. Now, here’s the argument. You cannot use as “proof” rocks which were said to come from the moon, when you’ve claimed you “already” have them. Using the very point placed “in question” (the lunar missions) as proof the rocks are “real”….would be faulty reasoning. Using “something” one “doesn’t believe as a means to Prove the rocks are real and therefor using that to prove the missions were real….doesn’t prove anything. We “already had rocks from the moon” and nobody batted an eye. How Scientific is that??? If people “examine” something from which they must make assumptions, (which could be faulty)….the conclusion could be false. I hope you followed that. I know it doesn’t prove they didn’t come from the moon, but saying “we have moon rocks” certainly don’t prove the moon landings occured. All the Geologists lining up are “awed” when they finally get their chance to look at an errr…official “moon rock” up close and personal….and vwoilla!!! They’re now official “moon rock” experts. : )) My point exactly.
I tend to be skeptical with things that only a few people say they have “actaully” done. When you look the amount of $ and man power put into into the space program over the last 50 years, along with the “failure rate” of this development, (until they actually pulled off 9 lunar trips (landings and non landings), there is room for at least some reasonable doubt. is there no wonder why nobody else has done it, or even come close?? We havent’ even been back in 40 years with a near perfect success rate….I mean…..why stop there?? I think the “cost” issue is just a smoke screen. The Shuttle missions are proof of plenty of funding. All that tracking you mentioned could have easily been piped in on a separate system, we had 2 separate control centers, and it has been noted that only a handful few plus the astronots needed to be in on this. As much disdain you may have for Bart Sibrel…he interviewed many of the astronots themselves and only 1 out of the 9 or so would “swear as a deposition” on a bible that they actually went. I carefully reviewed each clip, as each moon man was asked about a short film clip which clearly shows atronots in orbit around earth…as they post a “fake looking” earth in the light of the earths orbit when the film clip states they are over half way to the moon!!! The film clip…”if real” yes….if real….shows how false information was deliberately being contrived. Hey, the attitudes of the astronots when offered 5000 dollars just for “swearing” on a bible the obvious. Why didn’t they just do it?? If I had went, and some guy didn’t believe me, I’d have done it. Why not??
http://apollovideos.bravehost.com/ here’s another link with various Space Center/CIA photos you won’t find on any of NASA’s webpages. While I don’t purport to “agree” with every point made here, it certainly reveals an overwhelming amount of “questionable” information….such as “how did the space suit” they say they had on the moon actually work while obviously not being air pressure tight. The cooling system of the space suits when in the “sunlight” were said to have operated much like the present day refriderator. Where’d the exhaust escape to prevent overheating? The film used on the moon would have been “fried” in the sunlight, or well overexposed. The Hasselbaud Camera has been proven to not be functional in temperatures of 150 degrees below zero and greater. I have seen close ups of the LEM on various missions. The aluminum foil wrap and thin sheets of “buckling” metal appear more backyard home job than Rocket Science….Just look at any High rez photo’s of them in any mission…you’ll see for yourself. The fact that “no astronot” jumps more than 2 feet in the air just as they would here on earth with 1/6 alleged gravity. There are picures of Humongous Lunar models being crafted (obviously very 60′s looking and the NASA people “named” in the photo’s with gigantic camera trolly’s. I suppose you will say that these photo’s prove nothing…..but what were they used for then?? Enjoy. I don’t need to be rude Ross……and I won’t. The information sure begs for a showing of the Lunar material on the moon. Still waiting….after 40 years!! : ))) I am still open though. show me differently.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I’ve gone to the the websites you mentioned, Brian. Why havn’t you gone to mine? clavius.org. It easily explains all of your so called “evidence”.
You HAVE shown us how much you know and that ain’t very much!
This moronic idea by Sibrel with some “fake video” about the spacecraft being in low earth orbit instead of the actual 130,000 mile distance is almost hilariuos! Check any shuttle or Apollo earth orbital video footage and at 17,400 m.p.h. Those ‘ol clouds are just smoking by. NOW look at Sibrel’s so called “fake” footage. The clouds aren’t moving at all! His engeniuos idea was that the astronaut would place a black cardboard with a small circle cuttout to simulate being much farther away than claimed. If I’m having a bad day and need a boost, I just find footage of Buzz Aldrin puching that Sibrel clown in the head! Works every time! It’s obvious that this twit WANTED to get punched, because of his extremely rude behaviour and he actualy took Buzz to court with assault charges. Thrown out, of course. Sibrel’s an absolute LUNATIC! The fact, Brian that you use this co called “reporter” as a means of “evidence” tells me that YOU are desperate.
The staff from the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station in Australia just had a 40 year reuniun. Please read my 674 comment. Can you immagine how gloomy said reuniun would be knowing you lied to the world all of this time?! These tracking stations are EXTREMELY valuable evidence that men DID go to the moon!!!!!!! ALL of the staff working at the Australian antenna complex, ALL of the staff working at the antenna complex in Madrid, Spain, ALL of the staff working at Goldstone, California, POINTING THEIR ANTENNAS TO THE MOON! That’s a LOT of big fat liers running around, Brian.
Of course I question things I here from the government. Why do you think I’ve learned all of this. It all started with an argument about moon landing hoax filth. I DID question the reality of Apollo for a very short period of time, because, as what’s been so often stated, that any of the “evidence” to the contrary of men landing on the moon is just plain GOOFY!!
December 15th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Hmmm….I can see that you’re still angry over what I’ve posted. The continued “direct assault” on the poster….rather than the information posted. Didn’t you get from my earlier post that we should “separate the people from the problem” when it comes to debate? You make others “feel” like they are the problem, which , to you, maybe we are.
I don’t know if you get this or not, but I’m not “trying” to convince you Ross. It’s not an “I’m right and your wrong” thing at all. You are a firm “believer” of every detail NASA, a “secret” Govt. Satellite Space Rocket Program, has purported over it’s Lunar Apollo Program. Since I know you would agree that portions of the Agency are highly secretive, what makes you “so certain” that information dealing with the Apollo Missions are always 100% ” just as portrayed” by NASA? You folks are so “scared” that something might be “wrong” about the mess, that you actually attempt to claim “more” than you possibly could ever know. You’d have to be a fool to admit the same Agency has “nothing” ever to hide about what it’s really doing behind closed doors. So let us all get this straight, for the sake of the evidence, and there’s plenty of it to the “contrary” from an array of “very intelligent” sources…(including some of NASA’s own people over the years) would you be willing to answer a simple question for us?
Would you kindly go on record to say you “agree” with every portion of information relating to the Apollo program revealed from Govt. Funded NASA and all related sources which concur with NASA, to be “exactly” as was communicated and not fabricated in any way to protect secrecy? I’d really like all your readers to read your response to this. It’s a very fair question formulated by “me” the guy who doesn’t know very much (according to you and Phil Plait). You need to be very careful how you answer the question. I would like for the blog readers to see who’s “really” being desparate here. You go to such great lengths to “agree” and visciously argue on the behalf of every NASA tidbit….that your arguements actually stray from the more reasonable and obvious conclusions which wind up hurting the very “authenticity” you are trying to establish!
Hmmm…let’s see if “anyone” would agree with Occam’s Razor as it applies to the CIA…or to the NSA, or even to the origins and development of the entire NASA Program, and it’s trustworthy “developer” ex-Nazi Wernher Von Braun. Let’s examine how Occum’s Razor applies to any governing bodies in Washington DC??
An honest dedication to finding and discovering “truth” assumes one can view evidence without being rediculed for doing so. It is an established “fact” that a faster growing number of people accept “some” sort of foul play with the Apollo Missions (even after all the debunking attempts purported) than ever before since the alleged event took place. The scales are tipping the other way Ross, and Phil, why, with all that self appointed “intelligence” are you not getting your points across to the masses??
Well….I’m finished debating with you Ross. You have shown me as well as your readers that “you” really are desparate with the countless insults directed toward me to “make your baseless case”. I offered to keep this civil, but you cannot. I think your fans will always “agree” with you, but those on the fence just might have 2nd thoughts about your continued attempts to justify your rude and inconsiderate (and derrogatory) comments. In an official debate….you’d have already “lost”. Yet with all due respect, I appreciate your insatiable hard line for what you believe, and I truly mean that, as I have always done during this “blog discussion”.
So, just like Neil Armstrong, I think I will withdraw from society and pretend nothing ever happened. But to other readers of the blog, do your own homework….take a long long look at all the evidence you can find on both sides of this “time consuming” mystery. Examine it exhaustively, you should always be “encouraged” to do that…..not discouraged by opinions and personal character attacks by others who “don’t want you “looking around” to decide for yourself. This is one way Ross, you are “adding” to the “faster” growing numbers who have “finally awakened” to the way Govt. Agencies Prosper. Keep it up!! I’ll check in from time to time!!
Peace my friend.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
One last link for all the bloggers. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.reformation.org/ss-von-braun.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.reformation.org/wernher-von-braun.html&h=368&w=500&sz=28&tbnid=VzF16EkAOItSUM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3DVon%2BBraun&usg=__s3QOZyUVxVM74-vwwaKCeqqxQJ0=&ei=uzooS4zLJtWUtgfa1L3ZCw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=11&ct=image&ved=0CCMQ9QEwCg
If a picture is worth a thousand words….this one “truly” says it all!!
December 16th, 2009 at 9:39 am
The “why dont we point the hubble telescope” argument only shows how disqualified you are. Yes it has been shown and calculated IN THIS VERY THREAD, that the angle-resolution of hubble does not sufficide to see the apollo landers. (scroll up and read)
And even if hubble could make pictures like the LRO does, what would you say? Its all faked! So no point in that. It only shows your own fallacy.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Also the LRO is actually not a spy satellite, or is actually designed to make high-resolution photographs of the apollo landing and this “can read a dime” was a myth about spy satellites from a start. The argument was could read a newspaper heading from space, or could read a dime in 1km distance. Of course ignorants already mix that up, and make it to “could read a dime from space”. The LRO has a different orbit than a spy satallite to start with. The LRO was designed to scan the moon surface, the apollo images we are getting is a nice by-product. For example the LRO uses a laser beam to scan the surface, which has to significantly scaled down on the apollo areas, since the metal as reflective surface could damage the LRO.
December 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Hmmmm…..Muriem, didn’t you bother to read my posts before you “responded”? Show me where I argued we should “point the Hubble”……I “NEVER” once wrote, said, or even implied that. Now who’s “disqualified”?? Reread what I wrote about the Hubble, then go slap yourself up side the head for your over defensive “shield and protect NASA” comment.
Also, I never implied, stated, or mentioned that the LRO “ever was” a spy sattelite. Geesh. You are also wrong about the capabilities of spy satellites. Take a peek at the upcoming “Googles” map, yes, these are not from a “plane” as was mentioned “in error”. The point was about “capability”…not what the public has access to. This is just a “small” smidgeon of satellite capabilities “declassified” …(yet used for years) and put out to pasture…(that’s the public). http://www.slashgear.com/google-geoeye-1-satellite-starts-snapping-photos-0918729/ The others we have can do even better!! So, yes….Hi Res Spy Satellites can and do all I have told you previously…and that’s what “is” just what’s knowable by the public!!
No “mix up” here….it’s just that Pro Apollo fans have “no vested interest” in hearing about how good our Satellites really are…..and…as you can see… for a very good “protective” reason. : ))
Oooops! : ))
The point IS….that proof according to the “claim”, “lies” motionless on the moon. We can all say what we want about what constitutes as “proof” from what we have here on earth all day long, but the only “real” proof, “lies” up there, if it’s even there at all. Finally, something we all can agree on. My entire point hopefully well digested, We currently have the capability to do this now….but don’t. NASA could easily provide you the truth, but doesn’t. Insteady they continue to string you folks along “in suspense” with an original Apollo 11 style LRO footage….40 years later!! Don’t you all see you’re being duped by a NAZI developed NASA which wants to keep the truth from you. These are the facts. You can speculate on “specs” all day long…..but the truth has been known for years….why don’t they just “show” it to us all in High Res….all of it?? You can believe what you “want”….but is your believe based on the want…..or the what you really know “could” be done to prove this once and for all? Meanwhile….be happy with the unconclusive “intentionally Low Res’d” LRO. It was “self acclaimed” Low res…..why?? Why send a probe to the moon and tout that all will be told….(I just loved the anticipation from many of your posts on this!!) and then give you pictures….which….ummm…..will show “proof” once and for all…..yet have to be explained as to what’s in them, since nobody could possiby “know” from the pictures themselves.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I would be disgusted if Nasa purposely sent a satilite just to prove men landed on the moon. We who know don’t care what conspiracy dopes think. So why would they? I just enjoy these images and appreciate Phil and these LRO websites. Sometimes though, people sound like they’re not sure, so people like Muriem and many others like myself try and fill in the blanks. By the way, “specs” and data is extremely important when explaining history.
Oh, by the way, check google for India and Japan orbiter news. Apollo 15 site. Guess they’re in on the conspiracy too!
December 17th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Ross. you mean “We” who “Trust”….certainly not “we who know”. Unless you were physically there “yourself” you really “can’t know! Sorry Pal, you only know the version NASA has ‘chosen” to reveal and release to the public, and naively “assume” it’s all true! That’s right. How gullible are you Ross? It appears you started on the right track with a skeptical eye….but now, you leave the thinking to NASA and Phil Plait?? Really now. NASA “actually” does more than you will ever know Ross. So, your science is one of “assumption”…..as you assume everything you’re told is fact. Do you think this way about other Govt. Organizations as well…or are they also exempt!
It is a fact you cannot deny that Govt. organizations deal in secrecy and deception. But Pro Apollo Nutters (and their imagination) tells them that “no secrets here” folks, no deception, and never any cover-up….(and especially when dealing with the Lunar Space Program)…no way… no how… right Ross? Oh Please! : ))) You should have listened to your own gut the first time when you questioned the program….and now you question “nothing”…and have “fallen for everything”…resorting to proving the fake is actually real. True laughing stock!! Debate Over! I have simply run circles around your logic, your thinking, your blind faith in NASA’s “obvious” deception….where to now Ross?? Yes, you SHOULD be disgusted just as YOU said you should…..NASA “did” say they would take photos of the leftover missions previous…..so of course “it absolutely was” an INTENDED part of the mission. So don’t lie to yourself (and us) by implying there was never an intention for them to “capture photo’s of the remnants” when NASA came out and “said that they would”. They knew this would get all you Pro Apollo Nutters “juices” flowing. But then hand you the lowest res. photos of God knows what. Oh what great faith you have in your Govt. Ross. But almost 90% of all people believe the Govt. lies. Where do you stand on that one Ross?? Also still waiting for you to answer my earlier question posed to you a day or 2 ago….or are you just too afraid to answer it?? Here it is again to refresh your memory.
“Would you kindly go on record to say you “agree” with every portion of information relating to the Apollo program revealed from Govt. Funded NASA and all related sources which concur with NASA, to be “exactly” as was communicated and not fabricated in any way to protect secrecy”?
Your whole NASA “NAZI” NUTTER world is hanging in the balance, so have at it. : )))
December 18th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Gee, Brian, or Para2122, I thought you were done talking to me. I feel so flattered now! I almost feel sorry for people like you who live in so much fear. Oh, I’m not American, by the way, and as I’ve said before, I don’t believe every single thing that ANY government tells us. I did NOT say Nasa never intended to take photos of the landing sites. I just said that it was not the PRIMARY function of the LRO.
Why do all you hoaxers label Nasa as THE government. Lot’s of FUNDING from the government, but a completely separate organization. OF COARSE, we’re not going to hear every detail. Here’s a Nasa secret that certainly was not revieled untill much later. When the LEM was jetisoned to fall into earth’s atmosphere from Apollo 13, instead of being left on the moon, a big concern was about the plutonium power cell still on board. It fell into deep water near New Zealand and is considered safe (hopefully). Now if Nasa is this evil bunch of “Nazis” as you claim, do you think we would have EVER heard about this?
Do you really think that any modern country could function AT ALL if everything you heard from the government, or a government funded organization was a lie? WOW!
As I’ve been trying to say and repeat and repeat, people and organizations from OTHER COUNTRIES were involved in the Apollo missions, with tracking, examining moon rocks, and LOCATING APOLLO LANDING SITES!!
http://www.thehistoryplace.com/specials/different/strange.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news171102159.html
December 18th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Well folks, here’s a shot of the Copernicus Crater on the moon, where “no” astronaut was ever said to have landed. Tell me what you think of this? http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/20/copernicusside.jpg
This was the cancelled “Apollo 20″ location which would have been sent had they not been scrubbed. My point? It appears we can see “plenty of boot tracks” in this photo simply just “naturally occurring”, just as in the photo from the above LRO. There also appears to be “many” artifacts, even “shadows” which could easily be “construed” as “leftover LEMs…at least about a dozen or so”!! : )) Amazing isn’t it folks? Looking just like the “other” shots taken by those totally (again) inconclusive other “fly by’s” from “those other countries” too. You see….”if NASA told you” there’s little green men and a city in the crater…..then showed you this photo…..you’d all probably go with it in amazement!! : )) My point exactly. You would except ALL public propaganda as truth, as long as it came from NASA. You “Deify” NASA….which is your own undoing. You will not except “any” fabrications on the part of NASA will you Ross?? We all know why….as it destroys your little perfect imaginary Space World….which in reality…is a World truly “Lost In Space”.
You see, I never purport to ascribe that “everything” NASA or our Govt. says and does is a lie. I don’t have to in order to show the failure of excepting everything! It’s just a known fact that they lie so much…they’re experts on “air brush” deception. But NASA got sloppy with the Lunar Missions. Would you be able to spot what’s real and not from the Copernicus photo if NASA told you what was really in the photo? No, you wouldn’t, b/c you already “accept” NASA as the official source of “truth” on “what’s really out there”.
There is a plethora of questions surrounding NASA and the Lunar Missions. What do you expect from a “NAZI” guided operation? The fact is…..no one has any way of really knowing what they “say” is true since there’s really no way of authenticating the data. NASA is “self- authenticating”. When people claim “truth” simply b/c “they say so” That’s where I get skeptical…and NASA fans take the bait hook line and sinker! Just like the MSNBC news clip of Phil Plait vs. Bart Sibrel. Bart offered self explanatory proof of a hoax. Phil’s reasoning? It’s just not true….and that’s why it’s wrong. : )) What a phony picture of “earth” in a fake black background….then, vwoilla!! The Brightness of Earth’s Orbit/bright sunshine kicks in!! What a total joke, it’s obvously faked. Explain that would you Phil? I’m sure you can cook one up for that raw NASA footage, and tell us they were “just playing around” or having a good time!! : )) Like Mitchell’s boy suggested when Sibrel played the NASA clip for Ed Mitchell. Space cowboys, yeeeehaw!! It might have been helpful if Phil had debunked that while he was on the news program during his turn. Must have been kicking himself after the show. Based on the interview, He was totally owned by Sibrel. Sibrel got his point across, and Phil just simply said, “it isn’t true” without giving “any” reasons why. Would love to hear his spin on that one since he’s had plenty of time to “review” it and run it by his NASA cronies. But oh yeah…he doesn’t work for NASA….I sort of figured that one out. The Folks at NASA must love you Phil…you are “their” true champion…they ought to cut you a check!
December 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Ah right, Brian. What happened to not having any disrespect for people who think the landings are real, and that you’re just looking for proof we went, as you claimed in comment #681? Or could it be you’re just another Apollo Denier who will say anything to support yourself and deny everything that proves you’re wrong?
For anyone still listening, Brian is a shining example of why I don’t argue this sort of stuff directly with the deniers any more. It’s no use.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Oh Phil, did you really get this right? Everyone can check “the record” and see if I “verbally attacked” or personally “disrespected” the “poster” aside from the rubbish posted. Unlike you, Ross, and Miriem….I responded directly to “the information posted”, never insulting “them” personally for posting it. It was clearly your supporters who personally attacked me! You also say you won’t “argue” with deniers, but you do. You sure did with Bart Sibrel, and we all watched him clean your “atomic’ clock on national television!! : ))
Your entire dedication is bent on “debunking credible evidence” from those who say the landings were faked. Are you saying you’ve given up?? I have been much more gracious on a personal level than you Phil, Ross, and Miriem, who’ve simply run out of credible things to say, so you just attempt to “discredit those who post”. : )) I have attacked the problem…while they, you, resort to ‘attacking” the person posting. So, let’s get back to the “debunking” shall we?? I’d like to offer you the same opportunity I gave Ross…who neglected to respond to the challenge for obvious reasons.
Phil…..Would you kindly go on record to say you “agree” with every portion of information relating to the Apollo program revealed from Govt. Funded NASA and all related sources which concur with NASA, to be “exactly” as was communicated and not fabricated in any way? A simple yes or no will do. : )) Feel free to add comments to support “why” (or why not). Perhaps one can see why you no longer want to defend NASA’s every claim. Would just love to hear you explain “how” you’d go about debunking Sibrel’s Film Clip. I mean, after all….I’m sure you’ve got something to say about that one too…right? has the tape been doctored in any way, or is it also real like the rest of what NASA put on film. : ))
December 20th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I agree, Phil. I suppose I do it because of the thousands of people who dedicated their lives and some who lost thier lives for the most incredible journey in human history.
I explained the Sibrel video in comment 692, but of coarse, instead of looking at my evidence in a scientific, or curiuos frame of mind, Brian like all hoaxers, not only ignored my reasoning, but claim I never even responded to this sillyness. CLOUDS AREN’T MOVING didn’t register.
We aren’t giving up, Brian, we’re just tired of coming up with all kinds of evidence and having you completey ignore it! We have the patients to look at your claims, and explain them, but you obviously think that your EGO, like other hoaxers, is the most important thing here.
I think these LRO images HAVE got the hoaxers worried. (they won’t admit it , of coarse) They don’t bother with studying the history of Apollo, they want an EASY explination. They might have to swallow thier pride and that’s not an easy thing to do!
December 20th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
When NASA finally provides something self evidentially clear about their claims, (ie remnant debri left on the moon) enough to “convince” the News Agencies to “stop” giving time to hoaxers….then this will all be settled. The “fact” that time is given to both sides, is proof a case has been made. Until then, somebody is lying and believing the lies!! I will accept clear hi res images as proof as I have said before, but don’t expect anybody to jump on the your wagon with “what you’ve got” here.
If Sibrel’s “NASA” clip hasn’t been tampered with….even with the audio turned off, anyone can see that a deception by the astronauts themselves has taken place. Do you claim that the footage is a fake?? If so, why coulnd’t NASA’s footage be also fake? If not, then explain why “all the lights were off” and a very small “earth”…which never would have been that small (even from the moon) is shown the footage?? Who cares about “clouds”…..that isn’t even the point. It’s obviously “very very bright outside” just after the errrr…..earth in the “blackness of space” is removed with the “blue haze” of a real Earth’s orbit in clear view! Clouds “not moving” aren’t even relevant here unless you are declaring the NASA reel to be a fake yourselves….all for the first time ofcourse, then, welcome aboard! : ))
December 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I never claimed the footage was fake. I said Sibrel’s accusations were idiotic. Can you read? Welcome aboard? You are just too STUPID to bother with.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Hahaha!! Oh Good!! Now that’s what I call making a case “FOR” the authenticity of Sibrel’s discovered lost “NASA” film footage since you now claim it’s not fake!! Wow, shame on you Ross. : )) Now you know you can’t have this both ways, and still call ME stupid?? : ))
So, let’s get this straight. Had I “agreed” with you and Phil on the whole LRO claim, then you would be praising my “intel” inside eh?? Let me just make a distinction between you and me, Ross. Your’e a day late and a Euro short of an argument so you resort to name calling and insulting the “person” while conveniently “ignoring” the evidence. : )) We can all see this. I have never personally called you “names”. You have blatantly been rude, arragant, and totally representing who (I suppose) you really are. Since you’re acting as though you lost the battle and the war, you just can’t wait to just “hit somebody” like Buzz did! : )) It doesn’t change anything regarding the debate, yet it just makes me snicker that you can’t stand me…as it let’s me know I am way to much for you to handle : )) Hey, sometimes the truth hurts doesn’t it Ross? There’s hope for you though, don’t give up your search for truth, as you at some point will learn to calm down and realize you really were wrong all along. That’s ok, not the end of the world, just the end of your NASA dream world so don’t get too upset about all the wasted time you’ve spent defending an organization you “don’t even know” plagued with failure, bankruptcy, and death and then, all of a sudden, vwoilla……perfection in almost every respect!! I, like millions of others, remain skeptical of that. Why is that so hard for you to accept??
How many times has a space rocket “ever” made a successful landing….anywhere?? Why the moon ofcourse….how do we know?? B/c NASA said so, and uhhh…everybody trusts NASA since NASA never lies about anything. : )) You’ve been totally owned Ross! Phil is alot smarter than you are, (without calling you an idiot ofcourse) and I actually think Phil is a decent guy even though we disagree on NASA and it’s moon program. I don’t know where you’re from…and honestly don’t care, but you could learn some etiquette and tact from Phil, and others on this baord who actually seems like decent people. Yet I remain unconvinced of “you” in as much as your “point”. I just find myself asking, why can’t you be more like Phil?? I’m not asking you to agree with me..(you’ve already partially done that : )) just be more like the professional intelligent guy you claim to be, that’s all. Can you show us how you can be more like that??
December 20th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Merry Christmas Phil!!
December 21st, 2009 at 9:13 am
Here is a little about Soviet and other third party involvment with the Apollo missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-20447.html
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/links1.html
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Here’s a decent collection of those “for” and those “against” the Apollo Lunar Missions. I think it is a nice that they even put Phil Plait at the top of the debunkers! Nice Job Phil, and I do mean that respectfully.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Moon_Hoax
Some interesting quotes. As you can see, this “debate” has been going on since “before” Apollo 11 with Gus Grissoms “lemon in the cockpit” Apollo Criticism and the “accidental” death of the “researcher” investigating their lauch pad “deaths”.
I have even heard some interesting comments made by NASA officials over the years “forgetting” that we uhhh went to the moon refering to our ‘inability” to sustain space flight without being “fried”, or being struck by micro cosmic debri without proper hull shielding. I guess these NASA officials occasionally “forget” we walked on the moon 6x!
The quote at the bottom of that web page (linked with sources) also proves that even some of NASA’s own people actually “doubt” the authenticity of the lunar landings, even an “astronaut” and Apollo advisor!! He is quoted as saying,
“I can’t be 100 per cent sure that man actually walked on the Moon. It’s possible that NASA could have covered it up, just in order to cut corners, and to be the first to allegedly go to the Moon.”
Dr. Brian Todd O’Leary, former NASA astronaut and Apollo project adviser[30][31][41](5:22–5:45)
Lunar believers need to be reminded, that “evidence” does exist which puts the Lunar Program program in question. Enough so, that “debunking” these claims has become an “internet” vocation seemingly in “desparate” need to re-calibrate the interpretation of the “original” NASA claims. So, in other words….if you’re taking the time to “debunk”….you must feel the alternative of just letting the “quacks rant on” an action worth fighting against. When taken into full account, one must truly realize the scope of this may never be solved on the basis of the evidence we presently have available. Just as the above LRO shots show alleged bootprints and debri, other photo’s can be said to show similar anomolies. Tell me what you think of this?
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/20/copernicusside.jpg
Do any of you Pro Apollo fans think there was an Apollo 20? Do any of you know that several “Astronauts” have gone on record saying they have seen “alien space crafts”? Many have been recorded as having seen UFO’s…..but alien space crafts? Do you believe them?? My point exactly.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
What are your thoughts about this kind of stuff?? http://www.alienmania.org/proof-of-an-alien.html
Pay close attention to the “moon” parts of the video. Not all folks who believe we went to the moon are of…well, sane mental health. Unless you think there really is merit to what they talk about. Here’s one of the Lunar Astronauts, Ed Mitchell weighing in on the “Alien Conspiracy”. Do you believe what he’s saying?
Phil, as a respected and thorough Moon hoax debunker, I would like your expert opinion on these reports by “respected” NASA Astronauts. Is there anything to the “Project Disclosure” Discussions from “well respected Scientists and Military Personel as well as NASA contributors?? I am asking this as a real question, as you can see, it begs other questions once one digests all of this. Either this is scientifically “verifiable” or it is not. It would either prove that, “not all the crackpots” are on my side of the moon…and yes, there are many of them as well, I would agree. We could agree that “both” sides have their down sides. But, knowing that Buzz Aldrin spent some time in a Mental Institution and alcohol rehab, and others hooked on “Aliens”….it just makes me wonder. Maybe it’s me. I’m being honest here, is there anything to this on the Mainstream Astronomy you’ve encountered??
Take a look and draw your own conclusions. http://www.news.com.au/moon-walker-claims-alien-contact-cover-up/story-0-1111117004632
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
Funny how the rest of O’Leary’s statement was ommited. He has several times iterated that he fully accepts the reality of the success of the US lunar human spaceflight programme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_O'Leary
Guess those evil Nazi Nasa guys threatened poor Brian. My point exactly. My point exactly. My point exactly. My point exactly.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Gee….you really do sound completely juvenile Ross. : )) Are you? Also, learn to post a link. : )) It’s funny you forgot to mention Brian O Leary’s continued “interest” in conspiracy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression. Seems he’s not as gullible of the Govt. as you are!! : )) Funny how he “lives” in Ecuador… He’s also a huge UFO nut as well, has seen them, and posts on his “blog” when they do see then in Ecuador. Yes this is the Ex NASA Administrator “Astronomer” and Astronaut? What’s incredible is the overwhelming love affair with UFO’s and existence of Space Aliens by many NASA officials and several “self acclaimed” as well as “profiessional” astronomers. I guess this puts Phil Plait at odds with some of the very folks in his industry who, among some, would claim to “know more” having been behind closed NASA doors, and been in Space, and been to the moon, and or simply observed the night sky.
I want to make something very clear. With at least half the Apollo Astronauts believing in Extra Terrestrial life, “without any shred of credible evidence (to which Phil Plait correctly agrees, as do I)…How can anyone trust a program full of whack jobs who say there “must be” aliens without any evidence!! How about you Ross? Would you care to comment on these “alien beliefs” by NASA officials….cuz…you seem pretty silent last time I put that one out in one of my recent posts. Perhaps you care to comment on, The Disclosure Project? Do you also “believe there “is” Alien life out there even though there isn’t a shred of “credible evidence to support such a claim? Go ahead and prove me wrong, if you can Ross. : )) I suppose the folks at NASA really are “on” something, as many tend to either come right out and say “aliens exist”, or at least, lean that way. So, show me the credible evidence “why” they could be right?? I mean, you always agree with NASA don’t ya Ross?? Talk about Crackpots! : ))
The fact that there are billions of planets with “some” like ours is a “huge” assumption without “any” evidence. How does anyone know “they” would need to be “earth like” even if aliens did exist? So, trust NASA officials on the existence of aliens along with their Looney Moon Program credibility?? Or do we trust Phil Plait who correctly “denies” any credible proof for such a claim. Who’s side are you on Ross? NASA officials, or Professional Astronomers (minus errr…Dr. Brian Oleary… he claims he’s an astronomer too…oooops!).
December 24th, 2009 at 7:48 am
I was looking at that source watch (moon hoax) webpage and in a short time found a few contradictions in the bullcrap they expell. Apollo 8 was replaced by a top secret UNMANNED craft and took the pictures of the famous earthrise? The VIDEO footage of Apollo 8′s earthrise is quite wiggly jiggly for being mounted solidly on a spacecraft!
Another mistake is the quarntine issue saying the astronauts were hidden from the public after Apollo 11. They were behind glass grinning away and waving at everybody, but somehow hoax idiots claim otherwise. These people can’t even bother to learn what Nasa claims to have done. Hoax idiots say that quarantine was only for Apollo 11 when in fact it was done up to Apollo 14.
Another silly one is the fact that John Young only jumped a couple of feet high instead of 3 meteres! Would you jump that high for a thrill when you’re a quarter million miles from home and could damage your spacesuit???
3 extra top secret surveyor missions to locate the retroreflective mirrors? It’s so easy to make this claim when the average person can’t prove otherwise. Nasa HAS to prove the reality of Apollo, but hoax clowns don’t have to prove any of THIER claims??
After visiting this latest hoax website I realized how much gratitude people like Dr. Plait deserve as I didn’t know how high this pile of lunacy was! Thanks man!
December 26th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Hope everybody had a good Christmas.
I have to beat up on that Moon hoax web page some more. (710 comment) It’s so EASY! It’s like finding the main RAT HOLE of Moon hoax pinheads! First of all, this crazy idea that Nasa managed to sneek three extra surveyor probes onto the moon without anybody’s knowledge is absurd! Of the seven ACTUAL surveyor probes launched between 1966 and ’68, two of those crash landed. So now we are all supposed to believe that THREE MORE probes landed perfectly and somehow placed all three of the retroreflective mirrors in perfect position?
Another, even more absurd claim was about communications. Bart Sibrel’s first notion was that an earth orbiting satellite was used to transfer all data to the tracking stations. (Please read my comment 674) Now, on that hoax website, there is an entirely different fabrication! TV and radio signals were emitted from the Earth to the Moon and re-translated to Earth by the radio equipment of Special Secret Surveyor or orbiter unmanned crafts. WOW! So not only we’re supposed to believe that the TOP SECRET Surveyor probes placed the mirrors correctly, but also had a powerfull enough reciever/transmitter to do this??!! ( don’t forget about the extra 1.3 second delay) Or, somehow an orbiter from the Moon? Of course the orbit would have to be geo-stationary…..YEEESCH!!!
This is where cross-referencing is so handy. (please read my comment 688) When you have the truth on your side, it makes things so simple. Cross-referencing works perfectly. These hoax ‘tards can’t even get thier lies straight!
This is something that makes me BOIL! Bart Sibrel and his “Astronauts gone wild” video. (Please read my comment 670…sorry, last one) Sometimes when I’m rude to hoax fanatics, especially the ones that try and degrade the 24 lunar astronauts, I realize that I can’t be RUDE ENOUGH! Some of these men are VETERANS! People that risked thier lives to fight for our FREEDOM!!! It would be the same crime if some jerk made a degrading, or humiliating video about Veterans from Afganistan, or Iraq! Anybody siding with these hoax monkeys should bloody well be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!
December 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Keep on ranting Ross, it appears nobody’s listening to you. : )) I’m glad you claim to be “rude”. It’s nice to see when a man has been “beaten” and resorts to rants and raves as a last ditch effort to propogate “moon propaganda” to the gullible….those like yourself. : )) I’m not mad, nor even rude. Just accurate… unlike you. : )) Time to get over yourself like everybody else has, and move on. Face the facts, “you” couldn’t possibly know if the moon landings really took place, cuz you weren’t there Ross, it’s just the simple fact. : )) You claim to know “more than you ever possibly could” about every event NASA claims. Since you cannot prove they occured, without “resorting to using the propaganda itself”….you wind up just simply proving the propaganda says it happened! : )) We all know that makes you mad, but I hope you get over it someday.
The real “hoax monkeys” ARE the astronauts. Remember to watch Sibrels hillarious clips of each astronaut, totally thrown off guard…and “unable to explain” the footage shown to them. It was Buzz Aldrin who “deferred” that “they were just passengers” (actors) and to take it up to the NASA (film directors) who procured the whole show! : )))) Each of Sibrels “Astronauts Gone Wild” reveal such cowardly responses, their very own actions and statements are proof enough to cast doubt on the whole lunar program! I douibt you’ve ever even seen them Ross. Why not let those interested in the debate take an “honest” look at the footage represented on both sides? I would encourage them to view both sides….but you don’t…..why not?? Ross would have you “not waste your time” as he clearly wants “you” the viewer, to simply trust him, cuz as he’s said before…..he’s a real “self acclaimed” expert on NASA, right Ross?? You never worked there…how is it you’re such the credible source you claim to be??
I have no vested interest either way with what you the viewer chooses to decide. There’s lots of evidence out there, and it has NOT been debunked as these folks would have you simply just trust them. I don’t really trust folks who say they’ve seen alien space crafts, UFO’s, and other questionable phenomenon, like folks from NASA have. Trouble is, folks like Ross and Phil, would have you place your full trust in NASA (a NAZI engineered regime of V2 Rocket Scientists) when they (Ross and Phil) do not even believe in UFO phenomenon themselves. So, why is NASA so trustworthy (aside from the little green men ofcourse)?? : ))
As far as “veterans” go….there are many veterans I know who have questioned the entire lunar program, so your “bombshell” of serving our “country” has nothing to do with connecting “legitmacy” to the Lunar program. Governments lie to promote their own propaganda just as long as people exist who are are as gullible as Ross and other pro-Apollo “believers”. These folks refuse to question anything (see Ross Hagemann’s comments for more of that), and generally accept “everything” their corrupt Govt. tells them that happened. Sieg Heil, right Ross?? NAZI lover. If you love NASA, then you must love the NAZI’s who engineered it. So, Ross….don’t go away mad or rude….just go away! : ))
December 27th, 2009 at 9:33 am
WOW! To be held in the same light as someone like Dr Phil Plait is extremely flattering! WRONG, but THANKS MAN!
December 27th, 2009 at 10:34 am
However, I’d better let ‘Ol Brian have the last word as someone may blow a gasket! I wasn’t kidding when I said “I hope EVERYBODY had a good Christmas”
December 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Would just like Phil or Ross to share what they think the “anomalies” found in the crater of Copernicus could be shown in this photo, or at least tell us what they do see….or not…it sure looks like there are remnants in this photo, but nobody says anything about this one do they??
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/20/copernicusside.jpg
December 29th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
See….you ask simple questions to these “so called” debunkers….and they don’t respond. Firstly, I would love your expertise on the Copernicus Crater photo (in my post above) please….tell me what the “anomalies” are on the surface of this crater?? They look very similar to the LRO photo’s at the top of this blog. If specks are important….then what are they??? UFO’s?? Alien Crafts? Lunar Modules??
Secondly, I have also asked a question of Phil….who has refused thus far to respond to it….that will shed light on the Apollo missions in addition to the integrity of the entire NASA program…so, here it is again.
Phil,
“Would you kindly go on record to say you “agree” with every portion of information relating to the Apollo program revealed from Govt. Funded NASA and all related sources which concur with NASA, to be “exactly” as was communicated and not fabricated in any way so as to protect secrecy?
Meanwhile…..let’s check in with Ross to see how he ducked the question in an earlier response. Ross went on written record to say that while he doesn’t “believe every single thing that ANY government tells us”(a safe yet sane response) yet overtly failed to mention if he agreed with every portion of information released from “NASA”….which was WHAT the question asked. C’mon Ross…can’t you do any better than that? I’m not even being rude here. I’m just seeking answers from those who “debunk” as you claim. I asked you a simple and specific question, and you provide a side step answer. Hey, at least we are on the right track though….at least we both agree that Govt.’s “fabricate” to protect secrecy. We all know they do much more than that, but let’s stay focused on NASA for a moment. How credible is this agency?? After all, we’re all tax payers, shouldn’t we have a right to know how the Govt. funds “your money” to their agencies?? Take a look at this clip… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=898ezTmfRAk Listen to what Christopher Lord Monckton said while sitting on a panel of think tanks vs. the Global Warming Profiteers in Coenhagen…..listen to how much money he says is given of your tax $ to fund NASA….which is primarily now a chief scientific propaganda proponent of Global Warming! So, Ross and Phil….be very careful how you answer my question posed to you concerning NASA, the very organization propogating other misinformation to gain public trust and “favor”. So, Ross….one more time….simply just answer the question regarding NASA specifically…would you please?
Oh…for a sample of what NASA is saying about global warming….take a look at some of NASA’s claims (in the name of…errrr…..science) which they say will occur due to the Global Warming “Crisis”….and these people receive Govt. Funding for these predictions???
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1093489/nasa_climate_change_updates/
UFO’s…Aliens….Guilty “Acting” Astronots…..Fake moon rocks….Global Warming NAZI SS “Science”, and “unexplicable” Lunar NASA footage of a complete “forgery” caught on film….which has “yet” to be debunked….sorry Ross…”what clouds are you on”?
So, please feel free to answer my initial “honest” question Phil and Ross. Millions doing there homework have already concluded the obvious. Your answer to both above questions will help many of us realize the “real” truth about Apollo. : ))
December 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Brian: I have better things to do than jump through hoops for every Apollo denier out there. You need to do your research; the vast majority of stuff you bring up has been thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere. It’s not up to me to prove Apollo happened, it’s up to you to prove it didn’t.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
The fact is, these are really disappointing images.
Why would NASA post such useless nonsense? Am I supposed to be exited by looking at these? I work with graphical images for a living, and this is just sad.
I will anxiously be waiting for some images worth looking at, possibly some with detail. Meanwhile, if NASA wants to borrow my Nikon ED80 feild scope –D90 setup; It could surely get some better images from 500 meters.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Thank you for responding Phil! I’m sure you have better things to do than to answer a couple of questions (hoops as you call them) from an honest skeptic like me. With all due respect for your “debunking” efforts to “prove we did go to the moon” and I mean that sincerely, since that is your claim to fame and I have to admit you are good at it!! So good in fact, that if what you said, “It’s not up to me to prove Apollo happened, it’s up to you to prove it didn’t.” is really true….why dedicate years of your life debunking those who say we never went? For someone who says they “don’t feel the need to prove Apollo….you’ve led a valiant cause on the internet (and thoroughly too I might add) attempting to “proving the NASA moon missions” and have gained the great respect of many for your “work” so much that you are listed at the very top of the charts of “leading debunkers” in the entire country….if not world! You are internationally known, have made appearances on Network TV…. faced off hoaxers on live MSNBC, enclosed is the footage of that “debate” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SabtlXmCDdM and numerous radio programs, including NPR. So….you sure do give the appearance and “voice” to proving Apollo happened for someone who says the burden of “proof” isn’t on you, wouldn’t ya say? I mean, why go to so much trouble?? Attempts “worthy” of debunking must have been made in order to have you rushing to the defense of NASA to prove it “did” happen. So, which is it Phil, b/c it sure seems it “is up to you” to defend NASA as well as their Lunar Program to “prove” Apollo actually happened. I am not a denier….I am a skeptic, and therefor critical of how NASA handles ‘proof” using it’s own propaganda. I only want substantial proof beyond the political propaganda, just like anyone else “on the fence” with an outrageous claim not shared by any other country. Several things “never” achieved anywhere else in the universe such as “rocket” landings. No one anywhere has “landed” a space craft rocket….and we did this 6 times without a hitch or equipment malfunction, (apollo 13 was the anecdote). Space debri flying hundreds of thousands of miles per hour the size of a simple grain of sand enough to rip through the hull of the LEM or even the space suits exposed to open space with no atmosphere for hours on a crater riddled rock called the moon. Yes….it does make one wonder a bit.
Yes Yohan….I do agree. I too would willingly accept photo’s “self-evident” and “self explanatory” without the need for captions and NASA “strings” to tell me what is “in” the photo. Truth is…..NASA provided “low” res photo’s intentionally….they claim this themselves, yet elsewhere, they captured much higher res footage from the same LRO on the “same” mission. Why is that??
We can take “any” footage ever taken over the last 40 years….and absolutely “no” proof of the leftover missions can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Photo’s taken elsewhere….(ie where Apollo didn’t go) also reveal similar “features” used as “proof” of Astronaut “activity”. Here’s a photo from the Japan Orbiter Kaguya http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/img/20080520_kaguya_08l.jpg in this photo, just as described in the above LRO photo at the top of this blog, we see ummm….errr.. astronaut footprints all over the place if we are to take “lines on the moon surface” as proof man walked on the moon. Lots of em in fact…..how many did we send up there anyway!! : )) We are expected to believe that this photo (from the same Japanese Orbiter) http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=b67f64cc9d73d7c4de3efb606d3fc4d8&act=attach&type=post&id=13792 is “proof” of an exhuast plume from apollo 15. Funny thing is…..we see these “bright spot” anomalies all over the moon!! Even areas we “didn’t go” to”. So, one can spin this many a different way leaving those who “should” know better….with a very deep down embarrassing feeling…or at least “should”. We have the technological capability to prove this with state of the art Spy Satellites, with more amazing capabilities than this http://www.slashgear.com/google-geoeye-1-satellite-starts-snapping-photos-0918729/ and low res photo’s and laughable “disturbed” surfaces are all we get?? Then again….maybe we did really go? But the more crap heralded as “proof” only serves to disprove their own defense…with each “passing photographic opportunity”…leaving skeptics, deniers, as well as Pro Apollo NASA lovers….at odds over this for years to come….but someday…I am sure, will be resolved. Meanwhile, NASA has now become the Western Political Politburo for Extreme Global Warming, anyone care to defend NASA on that one?? It might even be easier to prove all the Apollo Astronauts who claim that Aliens do in fact exist afterall…cuz they’ve seen em. : ))
December 30th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Check out this film clip. http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=55246798
Make up your own minds based on the reactions of Alien proponent Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11 Astronaut.
My Favorite quote from Buzz Aldrin….”We were just passengers” and my total favorite….drum roll please….”if you show this to anyone (just after he’d seen Bart Sibrel’s Apollo film clip) you’ll be open for a lawsuit”. One which never occured! Are you kidding me?? I see a very fidgety Buzz Aldrin….and why would he forgo his own “defense” of the clip and simply just explain what “he” Buzz Aldrin, was doing “in the scene”, but noooo…..resorts to sueing Bart Sibrel if he “shows the clip” to the public. Now what would be so damaging if nothing fabricated was going on? Why wouldn’t he have just “laughed it off” and/or provided an explanation?? Either way….it doesn’t paint an “air tight” case for Apollo….it sure looks like he’s hiding something, and a man caught with his pants down. Bart asks, “do you remember this” and a fidgety Buzz relooks at the film clip and nervously repeats “the 18th?” Priceless!!
January 1st, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Thats your “substantial evidence”, “it looks like he is hiding something”, hahahahha. pathethic, not to mention the nonsense about the other pictures… and again the mantra should be “the LRO is not a spy sattelite”, “the LRO is not a spy sattelite”, “the LRO is not a spy sattelite”.
about this “cannot do any better part”, look who is speaking. Thats what the conspiracy theories cannot do, since they never actually are a complete theory. Its always about some pixels, some anecdotal evidence or simply not understanding the basic physics to argue “something is not right”. Can’t you do any better? How about for once providing a complete alternative theory that explains what exactly happened, instead of desperatly trying to find any loophole in the standard theory, we actually were on the moon. I have yet to see something like that. You cannot? Sure because a) it would be just so mind-blowing how anyone could have pulled out a hoax of this size 40 years long not being discovered (compare that to watergate) and b) providing a complete alternative theory would open yourself for critical inspection, which you just cannot do, right?
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:56 am
Glad to get a rise out of you Muriem. I’ve provided plenty of evidence in various posts, which is evident you’ve not even read them, so I won’t waste too much time with you until you do. The only self evidential proof “you” have is the NASA Propaganda itself. Have you really been told the truth? How do you know? On what basis is this true for you?? Since I haven’t received a simple response (perhaps it’s just too complicated) from Ross and/or Phil, let’s see exactly how much faith” you place in NASA by answering me the same question I posed them.
“Would you kindly go on record to say you “agree” with every portion of information relating to the Apollo program revealed from Govt. Funded NASA and all related sources which concur with NASA, to be “exactly” as was communicated and not fabricated in any way so as to protect secrecy”?
Just a simple yes or no will do….and if you’re capable, explain your answer, many skeptics and critics of the NASA Lunar Program have the right to see how much faith in a corrupt Govt. Agency you actually have. Go reread my posts….and debunk everything I’ve already pointed out, which….since you you’ve failed to do “any of” so far. Go reread what I’ve already made perfectly clear regarding the LRO photo’s. Seem’s the only point you’re defending is that the “LRO is not a spy satellite….and who’s debating that??? Or are you just debating that with yourself? I’ve given you plenty of “stuff” for you to debunk, so have at it.
Meanwhile, I hope you consider entertaining my question about how much faith bias you have in NASA. : )) While you debate with yourself over answering, here’s some music to go along with that “self debate”. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3111397269396284361&ei=0jA8S4OFDY3mrALPt8ThBw&q=Bart+Sibrel+Buzz+Aldrin+youtube&hl=en#
Here’s some more photo’s you’re sure to enjoy! I especially like the elaborate camera “trollys’ built around the quite large expanses of Moon drops….and err….what ever would these have been used for?? : ))
http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/
This should all keep you busy for hours on end Muriem. Who knows….at least we both agree on one thing…. the LRO was NOT a spy satellite…..it’s too bad though, cuz then we’d have that smoking gun footage that proves this either way, once and for all! : ))
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:17 am
Brian, first, no even if the NASA would spend millions to send a spy sattelite to the moon just to proof you wrong, you would still call it faked. There is no evidence you would accept whatsoever, its a complete closed world theory, get it? And even if we would fly you on the moon and headbang you onto the landing module, you’d still scream “well now you put it here, you just set it up yesterday, this proofs noooooothing”.
About this “Would you kindly go on record to say you “agree” with every portion of information relating to the Apollo program revealed from Govt. Funded NASA and all related sources which concur with NASA, to be “exactly” as was communicated and not fabricated in any way so as to protect secrecy”?
Well you not gonna pull an O.J.Simpson argument here. Look instead of tis “every portion” crap, and arguing a pixels here, or putting up pictures of Braun in Nazi uniforms or interpreting into people “seem have something to hide”, give me a really worked out alternative theory to the official one and let me judge then which of the two I consider to be more likely the case / true. This one must include: the radio signals coming from the moon, the mirrors on the moon, the studio, up to the the pictures of the LRO coming up today, how come no other country with their secret services ever caught upon it, the moon rocks from the moon that were distributed all over the earth (containing some isotopes like He3 which are not existing on earth) and I want a *complete* list of persons/organisations who are included in this massive hoax as well a worked out number of persons who are included in it. Yes a *complete* list “the government” will not sufficide.
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:10 am
Hi,
It’s probably been asked before, but can anybody direct me to some pictures of an astronaut with the earth behind him. I’d have thought there would be loads of them, if it was me, then that would be the most important picture to take home.
So far can only find one with a flag and the earth looking like a small light. I would have thought the earth would look bigger than that to be honest seeing as it’s larger in size than the moon. I could look at the moon on any night of the week and it would look bigger than that picture or am I missing something obvious here as I’m not a photographer.
Cheers.
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:17 am
somehow….I don’t think you spent enough time looking things over….or perhaps you did, and it really ticked you off! I just ask you a simple question, which you “simply” refuse to answer. I’ll get back to all the fluff later, I am off to a lunch appointment, meanwhile….keep checking out “all” the links and prepare some sort of explanation. Really, I would drop all, apologize to all if I see Hi rez photo’s of “any” lander equip. on the moon. Now what’s so unreasonable about that?? I’m not a denier, I’m just not a propaganda believer without the only “real” nail in the coffin that will shut me up. I mean really now, I’m not such an unreasonable guy, I’ll even get back to you for each of your “proofs” you mentioned once I return. Thank you for not being as “rude” as others have been, I at least appreciate that!
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“Really, I would drop all, apologize to all if I see Hi rez photo’s of “any” lander equip. on the moon.”
There are plently of high res photos from the apollo missions themselves, most have lander equip. on them.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Muriem, I’ve noticed that Apollo deniers all seem to have the same personality characteristics. They want people to think that they’re smart, or special by saying something as outrageous as “men didn’t go to the moon”. It’s about getting attention, or being the center of attention, or being the most important person in the room (or the blog). You and I have come up with a lot of debunking lately and as you say, headbanging them on the LM would do no good.
I wish these people had enough imagination to realize how terrifying it would be to fly an X-15 to the edge of space, or get in a dogfight in any fighter plane, or ride the Saturn V, or go to the Moon. So I get real CHOKED when certain people call astronauts “cowardly”, but I should realize that it’s good old insecurity that drive these folks, and not common sense. If I wasn’t so cranky, I might feel sorry for them!
I honestly hope ‘ol Brian doesn’t take that too personaly.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
All NASA itself, from my perspective, is the very issue in question Muriem. Spence, I agree with your assessment. I have often thought rationally, that since the earth is 4x the diameter of the moon, coupled with a total volume surface area of about the size of Arifca, the earth should actually look like it does in “this” music video parady.. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3111397269396284361&ei=0jA8S4OFDY3mrALPt8ThBw&q=Bart+Sibrel+Buzz+Aldrin+youtube&hl=en# at the 1 minute mark in the video, a more accurate representation of what earth “should” look like from the moon if the pictures from NASA were actually “real”.
Take a look at the moon’s actual size as compared side by side with Earth here http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/Luna/Luna.htm Also interesting is the “lack of reflectivity” which is attributed to the moon as compared to the Earth, which contradicts reports from the claims of the astronauts saying how “bright” the reflected surface of the moon was, supposedly cancelled out “any visual” ability to see stars without the aid of “optics”….which was never requested further detail on what they actually did see in their optics! Some astronauts reported that they were able to “stars” from the surface when behind shadows….yet, when we look at the amount of “light” in the NASA photo’s reflected off of the lunar surface and bright objects around them, it’s a wonder they were even able to achieve that feat since they were constantly and mysteriously “well lit” whenever behind photo op shadows of the LEM. Please read what I have said carefully, I am not stating that it should have been dark enough to see stars necessarily, but I doubt anybody could have seen them in the shadows “as some claimed they could”….as there seems to be plenty of light in the errr.. “shadows” reflected off the astronauts to have made it nearly as ‘impossible” for them to see stars with the naked eye especially if they couldn’t in the reflected sunlight……a totally different point I am questioning.
One very interesting point though to consider, would have been Michael Collins Apollo 11 moon orbit, who entered a partial “out of radio contact” orbit around the moon….declared he’d not seen “any stars” at all in this post Apollo press conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkLt2rI-uc&feature=related something I find very difficult to believe. He says he doesn’t remember seeing “any”….yet “he” orbited the entire backside of the moon in total darkness!! He should have been able, as with the other astronauts, to view them very clearly from the space craft! They should have been brighter than “anyone” has ever seen on the dark side of the moon!! So right there, I think he’s lying. I have viewed stars all over the world, and the outback of Australia is so densely packed with the stars of our milky way that it literally appears like a cloud in total darkness of space….with nothing “but” stars!! Michael Collins would and should have seen them at that point like no other person who ever lived up to that time!
Now Muriem, I don’t have to put together a “theory” at all. As in a court of law, I only have to prove reasonable doubt on what NASA has provided to back their claim. You and I were not physically “there”….we did not “see” this event take place with our own eyes….we are “trusting” in what has been shown to us as “proof” of authenticity. There are millions of people who have found problems with NASA details, just as I have, and simply question their account. Your proof?? Radio’s, reflective mirrors, the amount of liars needed to pull this off, and lack of questions from the Russians or other countries. Russia never sent a “man to the moon” and indeed does have Radio’s and Reflective Mirrors on the moon just as we do. Governments lie to their own people everyday and don’t hesitate to kill anyone who get’s in the way of their version of arragant “progress”…lying about Apollo had both means and motive. If you have ever worked in a high level clearance department in Govt….. you would know there are varying levels of “secrecy” for whatever means determined by high ranking Military officials, nameless to the public, who wish to achieve an ends which justifies their means. This happens all the time without public awareness, and for “missions” which alter the course of history, some of which have been false flag “operations” which, to this day, have also successfully been kept under wraps, with only those involved carrying out the “orders” along with those trained and proven to keep secrets. Here’s an interesting video which describes how the wife of a Govt. Elitist went public of how her husband was trained and groomed to be a trained assassin. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/kay_griggs.htm Gee…get to know your local Mob Cartel, the US Govt. and you will be as skeptical of what they say as I am. Any Govt. liasoned mission is “carefully planned” and involves “only those” cleared to be in the know….while most simply carry out what they’ve been (simply) “trained” to do…and live in a “lala” land….much like the Matirx “reality” reported by media sources. These folks only know what was provided in “front of them” and simply shared “that…or their experience” with the rest of the world as it related to them.
Many different people from all over the world “have been skeptical” of Apollo and NASA from the very beginning. Skepticism didn’t start with Apollo. Do some research on Gus Grissom, the all star astronaut who doubted the whole program up until his death. “Baron” The Apollo investigator looking into his death on the lauch pad engine “test” of Apollo 1, also mysteriously died after his Wife and step daughter were ‘hit by a train” just days before the 500 page report of his “findings” were to be disclosed. This report was never found, yet to this day, his family declares “he” was murdered. Russian Cosmonauts have been skeptical of Apollo from the very beginning. The Russian Cosmonauts “have” had various skeptics over the years go public. This whole “event” isn’t anywhere near as air tight as you think, once you know how your Govt. works. Once you understand “that” Murien, you will see how our Govt. “controls” the World in ways the media will “never in the darkest moon” ever report.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg Wow….really “air tight” huh? Love how the “LM” shadow extends to the very edge “limits” of the errrr….moonscape “set”.
All I keep doing is putting up “evidence” which has yet to be debunked?? Why is that? I ask you questions you will not answer, I give you evidence which makes you either mad or keeps you silent. Why not respond to the business of “debunking” the multitude of links I have provided? I really don’t want to “win” an arguement and lose the war….If I am totally wrong with any or all of this, I will be more than happy to change my position in exchange for one that is more true. I only want the truth. I really want someone with a hint of self acclaimed intelligence to engage me here. I mean, with all due respect. Thank you for listening.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Nahhh Ross….I don’t take it personally. I have provided you with a large amount of material for you to debunk. But you haven’t done that. I really don’t care about your position on the Lunar Program….I’ve posted mainly to show other readers that those who claim to debunk, really don’t do what they claim to do, and I have left a bunch of sources from which to sift through, mostly all from NASA themselves, and have arrived at a very different conclusion than you. I’ve given you evidence, now why not debunk what I have? Everyone’s waiting to see the most truthfull outcome of this, which, hopefully now, shows who’s really doing their homework afterall! It’s not the side who embraces little green men, NAZI’s, Lies and Secrecy now is it Ross? We have exposed what appears to be a well planned hoax, and all you guys do is simply say, it’s not true, and resort to attacking the messenger with no engagement of the material put forth for review. That’s all I can do Ross, I think it’s your turn to tell me, and others watching this blog, why what I’m saying is total nonsense without the personal attacks of my character. I’m just a guy Ross, who just sees this differently than you do, and made my case. All you have is what NASA tells you is true. I don’t believe them, and I think there are many people waking up to that. Yours is a case “for” NASA….simply put, mine puts them into question, and I have done that!!
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:18 am
To repeat myself, instead of trying to push tiny holes in the official story, show me the complete alternate story, how did the hoax happen, how did they manage to get the radio signals coming from the moon (inclusive all matching timedelays because of the speed of light), how did they get the mirrors on the moon which are proofable there, how did they get the quite impressive amount of moon rocks on the earth, how did they manage to keep all the people silent? And eventually put up a complete list who everyone needs to be involved in the hoax. Is it a small core team? which would mean thousends of engineers developed stuff that actually works, so you might as well just use it to actually fly to the moon, or were the vast amount of involved enginers and scientist everyone involved in the hoax? I suppose they need supperior secret brain controlling machinery to keep that amount of people silent. (Better wear your tinfoil hats!) How many organisations does the hoax actually span? Which persons and organisations up until today need to be involved since the LRO must then also a complete contemporary fake. I want the complete alternative story, not some debunks (mostly born out of ignorance or stupidity) that one again has to debunk, and which for 700 posts here has been done pretty well here.)
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:57 am
Spence, I found a couple of pictures of the Earth with the LM in the foreground on one from Apollo 11. I’m no expert about photography either, but the Earth might look smaller than what is seen with the naked eye. Jim Lovell says that with your arm extended, you can cover up the whole Earth with your thumb when you’re near the Moon.
http ://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:22 am
Hi Ross,
Thanks for that link mate, but can you direct me to the pics you mean.
Now here’s my problem. Every picture I’ve seen with earth and the moon in it shows the curvature of the moon. In other words the pictures could only have been taken from a great height. Apart from this picture I still can’t find one, maybe one was enough considering it would have probably been the most important picture of all.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Astronaut_Harrison_%27Jack%27_Schmitt,_American_Flag,_and_Earth_(Apollo_17_EVA-1).jpg/250px-Astronaut_Harrison_%27Jack%27_Schmitt,_American_Flag,_and_Earth_(Apollo_17_EVA-1).jpg
Personally i’d have thought there would be more than one.
Have also heard what Jim Lovell said but that doesn’t make sence to me. For example I have tried doing what he said with my thumb and doing the same thing with the moon and I’m yet to make it work.
Considering the size of earth compared to the moon, sticking your thumb up at arms length and being able to cover the earth doesn’t sound right to me.
Maybe I’m getting confused.
Cheers
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Murien, let me ask you another question that I hope you won’t mind answering….(still waiting on the others, but let’s try testing your “confidence level” you actually have in Govt, and their “Agencies”). Let’s take the “official story” of what happened on 9-11. Let’s find out if you have “any questions” at all about “any” of the 4 events which took place that day. Do you think that the Govt. is hiding something? B/c if you don’t….you are in the national “minority according to Zogby Polls. If you say you do….then your “confidence in Govt. is beginning to sound a little shakey, which then gravitates these folks back into the Original Story. See how this all works folks?? This is why they can’t even be honest with you about their own questions, anomalies, doubts…even hesitant to be even “curious” about the Official story of xyz said events b/c they can’t even be honest with themselves….they doubt “nothing” and fall for “everything”.
Here’s what CBS and the New York Times poll results had to say about those who actually believe the Govt. with it’s 911 “Official Story”. Here’s one of the questions.
“When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?”
May 2002 responses: 21% said “telling the truth”, 65% said they are “mostly telling the truth but hiding something”, 8% said they are “mostly lying”, 6% not sure.
3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24% said “telling the truth”, 58% said they are “mostly telling the truth but hiding something”, 14% said they are “mostly lying”, 4% not sure.
4/8/04 CBS 21% said “telling the truth”, 66% said they are “mostly telling the truth but hiding something”, 10% said they are “mostly lying”, 4% not sure.
4/23-27/04 24% said “telling the truth”, 56% said they are “mostly telling the truth but hiding something”, 16% said they are “mostly lying”, 4% not sure.
Oct 2006 responses: 16% said “telling the truth”, 53% said they are “mostly telling the truth but hiding something”, 28% said they are “mostly lying”, 3% not sure.
Those who “accept” Official Govt. stories as 100% true, are actually in the minority, as their “hard line” requires them to do so.
So you see….I’m not the one forcing you “in a corner” to accept what others say with “blind allegiance”….whether it be the 911 Commission report or NASA. You willingly place yourselves in “that blind box of allegiance” every time “Simon Says” you should. By accepting “everything” as fact, you force yourself into an irrational position, one which questions “nothing”. “That” is your undoing. As much as that is in error….and most people know it is…..you are just as much a shared “Conspiracy Theorist” as any one who doubts an “Official Govt. Story”…if in fact, there exists “any” credible evidence which truly puts the Official Story into question. Geez….anyone wonder what makes it so “official” in the first place?? I do. I think we all do, but being honest about even the smallest of doubts, undermines the “official story” and nobody who sticks with the a Govt. that “lies” can afford to do that now can they? I am not the one with unreasonable doubts, if so…..prove me wrong?? I’ve put up, so either rebut, or shutup….which, is what it appears you are doing very well lately. Cmon spar with me would you please?? Show me some heart by explaining how Michael Collins “wasn’t able to see stars” in the shadow of the moon just as he claimed. What a total lie. No atmosphere, no sunlight, total darkness…..no stars?? You be the judge.
Now….this just in…some humor from those who question Apollo. I especially like the 2nd half of the video!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyLzvcKssrQ
What some astronauts are willing to do for money!! http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0be5c681fc/buzz-aldrin-s-rocket-experience
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Brian, are you actualy going to sit there and say that I have not been debunking your “so called” evidence since comment 688? For those of you just tuning in, Brian is a big fat LIAR!
I among others, HAVE been debunking his foolishness for that long (with some webpages), yet he says the opposite. I have brought up third party evidence (not just Nasa) and Brian says I only quote Nasa. Brian is just here to be ANNOYING and DISHONEST!!! Not CONVINCING!
This mentality illustrates the Apollo deniers perfectly. People like Bart Sibrel making his two-bit videos for one reason only…to make MONEY from fools!
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I actually tried to photograph the moon with my amateur camara, but it was not even visible on the developed picture! Don’t ask me why, I’m obviously not photograph too, has to do with shuttertime and lightinput or something like that.
Hear you got a nice earthrise picture: (and you hoaxers of course you could fake that better in photoshop too, don’t need to tell me, I know there isn’t anything that would convince you)
http://moonpans.com/prints/Apollo11LMEarthRise.jpg
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Ok Ross….take a nice deep long breath….breath in….breath ouuuut……relax a little. : ) Just let others decide on whether or not you’ve “debunked” the various items I’ve posted. You’ve only commented your “opinion” only on an item or 2 without any substantiating information, nor explanation nor have you “debunked” ANY of what I’ve posted?? I’d have to give Muriem more credit than you, at least this person tries to formulate some kind of defense, but you just get hot under the collar and ruin it for everyone begging for more representation from “your” side, which is just left waiting and wanting. This means your arugument is weak, and that you are simply well….majorly just pissed off. So, instead of taking what I’ve posted and debated it, there you go again….. back to “attacking the poster” and forgetting the evidence altogether.
Sorry Ross, I’d have to conclude that even if you really were “right about Apollo”… nobody would ever know based on what you provide as proof “for” your case, or by debunking those who doubt it all happened, cuz you won’t engage. This really bothers you, and makes you very angry, cuz you have no rebuttle or reasonable responses to what I’ve put up. Don’t quit your day job if this is all you got!
Yes Ross….you’ve not debunked 1 thing. Your own attitude says it all. If I am simply a crackpot, why not just ignore me and laugh me off……instead…..you only know how to attack the messenger, while intentionally ignoring evidence. One would suppose this is this because you just can’t explain it, or don’t know how to debate with someone who simply runs circles around your Apollo Lunacy. So go ahead with your personal attacks, since we all know you’ve reached limits of your ability to reason.
January 3rd, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Oh….and NASA gets it’s money from???? : ))
January 5th, 2010 at 9:51 am
http://www.physorg.com/news171102159.html
It seems that one has to repeat themselves over and over again with poor old Brian.
Now, why would a country like India write a newspaper article confirming the reality of the Apollo 15 landing site?
WHY WOULD A COUNTRY LIKE INDIA WRITE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CONFIRMING THE REALITY OF THE APOLLO 15 LANDING SITE?
US, Japanese, and Russian scientists have previously found evidence of Apollo 15′s landing site by studying photographs.
US, JAPANESE, AND RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS HAVE PREVIOUSLY FOUND EVIDENCE OF APOLLO 15′S LANDING SITE BY STUDYING PHOTOGRAPHS.
THREE, count ‘em Brian THREE other countries, NOT Nasa, NOT the US government, THREE other governments , THREE other countries, CONFIRMING the existence of the Apollo 15 landing site!
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/ESOC_40_Anniversary/SEMMFE7CTWF_0.html
Here’s a webpage showing Spanish involvement with one of the Apollo programe tracking stations.
http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/parkes_operations.html
Australia had tracking stations…..
Hey, wait a minute! Thats FIVE other countries involved! Whoops!
Of,course, Brian has repeatedly acused me of only quoting Nasa.
Is the New York Times not a respectable newspaper? Now why would they confirm the reality of Apollo?
WHY WOULD THE NEWYORK TIMES CONFIRM THE REALITY OF APOLLO?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/opinion/17tue4.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big0720.html
http://www.squidoo.com/apollo-moon-landing-photos-from-space
http://cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/apollo-revisited/
Here are some other images of Apollo landing sites. Now, Brian, remember to hold the control button down and turn the mouse wheel to zoom in on decent stages, landing gear foot pads, and rover tire tracks of various Apollo landing sites. Take your time, zoom in on your own ignorance!
Brian’s “evidence ” is based on Bart Sibrel’s goofy videos that are meant to humiliate and degrade Astronauts and VETERANS. You’re d@#n right this makes me angry! Anyone NOT getting a little angry at this does not deserve the freedom that we enjoy! And he calls this evidence? I call it criminal!
I’m here to stay, Brian…get used to it!
January 5th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Spence, the photos from the surface of the Moon SHOULD show it’s curvature. Think of spy planes here on Earth (U-2,SR-71) flying at 70,ooo + feet and pilots saying that they can see the curvature of the Earth. The Moon is about 1/4 the size of the Earth. I’ll try to post this website again (not sure why it doesn’t work)
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
Click on Apollo 11 and scroll down at least 3/4. It’s picture # AS11-40-5924. Again, photos quite often change the size of things in the background when compared with the naked eye.
As far as the thumb thing (are you closing one eye?) or maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying. Cheers!
January 5th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Yes Ross….I can see the horns on your head from where I type! comin’ tahhhhh git meeee!! Hahaha!! : )) All of what “you tried to “say”, can easily be “debunked”. Let’s start with the “facts”. We have NASA’s self attributed “low” res photos of what “they” claim” from the LRO flyby. Fact, everyone has access to the “same” photo’s “NASA” has propagated. Fact, any “scientist” from any country, unless they reveal their analysis so as to be open to scrutiny, is simply expecting us to “take their word” for it, so….just like you Ross, along with Phil and other Progagandists, it’s just another opinion for which we “both” can find people to “support” our separate findings. For, ex….let’s say Phil Plait declares himself an expert on what it’s like to be on the moon. Since he’s never been there, only has access to the same information provided by, yes…..back to NASA, (nice try to shift quotes elsewhere…while anyone’s entitled to their own opinion, that doesn’t make them correct….as we shall soon see). Back to Phil Plait. In his defense of “NASA”, as a rebut to the Fox TV moon conspiracy program aired circa 2001, he makes this statement at his website http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
“On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day”.
Hmmm….lets compare that with what the astro-nauts stated during the post flight press conference of Apollo 11 who actually “claim” they were “there” on the moon. here is that video clip to see for yourselves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkLt2rI-uc&feature=related . Now, how is it “both” of these can be correct at the same time?
So one can be entitled to an “opinion” but without “facts” to back it up…..your argument “is” weak. Just b/c newspapers print something, doesn’t make it true….there are “retractions” from prior columnists and articles all the time. There are “biases” in reporting, everyone knows that, as well as all out fabrications and lies! That’s not science Ross. Bart Sibrel exposed NASA in a lie, a lie which line for line has “not” been successfully explained away. Would you like to try and convince me Ross how “you” think it reads? I’ll display the clip for you so you can debunk it for all to see. : )) Let us all know if you think the film clip is a fake. Let us know “why you think it is” if you do. I want to know how you think “nothing” unusual is going on with respect to the actions of intentional “misrepresentations” of where the crew “actually” was compared to the NASA information provided ” in the clip”….unless it’s a fake of some kind. Just tell us with your best foot forward, why you think “everything” is just fine and that something ie “crininal” isn’t really going on “in the clip”. Begin at the 5 min mark in the clip which continues on in “part 5″. Tell me what “really is going on here” Ross. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXF87uc1ar8&feature=related and put it all to rest for us all. You discredit a man who cleaned Phil Plait’s clock on MSNBC for all to see!! Even Phil noted some of his own misgivings about that debate interview. We don’t want to hear that you think the NASA clip is nonsense….we want to know “why” you think it’s nonsense. Phil…..feel free to chime in, as you’ve had plenty of time to think it over, meanwhile, Ross….give it “your best go” and clear it all up for us okay??? : ))
BTW…..all those “tracking sites” had NASA engineers involved in setting up and tracking. Nothing “independent” about that is there?
Finally, readers might want to have a look at why NASA used such a low res camera for the LRO when it could have used a better one. Also, the LRO pics appear to have been tampered with according to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKj5fckUX-c&feature=related proves the images don’t hold up to minor scrutiny. I had some fun with your photo’s….especially “India’s proof”…..here http://www.physorg.com/news171102159.html# ….can you spot “any” of the proof?? That’s what I thought. Some people will believe anything you tell them. Show me some real pictures Ross…..cuz your “proof” is paper thin! Look forward to your explanation, I know you can’t do it without defaming people who disagree with you, I would hope you’d be more scientific about it for a change, can he do it folks??? : ))
January 5th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Here…just for you Ross….Havin’ some fun with….Buzz Lightyear!!! : ))) http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/822b2761c2/ali-g-with-buzz-aldrin-from-aligshow_fan?rel=auto_related&rel_pos=3
January 6th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I feel like I’m taking out the trash again.
The lunar reconnaissance orbiter actually performs seven functions. The angular resolution of the narrow angle camera lens (the one that is used to take the Apollo images) is capable of taking images with a 1 meter per pixel resolution at 30 miles up. This would, of course only give you 4 pixels per LM decent stage. These images are FANTASTICALY clear with specs like that! (oh no, Brian doesn’t like specs) There are SIX other tasks that it is designed to do! Oh and by the way, the latest SPY SATILLITE wieghs about 30,000 lbs. The LRO as you can see wieghs about 2200 lbs! (smarten up, Brian!)
http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft.html
Stars in the day??? Have you ever walked on a dark night with nothing but the Moon to light your way? From a 1/4 million miles away, a full Moon will show you the way. My god, man it’s EXTREMELY BRIGHT on the surface !!!! Maybe the Astronauts saw a tiny glimse of stars, maybe they didn’t. One thing for certain is that NO camera (still or video) is going to be able to show stars with a very quick shutter speed. I think that that’s what made me laugh the loudest when I started reading about this hoax nonsense! ANYBODY with half a gram of brain matter can see the stupidity in “why can’t we see any stars in the photographs?” The Astronauts were very BUSY on the Moon. All of the Astronauts complained of not having enough time to complete thier missions. Someone like Sibrel and his minions expect Astronauts to have PERFECT memories (even in thier 70′s and 80′s), and somehow be more like machines than people! (Hollywood mentality)
http://www.clavius.org
That is really what Sibrel is all about. He has a background in THEATRICS. Someone who’s shy in front of a camera isn’t going to do so well. Maybe Astronauts? Maybe most of us? He prays on our Hollywood infested society, knowing that there are too many people having more faith in a silly movie than reality!
Do me a favour, Brian, Ive seen the Sibrel videos (obviously) so you go and rent “In the shadow of the Moon” Also watch special features section. NO HOLLYWOOD! Watch it with a few friends (if you have any lol)
January 6th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Well….there you have it folks! Ross “right on cue”…showing his ever wearing thin sheer ignorance when asked direct questions about Luny Apollo! He’d rather just amaze you with his space balls knowledge about who he likes or doesn’t, instead of answering the critical questions asked of him. One supposes he’s just not capable and just blunders on with meaningless baseless nonesense! : )) We’re all beginning to wonder if “you” really are that “somebody” with only “half a gram of brain”. Gee Ross, when will you answer one of my questions?? In your attempt to sound so “self rightously smart”….you actually achieve total pompuous status as a Phil Plait “wish he’d been”! : )) Don’t worry Phil….you’re safe.
What big Ross “meant” to say about the “stars” being viewed in direct sunlight while standing on the moon was that he’s really confused. Does he accept his icon, Phil Plait, who states “uniquivically, that stars “can” be seen during daylight while standing on the moon? Little does Ross know….or maybe he just doesn’t “WANT” you to know, that the Apollo 11 astronauts themselves said they NEVER saw stars at any time! So, which is it Ross, who do you think is right? It’s ok, I think Phil will understand….just tell us ALL what YOU think….can stars be seen during the day on the moon? Yet, another direct question evaded. Slicker than slick willy himself. : )) Explain to me Ross…why Michael Collins stated that “he” never saw stars during the mission of Apollo 11!! How do you make a full Orbit around the Moon, be in total “darkness” with complete radio silence from being “behind the moon” (in the moon’s shadow) and “NOT” see a gazillion stars???? Explain that one….(yes…even another one lame ole’ Ross can’t manage to handle…probably on the phone right now with Phil Plait getting his story together of some sort of space monkey anomalie to explain it…and you talk about Sibrel and THEATRICS?? : )))
Instead of “defering to Clavius” for everything “YOU don’t know”….why not try answering some of my questions directly?? For someone who claims to “debunk”….you sure do a crappy job of making a decent case for why Sibrel’s “NASA” film clip is sooooo eroneously wrong. Again…..since you’re so evasive and afraid…..why not explain what’s in the clip for all those reading this blog?? You’ve had ample time to think about it and “debunk it” so why don’t you DO it?? Nobody really cares to hear you rant about how much you “don’t like somebody” which means nothing compared to the evidence “they’ve” placed forth, that your incompetence is the only thing left to defend vs. it…..so you go on “trying” to discredit your opponent instead of his evidence, which just gets very old and meaningless. Everyone gets it that Ross just can’t handle the evidence, so he finds an “alternate route” to try and “prove” his fantasy really is for real…(perhaps just convince himself) ..no matter the evidence to the contrary!! Apollo was made for YOU Ross….and everyone like you….who neglect the evidence at ALL costs to preserve his idiotic fantasy. I’ve left a ton of unanswered questions, heaps of evidence demanding “explanation” and Ross just skips over them completely so he can keep his “perfect Apollo image” intact and never object to anything Apollo or his Almighty Govt. might ask him to accept. Earth to Ross…..you space monkey….Deal with the evidence and show us you can actually engage intellectually afterall instead of simply sharing your little thoughts and meaningless opinions about who you like or dislike…..nobody cares about that except you, we want you to debunk and answer questions….none of which you seem capable of doing! : )) Keep on trying though….. it’s a laughathon!! : )))
January 7th, 2010 at 10:53 am
I’ve never seen anybody contradict themselves more than Brian.
First, he claimed to be open minded as to the possibility of men walking on the Moon.
But of course, we’ve learned that that was a pile of horse pucky.
I’ve been contradicting his ideas since the start of these pointless arguements, (688) yet he claims otherwise.
Brian says, if only the news would verify the LRO images to be genuine. I showed him two different articles from two different countries and the response was “Just b/c newspapers print something doesn’t mean it’s true”
I think what convinced me of the reality of Apollo was not only the positive evidence, but the incredible stupidity of Bart Sibrel’s “A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon ” video clips I’ve seen on the net. (Don’t worry, I would rather lose a limb than buy this filth!)This is the THIRD time I’ve tryed to tell this to Brian, and believe me, it’s the last! In Sibrel’s 4/5 section of “afthotwttm” this bimbo narrating tries to tell us that this video is taken from LOW EARTH ORBIT instead of the actual 130,000 miles. Somehow, the astronauts held the video camera at the back of the craft and shot the film through a round window, trying to give us the “illusion” of being far away. THE CLOUDS AREN’T MOVING!!! This means, that the spacecraft IS FAR AWAY and not in Earth orbit! Watch this low Earth orbit footage I’m providing and then watch Sibrel’s 4/5 section of “afthonwttm” provided by doofus in 744. The footage is genuine. The interpretation of it by these idiots is OBVIOUSLY WRONG! GET IT??? Are we clueing in yet??
http://www.fotosearch.com/FSE445/x29638615/
I’ve just learned that Phil Plait worked on Hubble Space Telescope data for a decade, and even helped build and calibrate one of the cameras on board.
Should we listen to someone like Brian or someone like Phil?? Duuhh I dunno? Lessee, Doofus, or acomplished astronomer, author, and contributer to many other science publications.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Hahaha!! What a silly little video which proves nothing at all. Here Ross, let me explain what’s happening since it exposes your little NASA Fantasy…..The “reason” you don’t see “clouds moving” in the NASA clip from Sibrel is b/c it’s a transparency “photo” of earth you space monkey! : )) Anyone watching the clip can easily see the “bright” glow of Earth’s orbit “immediately” after they “turn on the cabin lights” and remove the “shrouded” transparency which used the bright background to “illuminate” the “fake” picture of the earth “hanging” in the window!!! It’s so obviously fake, it’s hilarious!! Everyone note….in the beginning of the NASA clip, it states “Not for Public Viewing”…. Yes Ross, a transparency of a picture of a “fake” earth in the blackness of space indeed HAS NO CLOUDS MOVING!! There is no possible way the information “displayed” by NASA dated and timed atomically, with Neil Armstrong stating, “we are now 130,000 miles (over half way to the moon) out from Earth…..can be true with the bright light emitted in earths orbit shining through at the same time now can it??? : )))) There is NO possible way for there to even BE blackness of “space” with the sun shining in the “VERY SAME WINDOW” so “bright” “at the same time” now can it!!
This is why the apollo space monkeys “never” try to extrapolate this video clip, b/c it would make them appear laughing stock to try and debunk it!! See it for yourself and decide whether what I have stated “best fits” or is there some “other” postulate you want to conjure up??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXF87uc1ar8&feature=related Be sure to watch both parts 4 and 5.
Geee…..should we listen to someone like Ross and Phil??? (Feel important now??) Who “dare” not debunk it??? Or continue to see just how far this “Rabbit hole” goes???
As you can see….the inconsistencies I have pointed out, are simply just avoided by the Pro Apollo Loonies for fear of the “truth” coming out. A truth, “they” cannot handle. If you look closely on the earth transparency….you can even see what appears to be SOME SORT OF DRAWING ON IT. The photo barely resembles earth, which is why it appears more like Venus than earth! Folks like Ross really hate me for bringing it up, b/c they cannot debunk it without sounding like idiots. But then again, you’ve already shown the world you excel at that! It stands undebunkable now doesn’t it Ross?? While I provide real evidence of Apollo forgery…..all you can do is attack those with whom you don’t agree. So what’s your next tact to explain this away?? Tell us it’s a fake piece of video?? Then welcome aboard!!!! You should stayed with your first instict Ross, when you doubted in the beginning….I suppose YOU are the REAL DEAL Flip Flopper!! One cannot get more “CONTRADICTORY” than that now can they. : ))
January 9th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I’m going to start with part 4 of Bart Sibrel’s pukage. First of all, I’m sure a person with a British accent is used as a narator to give the “impression” of intelligence, along with sappy music in the background. Theatrics for people like Brian. The Rover cost is high because of 4 wheel steering, separate electric motors driving each wheel, high tech power storage (insulated) , it’s own guidance computer…Do I need to go on, Brian? Yet bimbo states that it had less parts than a Jeep. Duhh..it’s gotta be really lite? Like ALL conspiracy NUTS, no research was done, because the dopes that buy this trash believe everything negative and don’t even CONSIDER anything else! If you told someone like Brian that the lunar Rover was built by Kelloggs, instead of Boeing, he’d believe it! Not to mention how irrelevant the price tag was, when discusing the reality of men driving it on the Moon. More theatrics.
http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_rover
The flag blowing in the wind is my favorite! How incredibly retarted do these conspiracy s#@t brains think the average person is supposed to be??? EVERY SCENE with the “flag blowing in the wind” has an Astronaut’s hand on it! It’s got an aluminum shaft with a rod going across the top and wieghs NOTHING on the Moon. Of course, we’re ALL suposed to forget about it in other video footage when no one is near the flag and it’s ROCK SOLID!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXF87uc1ar8&feature=related
Another irrelevant piece of bile is the “poor” live video coverage of Apollo 11. Why wasn’t it as clear as recorded video footage? Duhhh, cuz one wus recorded and de uder was live… broadcasted a quarter million miles away! Armstrong himself was surprized that the live coverage worked at all! Smarten up, Brian!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXF87uc1ar8&feature=related
Of coarse, Sibrel can’t even learn what a low Earth orbit was for the Apollo missions as his video states it as being a few hundred miles when in fact it was about 100 miles. (99 mile perigee, 101 mile apogee) How is ANYONE supposed to believe this trash when they can’t get a SIMPLE FACT LIKE THAT STRAIGHT? I NEVER heard, even in Sibrel’s video, anything about a transparent photo. Where did you invent this from, Brian? Are you off your medication?
Sibrel’s video narrates that” Niel Armstrong has NEVER given an on camera interview” and a minute later shows Armstrong doing an on camera interview!!! And of coarse, he’s supposed to be holding back tears. A FIVE YEAR OLD could see that this is bogus! He sniffles once and rubs his nose, but we’re supposed to be STUPID ENOUGH to believe he’s about to cry like a pussy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFX87uc1ar8&feature=related
I used to get angry with Apollo deniers as Brian knows, but after watching, with more frequency, this conspiracy nonsense, (thanks for that, Brian) it only solidifies my knowledge of the reality of Apollo. Now, Apollo deniers just make me yawn.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
A mistake on the Lunar Rover website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_rover
January 15th, 2010 at 5:45 am
lol i have found a problem with the shaddows im shore some one here can clear it up.the pic are of just the base(of lander) hight i dont care,but if you look at pic of apollo 11 and see there shaddow lengh,and compair it to the base shadow lengh (remember pic were taken with in a few days of landings but 40 years later)so shaddow lengh should be same,but it isnt the base is casting way way to big shaddow (just been back to NASA web page to look at shaddow lengh and just dont match)
January 15th, 2010 at 8:36 am
The LRO image you’ve described was taken when the sun was earlier in the lunar morning(which would cast a longer shadow) than the Apollo 11 mission. There are more recent Apollo 11 images where the sun is almost directly above the decent stage and the shadow is directly below the LM.
http://www.squidoo.com/apollo-moon-landing-photos-from-space
January 15th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
The shadows are different because of the sun angle. A day on the Moon lasts 2 weeks. The sun would have been earlier in the lunar morning for the first LRO image than it was for the Apollo 11 mission.
January 25th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
For years the moon hoaxers have been screaming about pointing the Hubble at the moon to shoot photos of the landing sites for proof of lunar missions. (The optics are all wrong to do that, apparently) Now comes the LRO and its incredible pictures of just that. And what do the Apollo deniers claim? Fake, Photoshopped images of nothing discernable from the LRO. Enough already. Thanks for the great site and wonderful images.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
After reading this whole blog string of ” Fors” and “againsts” its apparent that mankind always will be divided in pretty much everything we do. I would love to see another civilization appear and offer us some perspective of ourselves.
February 21st, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Good observation Tim, if one always believes what they are told is true……when it always “is”……then there wouldn’t be a problem. It’s b/c people “lie” for political gain, money, power, all of which is clearly the case here with NASA, (and anyone else who’s axe to grind keeps them employed) should be placed into question…. Hi Phil! Oooops!! : ))
Money buys allot of loyalty these days. Nobody denies the Government keeps secrets from the public, or denies truth so as to gain posterity and respect and carry out plans “it” sees as a benefit to itself. So what’s being said here, is no exception to that, hook line and sinker. What’s being “spewed” here on this site, is that NASA is 100% correct and honest about “all” it’s program details when dealing with the public…ie. They never lie. Furthermore, No one is to question it, without a first attempt at being “bullied”, “ridiculed”, and crucified for differing from those blindly accepting “all” details of NASA sponsored propaganda. Perhaps some information truly is “true”, but to say “all” without exception, without objection, is simply a leap of “faith” which “truly” is….. just as unscientific as it sounds and is therefor questionable….and “has” been proven to be so.
If you check out my links, especially the information “spewed” from NASA itself….you will discover information which, in the very least, makes one question the details. Check out my links vs. the rhetorics of Ross above and view them for yourself. Especially the Apollo 11 Press Conference with the fumbling astro-nots looking at each other “nervously” when asked if they’d seen any stars. It’s obvious by the response of “Michael Collins” here… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkLt2rI-uc that he “must be lying”. Even the great Phil Plait (sponsor of this web blog) is on record for stating that stars should be visible on the moon, even in daylight. Care to comment on that Phil?? Since Michael Collins wasn’t even “on” the moon, let’s take a look at what he “should” have seen during his “moon orbit”. Being behind the moon, in total darkness from the sun….would have yielded the most spectacular star light show ever experienced or seen by the naked eye, by man at that point. To see how nervously they look at each other, and say….” don’t remember seeing “any” stars is a total crock, especially by Collins, who “would” have seen gazillions!! This is a valid argument I’ve never heard by anyone else, and I’d like either Phil or Ross to comment on why Michael Collins, never saw any stars “at all” during his lunacy voyage in Luna-tic Orbit. : ))) I doubt I will get a respectful answer to this Tim…..their method of handling “rebuttle” bears no resemblance to science, or logic, or critical thinking. Just an attempt to discredit the provider of the information, rather than deal with the information itself. Nothing new there…..The NASA program will always have it’s boyscouts to honor and serve at any cost, even truth…to the descredit of their own pledge to uphold it.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Tim, Brian is very articulate and a skilled writer (much better than I), so his comments give a person the impression that he knows the history of the Apollo programme. He does not. All of his so called “evidence” comes from certain videos on youtube, as he has shown, or from any other hoax enthusiasts. One thing about some of these videos that is disgusting, is the person in the background trying to put ideas in the viewers head. If the “evidence” is so damning, why does there have to be some kind of silly narrating? Apollo deniers always seem to be so one sided, or so sure of themselves that they do not seem to be worth listening to. We all question what we see or here and without actually witnessing something first hand, we have questions.
However, I have been researching the Apollo programme for more than two years now, and from all of the novels, documentaries, hoax websites, hoax debunking websites, listening to professional people and even knowing a little about people lying or not ( I could go on and on), I would bet my life that 24 men went to the moon and 12 of them walked on it!
February 26th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Brian, how would you know what Michael Collins SHOULD have seen on the far side of the Moon? Were you there? How many times does someone have to tell you that you can’t see stars in sunlight. If they LANDED on the far side of the Moon, than probably yes. I get so sick of you bringing up the fact that the Astronauts were nervous in front of the camera. They are NOT actors! Are YOU comfortable in front of a camera? Your Hollywood brain expects these people, and interviews to be exactly like a blockbuster movie. You also expect them to have perfect, photographic memories. Collins IS the one who would know if stars were visible as he was the one who had a little spare time during the landing. Armstrong and Aldrin were VERY BUSY checking LM systems and landing procedures. Use your head! With landing on the Moon for the first time, how much time do you think there was to stop and smell the roses? Or notice if stars are visible or not?
Well, les see, we better stop and try and see if we can see stars, and forget about the rest of the silly mission stuff tu do, or some idiot might try and say we didn’t go to the Moon!
You have done NOTHING …NO research at all! We’ve looked at your micky mouse “evidence” and found it irrelevant, useless and laughable! You have only looked at every negative idea, that you try to invent, and NOT any positive evidence. Have you even seen “In the shadow of the Moon” yet? Have you actually read any of Clavius.org?
Brian, your opinion means NOTHING, because you have not looked at both sides of the coin. You claim to be rational and logical, but you don’t even know what Nasa claims to have done! Youtube is not the only source of education. Read a book, get off the internet, for a change, broaden your investigation. We all would have a lot more respect for you.
Real conspiracys are relevant because there isn’t enough evidence to contradict the ideas at hand. NOT so with the Apollo missions! These Apollo conspiracy nuts are AFRAID to research the positive evidence, which is so vast, that it’s staggering!
February 28th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Can you see the equipment left on the moon from a earth based telescope? What about a large hobby type telescope?
My wife listens to “Coast to Coast ” ( AM radio) and half way belives we might not have really gone to the moon and a bunch of other stuff that crazy radio tell show tells her.
Oh by the way I found out that cattle mutilations are caused by maggots after cattle died from black hoof disease. Gross!!!
It was on t.v. so it must be true right?
February 28th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Can you see the equipment left on the moon from a earth based telescope? What about a large hobby type telescope?
My wife listens to “Coast to Coast ” ( AM radio) and half way belives we might not have really gone to the moon and a bunch of other stuff that crazy radio tell show tells her.
Oh by the way I found out that cattle mutilations are caused by maggots after cattle died from black hoof disease. Gross!!!
It was on t.v. so it must be true right?
February 28th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Well Ross…..let’s just say I out weigh your Apollo “experience” if that’s what you want to ascribe your self aclaimed “2 years” worth by about 20x (if you can that is). I have participated in more lunar activity than you’ve been dreaming of the past 40 years…I witnessed first hand each lunar mission with my own eyes, did you ever do that?? So don’t go dissing my involvement in NASA when you were probably in Diapers when I was being indoctinated with NASA’s boondoggle. Perhaps you weren’t even alive??? Either way, if a whistle blower came forward, let’s say…one of the astronots….and admitted it was all faked…..people like you Ross (I have my reasonable doubts about Phil) would “still go on believing” the lie you embrace with all your Almighty Socialistic Govt loyal, loving heart. The mark of a true patriot….is to descent when necessary. The evidence is all there, footage provided compliments of NASA, and the well kept secret is easily discredited.
Tell us why Michael Collins would “not” have seen stars on the dark side of the moon??? Why would that be Ross??? Was the “weather bad”? : )) I’ll pose the same point to you….why don’t you use YOUR head!! You even “disagree” with Phil Plait who is on record saying “stars” should be visible in sunlight “on” yes….”on” the moon. Do you “not” agree with Phil then?? Sorry pal, you’re an idiot if think Michael Collins was unable to see stars as he so candidly claims during the Apollo 11 Press Conference!! He’s lying. On the dark side of the moon, (that means in the moon’s shadow) stars would be the “ONLY” things visible!!…especially directly behind into outer space!! NASA lovers like you never think about things like that cuz you wouldn’t dare “dream” of anything wrong with your Govt. Grow up Ross, smell the crap you’re eating…..or honestly….just keep eating it, the truth makes no difference to folks like you as has been clearly proven. = )) I’ve given you evidence, so why don’t you debunk it??? There is no question during that Press Conference with all 3 Astronots turning each of their heads to “look at one another” that they were checking each others “answers” to the “stars question”. Nobody ever thought to ponder Collin’s remark that he “never” saw stars at “any” time. Liar. Those who believe him are suckers like you Ross! = ))) PS….earth to Ross….there “isn’t” any sunlight behind the moon…(according to Michael Collins)…who “YOU” claim….was there!! So you’re even at odds with those you’re trying to prove did what “you” say they did!!! LOL!!!
March 1st, 2010 at 3:15 pm
These men just went to the Moon. The most incredible achievement in human history. Now they’re doing an interview that the whole world is going to see. Nervous? One would think so.
Some of the Lunar Astronauts have passed away by now. Whisle blowers? NOT!
I honestly don’t know why Collins said he didn’t see stars at that point in the interview. Niether do you, Brian. If one wants to take ONE comment and conclude that the gigantic Apollo programme was a fraud, than maybe the world IS flat!
If you believe in anything strongly enough, NOTHING is going to sway that mind set. Voodoo magic man!
And, yes I am a patriot, and a Canadian, so SORRY about the hocky game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bryan, an Earth telescope cannot see something only 12 feet across (largest object left on Moon).
March 1st, 2010 at 3:55 pm
More about Mike Collins’ comment about stars, Brian.
The question included seeing stars while photographing the solar corona, not all of the time. Now it makes more sense. Nice try though. Please feel free to quivel!
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Brian, how did you witness the lunar missions first hand? What was all this participation in Lunar activity all about?
Yes I was here when the Lunar landings occured.
So prove to us about your (20X more than me) Apollo experience. What do you know?
How much thrust did the Saturn V produce?
Who built it?
What was the parked Earth orbit velocity?
Altitude?
What was the name of the booster that propelled the men and remaining Apollo machines to the Moon. ( of course you are now going against your belief in history, but this what Nasa claims to have happened, and you know what my position is)
How long to get there?
How long did the SPS engine on the Service Module have to burn to achieve LOI (Lunar orbit insertion?)
What altitude was a Lunar orbit?
What was the altitude when the Lunar module was jetisoned with the mission commander and the Lunar Module pilot for powered decent?
How long was the powered decent?
How much thrust from the decent engine?
Which missions used the Lunar Rover?
How much thrust from the Assent engine?
I could go on and on.
There sure is an EXTREMELY GIGANTIC amount of highly detailed, what you call fiction, to sift through.
My God, it was easier to GO TO THE MOON than it would have been to make all those fake movies, flight journals (have you ever read any of those?), thousands of lying mission control people, tracking people, guidance people, telemetry people, live broadcasting people, Astronauts, Astronaut wives, thier kids, Russians, Austrailians, Indians, Japanese …
Murium kept asking you, with ALL your wisdom, what really did happen if the whole ginourmous thing was faked…WELL?
Go ahead and support characters like Bart Sibrel and JaalaJ, or whatever the crap his name is, Brian, you’re on the wrong team.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:52 pm
footprints??that was a long time ago… footprints made by the astronauts i think were erased and covered by dust by now..wtf? why is it there until now?preserved??? sorry for asking..please tell me..i’m so into this.
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:44 am
Klmmy, the Moon is a vacuum (no air), so nothing other than a meterorite would disturb the soil for eons.
March 12th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Among all the evidence that attests to the Apllo 11 onwards moon landings, none is more convincing, to me at least, than the Soviets lack of support of the haox initiators and the ensuing beleivers.
To appreciate this, go back to the end of WW2. America had been running the Manhattan project in secrecy (or so they thought). Before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Russian president knew that the Americans had developed the A-bomb and quietly told them so. From that point, the race was on.
The Soviets had beaten America into space with Sputnik. They beat America with manned space flight with Gregarin. However, America came back with putting the first man in orbit around the planet with John Glenn.
Then JFK stunned the world by announcing that by the end of the 60′s America would send a man to the moon AND RETURN HIM SAFELY. The Soviets tried valiently to win the race, but they could not match the know how (and the budget) America held in advantage.
The Soviets would have liked nothing better than to be able to discredit America when it came to Apollo 11. The truth is, they could not. Because the American’s successfully landed a man on the moon on that July day back in 1969. It’s that simple. The rest of the arguments are mere detail. I rest my case.
March 12th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Among all the evidence that attests to the Apllo 11 et all moon landing missions, none is more convincing, to me at least, than the Soviets lack of support of the haox initiators and the ensuing beleivers.
To appreciate this, go back to the end of WW2. America had been running the Manhattan project in secrecy (or so they thought). Before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Russian president knew that the Americans had developed the A-bomb and quietly told them so. From that point, the race was on.
The Soviets had beaten America into space with Sputnik. They beat America with manned space flight with Gregarin. However, America came back with putting the first man in orbit around the planet with John Glenn.
Then JFK stunned the world by announcing that by the end of the 60′s America would send a man to the moon AND RETURN HIM SAFELY. The Soviets tried valiently to win the race, but they could not match the know how (and the budget) America held in advantage.
The Soviets would have liked nothing better than to be able to discredit America when it came to Apollo 11. The truth is, they could not. Because the American’s successfully landed a man on the moon on that July day back in 1969. It’s that simple. The rest of the arguments are mere detail. I rest my case.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:53 am
http://crossingpointoflight.blogspot.com/2007/10/nasa-whistleblower-to-reveal-new-apollo.html
NASA “doctoring photos”?? Either way you look at this, (humorous as it is) it shows just how much malarky is spewed from NASA. You have almost half the astronots on record stating they believe in little green men….(aliens and ET’s), NASA employess swearing NASA “doctored” photographs from the Apollo Program…(hmmm….that’s not suprising) and then there’s folks who see this and simply just look the other way and tell everyone NASA is a fool proof organization above reproach in every way…(ie..they never lie) . NASA operates more like a zoo than most Govt. agencies….full of entertaininng beaurocrats and “smooth sayers”. They actually have a long history of lies…..much like the National Inquirer….full of luny stories….some real nutjobs, while a “believing” gullible public watches in awe and laps it all up!! I just loved the shuttle astronaut love triangle a few years back….mugshot and all….wearing “depends” from Texas to Florida on a mission to “kill” one of the other astronauts!! : )))
Yes….We know Apollo came from Hitler’s Von Braun. We know our own Govt. covered up his NAZI involvement using death camp victims as experiemental “test” subjects for his V1 and V2 rocket program…(cuz everyone knows he was “just following orders of course”) but those with rational minds also know that those who lie cannot be trusted to tell the truth. With all the loonies from NASA….what kind of credibility do you expect “real science” to accept from such garbage spewed by those who swear we went to the moon?? (from among many “moon goers” who say aliens in fact “Do exist”! Do you believe that as well Ross???? How about the campaign to prove “Global Warming” from NASA….just google it, and you’ll see the nutjobs in their splendor, does that mean you are a Gobal Warming Nutjob as well Ross??? You’re not even “American” Ross….so what the hell do you know aside from what you’ve “read” about from your favorite NASA propagandists??? = ))) You have alot more faith in “my Govt” than I do Ross, that’s b/c “you accept” everything you read, when common sense and evidence “Screams to the Contrary”. Eh?
March 18th, 2010 at 3:15 am
http://www.examiner.com/x-2024-Denver-UFO-Examiner~y2009m1d15-Whistleblowers-evidence-of-NASA-UFO-fraud-might-kill-UK-hacker-case
So Ross….tell me oh tell me…..there really are little green men out there??? Hahaha!! Also, do you believe the many astronots who say they’ve seen alien artifacts?? If not….then why do you so ardently accept their moon testinmonies?? If so, then we “all” now know what a whacko nutjob you are. Sorry Ross…….a tip from the Jay Giles Band…..my blood runs cold…..your “lunacy” has just been sold…..naaa naaa na nah nah nah. Bunch of laughing stock….what credible science would back this kind of National Enquirer garbage???? Would that be “you” Ross??? Oh…please do debunk, without looking like a complete moron in the process. : ))
March 18th, 2010 at 3:25 am
http://www.examiner.com/x-2024-Denver-UFO-Examiner~y2009m1d15-Whistleblowers-evidence-of-NASA-UFO-fraud-might-kill-UK-hacker-case
Oh Please oh please tell me Ross….whether you believe in little green men (aliens ET’s) just like half the astronots say they do?? If not, then why do you so ardently accept their lunacy Lunar testimonies?? If so, then we all can see what kind of science you’re really all about. Good luck debunking that one….hahaha…..We’ll all wait to see which side you come out on this one. : )))
March 18th, 2010 at 3:36 am
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/
I agree with Phil’s take on Hoagland….but why stop at Hoagland…wouldn’t it be fair to also include half of the NASA astronots themselves??? Or does this discredit NASA nutjobs just as well??? : 0
March 18th, 2010 at 10:35 am
wondering.. why we(they) not sending another mission to moon ??
I guess we(they) had more modern technology from the one that used in apollo moon mission …
wondering why..
March 18th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Yes, I believe in little green men. I’ve seen Gieco commercials!
Maybe Brian is a little green man.
Brian’s whole arguement is based on HIS idea that all 24 of the Astonauts that went to the Moon are complete lunatics. As if Nasa found these guys under a rock somewhere and have been manipulating thier minds for the last 40 years. Absolutely hilarious! Entertaining though.
Maybe Aliens put that Apollo stuff on the Moon Zillions of years ago and have been messing with everybodys head since ’69…makes about as much sense as poor old Brian does.
And it’s Astronauts, not “Astronots”
Smarten up, Brian!
March 18th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
No…not at all Ross….they just lie like you do! Expert liars, you know the type very well!! : )))
March 18th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
“Astronots” is what they really are….or maybe astro”nuts” like you Ross. You seem to find excuses for all of NASA’s “dark secrets” and astro “NOTS” love of aliens…..but most sane people Ross….find it disturbing when they meet people who are comfortable with it….like you Ross….you’re obviously comfortable with NASA’s dark and sad past…..and that’s disturbing. Yes, quite a disturbed Canadian….(get your own space program…hahaha)….you’re quite a self rationalized liar to say the least…but everyone already knows this, so keep it comin’….your spew from the loo! : ))))
March 18th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/apr/22/ufos-apollo-astronaut-extraterrestrials
Ooops….Moon Walker Ed Mitchell….supposedly longest moon walk….(thought Michael Jackson had that one) wants Govt. to come clean about “the space alien coverup”!! I’ve got plenty of these folks to go around for one whacko ride to the moon and back!! yeeeehaaaaaa!!!
March 20th, 2010 at 9:41 am
It seems that when I debunk Brian’s so called “evidence”, he has to resort to all this irrelevant talk about aliens.
What about retired Brigadier General Michael Collins comment about not being able to see stars while looking through the optic viewer at the Sun’s corona? A minute ago you had “positive proof” that Collins was a big fat liar and now you resort to little green men again. It seems when your moronic “evidence” is erased, you fall further in the hole of embarasment that you created for yourself.
Thousands of credible people have seen UFO’s. Airline pilots, Police officers, Military people, Astronauts, and the list goes on. Are they ALL liars? Who knows what they are, but “Unidentified Flying Objects” is self explanitory. THAT’S where you have a conspiracy, Brian, Is the government hiding evidence of Aliens? I personaly don’t know what to think and know it’s totally IRRELEVANT as I’m sure Phil would agree.
Have you watched the Mythbusters show about the Apollo landings?
Did you apply for a job at Nasa and they told you to take a hike? Is that why you hate them so much? This has always been about Brian hating Nasa and not really about the reality of Apollo. You conspiracy nuts are all the same. Every little thing is a great big lie, so the truth is something thats not acceptable.
We’ve debunked the hell out of your hoax disease long enough, Brian. Get real.
March 21st, 2010 at 12:39 am
I think we can both agree that if it could be proven that aliens did in fact exist… then the least of our concern would be whether or not the moon landings were real or not!! Perhaps the aliens would tell us?? Hahha…. But this is far from the case….nobody is debating about what constitutes a UFO….it is simply an unidentified “object” of which 98% of said events are “explainable” upon further investigation….ie cleared up after further “investigation”. This means that things are not always what they appear to be at a “first showing” or airing!!…..including etraordinary claims or feats. I believe that upon further invstigation, it will be clear that no human has ventured outside of Earth’s orbit and survived it. Too many micro cosmic particles and dense particle debris hurdling throughout space traveling at speeds of hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, with force enough to rip open the hull of any craft material “we have” (along with ripping right through the bodies of the astro-nots themselves inside the craft) so that if the radiation doesn’t kill them, the cosmic debri ” definitely would”!!
Yes….UFO’s don’t bother me Ross….but confirmed “alien” reports from Ex Apollo and NASA officials certainly bother me as they do most people, and it should! The fact that you don’t admit that reveals how biased you are toward NASA. You can call me a Conspiracist all you want…..but the multitude of folks I could list from NASA telling us there’s little green men, is an even more bizarre conspiracy!!! You’re alone in your own corner if you don’t come clean with that one!!
I simply don’t think we had, or even “have” the technology to send anyone into outer space….which is why we’re so good at Earth’s protected Orbit. The highest Shuttle Mission to ever fly into the the Uppoer Atmosphere revealed reports of extreme retinal readiation on that mission. They felt the suns radiation directly into the retina’s of their eyes…..and had to adjust a lower altitude to avoid Solar Exposure.!! Fact!!
Also fact….someone who doubts the Moon Landings “should” be considered “less” of an issue than those who believe in aliens as a “factual reality” wouldn’t you agree??? Ross, How you answer that question tells everyone how much sense you actually have….or not….and certainly “IS” relevent to the discussion. It’s also a known fact that the military experimented with “mind control” during the early 60′s with MK Ultra (not a conspiracy theory…it’s factual), a Psy- Ops program on military test subjects allowing complete access to beliefs, experiences, feelings, with an “on/off” switch….allowing a full array of “programing” over an individual without detection, and often without the “awareness” of the subject.
Phil Plait, unlike you Ross, has also had issue with the whole “Alien” conspiracy from NASA….and cricified “Hoagland” (an ex NASA staffer) for his propaganda. The point is….if NASA continues to crank out alegacy of failure (minus 6 perfect so called successful lunar missions) and “crack pots” with odd ball beliefs such as Global Warming, Aliens, murderous love triangles among shutle astronauts….we can safely conclude that it’s program can indeed be put into question. But aliens?? You’ll all have to ask Ross about that one….since he apparently doesn’t have a problem with it…even suggested the question of whether out Govt. is even hiding them?? Supplying a question like that Ross, precludes you are “open” to the possibility!! I am not. No Aliens Ross….no Govt coverup of this…..b/c if they could have accomplished that for the past 70 or 80 years….then pulling off faked moon landings would absolutely have been a much easier task!! I digress. Unlike you Ross, I am a critical thinker…you are a sucker. You just accept what you are told and (and what you have read) suck it all up and disregard the evidence, of which there is plenty!! You are just as much a “conspirator” in refusing the evidence “which you haven’t even begun to debunk” and your arguments are “IRRELEVANT”! I don’t have any personal feelings about NASA one way or another , I just know that Iwas dupped by NASA Propaganda as a “kid” watching each of these with my own eyes and am proud to know the truth that Apollo was faked!! I have shown you pictures of elaborate cameras used on trolly’s around exact replicas of the 30 ft. tall moon models on a humongous stage, simulating Apollo footage, I have shown you how Collins remarks about “not seeing “ANY” stars” precludes the factor concerning the “suns corona”…which is simply just another term for the “outer atmosphere” of the sun. Even Phil Plait “disagrees with the Apollo Astronauts by saying “stars should be visible during “daylight” on the moon by the naked eye!!! Do you doubt Phil Plait on that one Ross??? I have shown you NASA video clips which show a strong blue haze clearly in the background when Apollo Astro-nots state they are 3/4 the way to the moon….”instead they are truly in Earth’s Oribt” as can be clearly seen from the “Not for public Use” labeled NASA video!!! Also, the earth diagram placed inside the window is a fake….look at it closely, and you will see it’s a transparency vs. the “brighter background light of…..yes you guessed it….Earths Orbit!! Vwoilla!! Go on embracing the lie Ross….it bothers me not, I couldn’t care less what you believe. But others out there deserve to hear that evidence “DOES INDEED” exist putting NASA’s Lunacy in question…..and those who question NASA are growing in numbers faster than those who don’t…..a simple fact Ross wishes he didn’t have to admit!
All the “debunk” attempts to champion NASA simply fail to prove anything at all. Ross would have you all believe NASA’s world is a perfect scientific world community….which, as we all know….couldn’t be further from the truth….in many more ways than the “Luny” Lunar landings…..complete with it’s own set of conspirator claims of little green men (aliens) and first hand “sightings” of alien crafts….which should have anyone placing “reasonable doubt” where it should have been in the first place….something Ross will never accept regardless of the evidence shown him to the contrary. They look for “anything” they can find to sustantiate the case for Apollo, always “checking” with the Apollo record to “prove” that it happened. Well, it never happened. It’s all a lie….and btw….I don’t hate NASA….I just don’t “trust” my Govt lke you do Ross….what the hell do you know anyway…you’re not even “in” America. You are one disturbed Canadian who has no problem at all with the fact that Von Braun was a NAZI, and ordered thousands of Jews to die and use in experiments with the V1 and V2 Rocket programs he developed. This makes you a NAZI lover Ross…..Von Braun was “at the helm” of the Apollo Program and you want us all to believe the organization is “trustworty” of our faith??? Sorry Pal…I only trust the science….which says safe space travel is many many years away, and if it was so easy to go to the moon, why didn’t we send “test” subjects to Mars….hey….Von Braun was already used to doing that sort of thing anyway, so why not??? Why hasn’t “any” manned “outer earth’s atmosphere” travel been done since Apollo in 40 years time?? a “controlled rocket landing still to this day has never been achieved, although you’d have thought by todays computer age, that it would take at least “some” computer sophistication to accomplish a “real” lunar rocket landing….instead of something with only 2k to 32 k read only memory!! (Less than the first pocket calculator which came out in the early 70′s!! We still cannot land a rocket….but NASA says they did 6 times without a hitch each time in 1/6 gravity!!
Sorry Ross….you lose!! You’ve debunked “nothing” and stand in embarrasment vs. the reality you refuse to admit. Just as has been said in the past….no matter how much evidence you show these NASA nutjobs….(I’ve proven there are many…including you Ross!! ) …..they’ll always accept the NASA account and ignore the evidence….even when it comes from NASA’s own footage!! Total Laughing stock I have made of you Ross…..you have shown yourself to be a total idiot, so the gloves came off and I had to beat the living crap out of that Garbage that you Spew!! Thank you for making it Oh so easy for me. I do hope you’ll stick around for some more won’t you??? = )))
March 21st, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Brian, Niel Armstrong was talking about seeing stars while looking through the OPTICS at the Solar corona. It’s extremely bright around the sun. I wonder how many times I’ve tryed to explain why you wouldn’t see stars when there’s too much background light. Collins was responding to his statement. Did you even go to school?
You need an Astronaut to land the on the Moon BECAUSE of the micky mouse computer of those days. It was trying to land them in a boulder field and Armstrong had to land it manualy. Some of the other missions were done manualy. Do you really think all those landings were flawless? The Eagle had about 12 seconds of fuel left!
UPPER ATMOSPHERE?????????????? WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why have I been wasting my time, arguing with a simp like you, Brian. Are the 125 or so Shuttle missions ALL FAKED TOO? Earth to Brian… THE ATMOSPHERE ENDS AT ABOUT 75 MILES, YA RETARD! The shuttle has gone as high as 350 miles to the Hubble! Duuhh…Why do you think it gets so stink’n HOT when it comes home? And you’re calling me an idiot? The Space Station orbits at 17,200 miles per hour at about 170 miles. ATMOSPHERE? YEESCH! The Gemini missions orbited at 300+ well before Apollo. It’s obviously a higher altitude when you look at the video footage.
Ladies and gentelman here’s a quote from Brian: “The highest Shuttle mission to ever fly into the UPPER ATMOSPHERE revieled reports of extreme radiation on that mission.”
This is toooo much of a waste of time.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Wow Ross….you certainly are a glutton for punishment aren’t you??? You keep coming back for more and that’s good for me, b/c you can’t even back up the information provided by your Pro Apollo guru Phil Plait….who writes, and I quote,
“On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. ”
So Ross, what part of the Solar Corona are we talking about that would necessitate the need for Optics to view stars “at any time” by the Astro-Nots?? Just think of YOUR PATHETIC logic. Neil Armstrong is asked if he was able to see stars in the midst of the suns solar corona (ie Sunlight) …and Neil states, no…not without the aid of the Optics I don’t recall. Collins states, don’t remember seeing “any” stars ever!! Optics would have LIMITED the “STAR LIGHT” even more than the SUN’s Light!!! You Idiot!! So, what you’re telling everyone is that Armstrong and Collins, when asked about starlight amidst “sunlight” while standing on the moon, could somehow actually “see” stars USING “OPTICS?? Can anybody say OOOPS????? What a total crock you are spewing Ross. I’m glad I’m here to lay you out to dry for ALL to see. Who uses Optics to “star gaze” listen to what Neil says again as you didn’t listen to what he actually said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkLt2rI-uc&feature=related
Here’s the “exact” transcript of what was said at the press conference.
The First Lunar Landing As Told By The Astronauts: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins in a Post-flight Press Conference, NASA EP-73, 1989 pt. … all » VI:
PATRICK MOORE: ..[W]hen you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare? ..
ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don’t recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS: I don’t remember seeing any.
Note the “nervousness” and fidgetty response by “all” the alleged moon crew of Apollo 11 when asked about this….Armstrong says “we never were able to see stars WITHOUT looking through the “Optics” and my response would be, since when would you “see” stars WITH Optics??? That would make them more difficult to see….and yet, that’s the conditions Armstrong notes as the “ONLY TIME” they DID see stars!! There again Ross, you make it waaaay too easy for me to “crater” your moon Lunacy!!! = ))) They never went, they never talked once about the “brilliance” of the stars which “IS” there and brightly visible….especially seen specatacularly from the “back side”(no direct sunlight) by Collins….which he says he “NEVER” saw!! Someday you will find out how much of a sucker you are Ross….you don’t even get basic Physics…how could you possibly spot a fake “anything” from NASA, even if they actually “did”??? = ))) Also note the vague response by Armstrong….unsure, doesn’t recall….stuff politicians say to get themselves out of trouble when making untruthful public statements like the ones Ross uses each time he types a response. “ouch”. : ))
http://asimov.esrin.esa.it/SPECIALS/Lessons_online/SEMUY1V7D7F_0.html
Another lesson for Ross….Radiation “is” a real issue for space travel. We have yet to build a craft worthy of Space Travel. Ross won’t even touch my points about this as they are not even debatable. Yet, he thinks we passed through the Van Allen Belts numerous times without a single case of extreme radiation from Apollo. There are countless articles pertaining to the dangers of space flight, Ross doesn’t want you to know, b/c it’s a “thorn” in Apollo’s side…..even to this day, we have not found a way to shield human bodies from the death trap of the Radiation from the Van Allen Belts or from Space Debri ‘super micro particles ripping through space craft like holes in swiss cheese. We were hard up vs. the Superior Space Program by the Russians at the Height of a dreary Vietnam Saga…in need of some “great news” and folks ate it up!!! Between 5% and 8% of people worldwide are finally waking up to this truth each year, something tells me you Ross….will be the last man “to walk the earth” to ever think we still did. With so many “Ex- NASA” officials pointing the finger at NASA to come clean about doctored photo’s, propaganda campaigns, and all out lies…..why would anyone (but Ross) trust such an fool hearty Govt. Agency?? Hey, it’s better than the National Inquirer sometimes….and you want folks to trust your “telemetry”??? Ok Ross, whatcha got to say in Response?? Your case “does in fact look like SWISS CHEESE”….anyone wanting to relook at the evidence…..go waaay back and view my links, and then view Ross’s lame rebuttle’s….and you’ll see who’s making a real case here. Go back starting in December of 09′….and weigh both arguments out….view the video footage and links….and at the “VERY LEAST” any sane person would come to the same conclusion….one needs to be brainwashed to “stay the course” of NASA’s Telemetry. Great Propaganda and Marketing Campaign I’ll grant you that of NASA….but the truth is much darker than any Pro Apollo Nutters….PANS….as they’re called…will be willing to admit. = )))
It’s humorous to note that all of the UFO Lunar buffs noting “strange” lights in the moon photo’s…are actually “stage” lights heralded AS UFO’s…..for example…
http://ronrecord.com/astronauts/armstrong-collins-aldrin.html
For the Greatest “Show” on earth!!
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:11 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1754803469580790620#docid=8453919919607389414
Here’s some more footage of another Astro-not on the run….Collins, the guy who never saw any stars…..it’s probably the only thing he actually comes clean with during the initial interview….ofcourse you don’t remember seeing any stars….YOU NEVER WENT!!!
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:51 pm
About the stars, no atmosphere and the sun.
Do me a favor and make a little experiment yourself, go outside at a clear night (or to the window) with a flashlight, now check if you see stars, okay no clouds and they are there? Now take the flashlight and light yourself directly into the face from the front. Look again while the flashlight is still into your face from front, are there still stars? I just tried it, Planets like Venus or Mars you’ll see flicker through the flashlight, but all other stars will just vanish, as your pupils narrow themselves to adapt to the flashlight. Now notice the sun is muuch brighter than the flashlight (since e.g. i can indefinetly look into the flashlight without eyedamage, but look more than 60 seconds into the sun and you are blind).
Facit: Human eyes can just as well not see stars under bright light conditions as the cameras. Atmosphere or not. Why sould they? In principle they work the same, there is nothing magic the human eye can do that the cameras couldn’t.
On a moon day to see stars you would have to turn your back the sun, look directly into the sky high enough no lit floor, equipment or mountains are in your viewing range, and then wait a few seconds to have your pubils a chance to widen, so you can see stars. This supposes there is no sunlight that reflects in your glas visor or any other indirect light ruining your darkvision, which I consider likely not to be the case.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I see the point you’re trying to make Muriem, just one problem…Earth has an “atmosphere” which scatters light, making what is very crystal clear outside earth’s atmosphere, (such as “on the moon”) appear hazy and obscure. I have been all over the world. I’ve viewed stars in the outback of Australia, where the conditions are very different than the Northern Hemisphere. It’s an amazing spectacle to say the least. Some of you know what I’m talking about who’ve been there. The “density” of the brightly visible portions of our”MILKY WAY” appears as a cloud in the center of the zenith overhead, due to the billions of stars so finely visible!! City lights do obscure the visibilty near any city, where light is reflected back and forth, along with the various gases causing stars to “twinkle” to the naked eye.
Back to the issue….Even your Guru Phil Plait (ruler of this Blog) will agree with me about stars being visible “with the naked eye” while standing on the moon. He has gone on to say, that they are not bright enough to be photographed, and will not show up. I have no problem with that either. I do have a problem with 3 astronots going on record to say they could not see “any stars”. Collins who supposedly wasn’t even ON the moon, would have had the most incredible view man has ever seen with the naked eye. But he too….”chimes in…..” I don’t remember seeing ANY” (stars)!!! How could this be??? He traveled behind the moon in orbit, not conducting Solar Corona experiment photography, and “STILL” never SAW ANY STARS???? C’mon!! This simply wouldn’t be the case. He simply had to look out “THE WINDOW” of the Command Module!! Just like Earth has a “light” and “dark” side, so does the moon….what the heck do you think Collins means when he “doesn’t remember seeing “any” stars???? If He was on the “pitch black back side of the Moon, Stars would have been magnificently visible!!! If you note how he “checks” with the other astro-nots as he states…”I don’t remember seeing “any”, note the unatural head and body movement….. How could this be??? He never “DID” what he said he did, b/c the facts of “what would be” don’t agree with “his” account. I would love to hear how Phil Plait would weigh in on this…..since Phil thinks stars are visible while standing on the moon during “daylight” (unlike the apollo astronots) then how “much” more visible would they be behind the moon in total darkness!! Gotcha!!!
March 24th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Hazy Atmosphere or not, the light is too faint do go through your pupils if they are not widened for darkvision. Phil said half truth, yes stars are visible on the moon, even when there is a sun on the sky, since there is no raleigh scattering making the sky blue like on earth, however you still have to have darkvision. As the hobby-astronomer know you will not want to see into any light, since altough you will adept fast enough to see any stars, it will take minutes until you see the full spectrum. Military night operations have the same issue. When you#ve seen the amazing spectacle its only half of a clear air and no light scattering in the air, its also much more of no light in your vision for a long time (>15 minutes) so your pupils open to the max. As said, if you are on the moon, and the look at horizont with the sun lighting the floor, you will see nothing. Its much worse than sitting in a footballstadium at night trying to see any star.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Brian says that the shuttle never leaves the Earth’s atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_ Station
It says that atmosphere ends and OUTER SPACE begins at 62 miles.
The International Space Station rages from 173-286 miles.
BRIAN SAYS THAT THE SHUTTLE NEVER LEAVES EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
Most farm animals know more about space travel than Brian.
March 24th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
The Farm animal “ROSS HOG” is theee smartest animal “on” the Loony Farm. Ross would like to assure everyone that Space Travel in absolutely safe. Completely disregards the Van Allen Radiation Belts. He wants you to “accept” the testimony of an organization which it’s own people say lies and covers up truth to suit it’s own agenda. But, Ross ignores them completely and worships NASA and it’s NAZI Apollo founder, finding “no fault” in NASA’s Astronot Shinanigan Love Triangles, Alien Cover-ups from nearly half the astronots and former Staff, Global Warming Accusations that the World will overheat in the next few years (if we don’t start taxing carbon footprints that is), Apollo Record of “failure” until nearly 7 Missions to the moon burst on the scene to change all that uhhh….failure upon failure. Anybody looking at closeups of the Lunar Module can see structurally, that the craft is housed in cheap riveted aluminum (see here) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/5927_NASA.jpg
somehow handling surge speeds of 0 to thousands of miles per hour without suffering “any” structural defects. Look at this pic and zoom in….decide for yourself how “Space worthy is this “Home Made” Tin Can??? = ))) Ross seems to think it’s AIR TIGHT!! I don’t think so!! To Ross, it leaves no question whatsoever that all is well at NASA (well, perhaps to the mentally ill….Ross…are you mentally ill???) You make us all wonder, b/c many of us really do wonder as intelligent people who actually know how to think critically, we are beginning to see the poked holes in the cheesy story of each “LANGLY” VA. (Yes….CIA…land of covert cover-ups) Practice Session the Apollo Crews partook as part of their “moon training”. I don’t even need to bring up the lack of “ANY” soot around the “lander’s Rocket Thruster…nor any “soot” on the moon itself under the Rocket Thruster…..we’ve all heard the weak NASA kissing Debunk “tries” but they don’t answer the Physics involved with a Rocket landing…NONE of which have ever been accomplished on earth!!! Not even 1!! But on the moon??? Everything’s perfect!! Right Ross?? Temperature conditions extreme from 200 degrees below to 200 above F. How was the temp. controlled inside the LEM???…..ooops…..Oh…..it actually wasn’t, right Ross??? Nobody on the moon “EVER” jumps any farther or higher than anyone could on earth….but Ross thinks that’s ok too….they just didn’t want to demonstrate how a 60 pound body (accounted for 1/6 gravity) could do all sorts of leaps and jumps….but never do we see that. What about the “shadows” at close range of the Lunar Module which “extend” to the errr….limits of the “set”??? Hmm….why no farther background than the limit of the shadow itself??? : ))) http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg
And here’s my favorite…..all the “hero Astro nots that Ross is such a “big fan”….half of them are lunatic Alien Conspirators!!! Ross….tell us all what YOU think about that??? Why won’t YOU go on record as signing off on what “they” saw and said really exists…..b/c sane people question that sort of thing…….while you just worship the ground these “passengers” (which is what Buzz Aldrin here says they “just” were) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=55246798 Wow what a “reaction” Bart Sibrel gets out of somebody “not too happy” about knowing somebody “had” something on him!! There’s plenty more for later….Ross….you will be the only man to Walk” on the “earth” someday still believing in this fairytale still trying to make a case for that “ONE GIANT STEP” into fantasy land!! = )))
March 24th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Muriem…..remember that Michael Collins was “never” on the moon, and still maintains to this day, that he “never saw stars”!!! He’s the one who should have had a field day in the lunar Eclipse being behind the moon!! Somebody…anybody….tell me why he would “not” have seen “any” stars….when that is “all” you WOULD see!!!
March 25th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Brian says the Shuttle never leaves the Earth’s atmosphere.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Armstrong: I don’t recall during the period of time when we were photographing the Solar corona what stars we could see.
Collins: I don’t remember seeing any.
My gawd, Brian, you wrote it out yourself! Collins is saying he didn’t see star while photographing the Solar corona!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHILE PHOTOGRAPHING THE SOLAR CORONA
WHILE PHOTOGRAPHING THE SOLAR CORONA
How could anyone, boasting about this wonderfull gift of “critical thinking”, NOT realize that Collins is simply responding to Armstrong’s previous statement??????
How could ANYONE assume that he was talking about THE WHOLE MISSION? He’s the Command Module pilot for cry’n out loud! He uses stars for navigation, using the optical viewfinder as a sextant to FIND STARS so that he can align the guidance computer during the whole mission!
But thats how Brian and all of these other conspiracy fools think. It’s almost disturbing to think that people like this even exist. Flat-Earthers is an appropriate description.
BRIAN SAYS THE SHUTTLE NEVER LEAVES THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
BRIAN SAYS THE SHUTTLE NEVER LEAVES THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
How do you think anything could orbit the Earth at 17,000+ miles an hour COASTING WITHOUT POWER in the AIR???? Don’t ya think the air would slow it down? Try to bring yourself “up to speed” with a grade 5′er with that infamous “critical thinking” of yours and learn the basics of space travel before we all lose our lunch!
March 26th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Hey Ross, are you Jewish? I have nothing at all vs. that whatsoever….but I think it’s ironic for someone with a Jewish last name to disgrace those Jews slaughtered by the hand of Von Braun during the development of his V1 and V2 Rocket Program! Instead, you “herald” Von Braun as a “HERO”! A brilliant Nazi?? Yes, but guilty of “Treason” and “Murder” vs. the Jews in Germany?? Absolutely. Guilty of murdering thousands of British Allies also? Absolutely. This is troubling. Von Braun was a War Criminal “set free” who should have been “hung or shot like the rest of the German SS!! YOU are NOT being faithful to your heritage and stand guilty in blood of those who died at the hands of Von Braun, and stand in disgrace to all those Jews “murdered” at the Camps….which is where Von Braun collected his “expendable” workers on The V1/V2. This makes you a traitor Ross. You can’t have it both ways….you can lie and say you’re not Jewish with a name like “Hagemann”….or continue telling everybody how developing the Saturn Rocket makes it all ok…either way, you’re still a traitor to the Jewish Race. But hey, Isn’t Canada where most traiters go anyway?? Maybe Ross went AWOL and decided to stay?? Thanks for including your LAST NAME Ross….you’ve certainly provided everyone with more than an “eyeful”! You are a most disturbed individual who makes it all too easy for “EVERYONE” to discredit as a NAZI lover….especially for someone Jewish!! You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, so now you need to continue lying to everybody by telling us “you’re really not Jewish…..and try to convince us of how “great” a man Von Braun really was….when everyone knows he was a “real NAZI War Criminal who “faked” making it to the moon…. Go Ross go!! = – )) So tell us you’re not Jewish Ross…..cmon’….we’re all waaaaiting…..You’d be the first Hagemann who “wasn’t”. Hope your shame doesn’t prevent you from telling us the truth!! : ))
March 27th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Duuhhh, aren’t we changing the subject again?
My last name is NOT Jewish….It’s German. Not that it’s any of your business!!!!!!
You’re too much of a coward, Brian, to tell us your last name, so bite me!
And it’s YOUR government that used 125 German rocket scientists (some of them ex-Nazis) to help PUT MAN ON THE MOON, so don’t get all political, oh and SORRY ABOUT THE HOCKEY GAME!!!
You Americans gained from our Avro Arrow programme cancelation in ’59 by hiring quite a few of our engineers and technicians. People from several countries were involved with Apollo.
Arther Rudolf was heading up the rocket programme in the Apollo days and was DEPORTED in ’84 because of using slave labour during the war. Maybe it’s unforgivable to have used German rocket scientists, because of the war, but that’s history.
You’ve called your own Astronauts and Veterans cowards and liars, Brian, and instead of being proud to be an American, because of landing on the Moon, you idolize people like Bart Sibrel who’s a complete NUT!
BRAIN SAYS THE SHUTTLE NEVER LEAVE THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
I’m DONE making a fool out of you. This is getting carried away. I’m sure Phil would agree. Thanx, Doc, for the website!
March 28th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Well then….no wonder you’re such fan of Von Braun afterall!!! : ))) It all makes sense now…and spoken from your OWN words!! Folks, You have to love it!! Ross picked a perfect time for a cowardly “leave”. Canadian AWOL, just like I predicted. People in Florida don’t care about Hockey games Ross…..(as if there’s any connection to Apollo from that, haha) and I suppose you’d be speaking German as a first language if it hadn’t been for the US kicking German Ass on your weak county’s behalf. Von Bruan was clearly a “fake” well before Apollo. Have you ever seen Pics of Von Braun at the time he was taken by the US Army in WW II?? He “faked” a broken arm with a hideous “splint”….just google it and you’ll see “HOAX” all over the future of Apollo from this NAZI War Crininal!! “Oh….please don’t hurt me….I have a broken arm….mercy mercy!!
This IS the coward who started Apollo. All in favor of Apollo are also sucker cowards. In their shame, they see the truth, but don’t want to admit “THEY” were wroong about it….so fools they remain. Geez…if “Arthur Rudolf” was deported as you say, then how much more should Von Braun been executed for his murder of thousands of Brithish Civilians and Concentration Camp Jewish Workers on the V1/V2??? Yes, I am not a fan of the US Govt. b/c like you Ross….they intentionally lie to cover up the real agenda. Well, I suppose that’s that. “ROSS” was having a bake Sale, (on half baked truth) and decided to go shopping at his half price store. Sorry to see you go, but we all understand why though.
I am a proud Patriot American, Ross….someone willing to stand for the Truth which has been hijacked within the US Govt. You don’t even get that, as a Canadian “Socialist”, didn’t expect you too. Most Americans are smarter than you Ross, they are waking up to the Cover-Ups as they are exposed, and “un-afraid” to speak out vs. the Corruption in our Country. Unlike you, I have the right to bear arms, and I am willing to fight for my freedoms. The one’s YOUR Govt took away from you. Who’s the Coward now Ross??? You should have spoken up earlier that you were German…….So I could salute you…..Sig Heil, right Ross??? = ))) No person has “ever” set foot on the moon, just check out all my links in the upward discussion since December…..yes there’s a great reason no other country has even “tried” sending a man to the moon….b/c “THEY” are honest enough to admit it cannot be done. This is why in over 40 years….”nobody” has ever tried, and also the reason we “never went back”…..the reason NASA gives?? People were bored and losing interest. Gee….and you thought it wasn’t just for show!! Vwoilla!! NASA even admits it on the basis of that” response!! At least NASA made lots of $ off the “Greatest Show ON Earth!!! Sorry Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey….gave you guys a run for …tax payer…dollars!!
March 28th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Well then….no wonder you’re such fan of Von Braun afterall!!! : ))) It all makes sense now…and spoken from your OWN words!! Folks, You have to love it!! Ross picked a perfect time for a cowardly “leave”. Canadian AWOL, just like I predicted. People in Florida don’t care about Hockey games Ross…..(as if there’s any connection to Apollo from that, haha) and I suppose you’d be speaking German as a first language if it hadn’t been for the US kicking German Ass on your weak county’s behalf. Von Bruan was clearly a “fake” well before Apollo. Have you ever seen Pics of Von Braun at the time he was taken by the US Army in WW II?? He “faked” a broken arm with a hideous “splint”….just google it and you’ll see “HOAX” all over the future of Apollo from this NAZI War Crininal!! “Oh….please don’t hurt me….I have a broken arm….mercy mercy!!
This IS the coward who started Apollo. All in favor of Apollo are also sucker cowards. In their shame, they see the truth, but don’t want to admit “THEY” were wroong about it….so fools they remain. Geez…if “Arthur Rudolf” was deported as you say, then how much more should Von Braun been executed for his murder of thousands of Brithish Civilians and Concentration Camp Jewish Workers on the V1/V2??? Yes, I am not a fan of the US Govt. b/c like you Ross….they intentionally lie to cover up the real agenda. Well, I suppose that’s that. “ROSS” was having a bake Sale, (on half baked truth) and decided to go shopping at his half price store. Sorry to see you go, but we all understand why though.
I am a proud Patriot American, Ross….someone willing to stand for the Truth which has been hijacked within the US Govt. You don’t even get that, as a Canadian “Socialist”, didn’t expect you too. Most Americans are smarter than you Ross, they are waking up to the Cover-Ups as they are exposed, and “un-afraid” to speak out vs. the Corruption in our Country. Unlike you, I have the right to bear arms, and I am willing to fight for my freedoms. The one’s YOUR Govt took away from you. Who’s the Coward now Ross??? You should have spoken up earlier that you were German…….So I could salute you…..Sig Heil, right Ross??? = ))) No person has “ever” set foot on the moon, just check out all my links in the upward discussion since December…..yes there’s a great reason no other country has even “tried” sending a man to the moon….b/c “THEY” are honest enough to admit it cannot be done. This is why in over 40 years….”nobody” has ever tried, and also the reason NASA says we “never went back”…..the reason they gave?? People were bored and losing interest. Gee….and you thought it wasn’t just for show!! Vwoilla!! NASA even admits it on the basis of that” response!! I suppose this is the REAL Operation Disclosure on NASA. …minus the little green Astronauts who worship little green aliens…like the one’s NASA cranks out that Ross admires so greatly!! The real truth is much more down to earth than all of these NASA Astronots who talk about little green men and extra terrestrial space crafts……..which, is actually no different than all the fake moon photo’s “airbrushed” and perfectly exposed from the “Stage” used to create the landings!! At least this LRO could have done a more “detailed” job in recreating close-ups of all those Apollo missions….You’d think in 40 years…..they’d have sent probes “back” to the moon at low cost, to land and take photo’s of what’s still there…..but they never did, b/c they never went to begin with!!
April 14th, 2010 at 2:47 am
So, you know the command module was completly black and dark allowing field view, or did he keep the lights on?
April 14th, 2010 at 3:52 am
About this whole nazi rubbish, for the topic at hand it doesn’t matter. This whole babble is just more bedazzling. The question you ask is “did they land on the moon?”, not “of what political direction did they came?”, etc. So even if Hitler personally would have sat in the rocket (which he didn’t) and they would’ve done saluted him on the moon (which they didn’t), what would have changed it on the fact they did travel to the moon?
April 14th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Well Muriem,
We “know” that Collin’s “indeed” could have had the best view of stars ANY man has ever seen….(The NASA discovered footage of the astronots FAKING the “voyage” to the moon already “proved” they know how to “turn off the lights” in the cabin to view through the window at an “earth” transparency illuminated by….ooopss…..the EARTH’s Atmosphere!! Half-way to the moon “LIE”……The video Proves it!! Alleging that Collins would cooperate by turning cabin lights “off” to view “earth” would follow starkly in contrast to the amazement of the “stars” seen in the shadow OF the MOON!! So, what you’re saying is total nonsense, which the NASA footage (they didn’t want anyone to see) proves.
Political Conspiracies are very real. History Proves that….Governments lie to protect their own agendas. My position is a plausible one…..NASA lied about the moon landings. Your position is….NASA either “never lies”……or didn’t lie in this instance, but lies in other instances. Either way, take your pick, to say they “never lie” is one very naive position, which sounds very patriotic, but falls on the truth revealed by History. To agree that Govt. Agencies do in fact “lie”…..just points more ammo to the fact that NASA is “NOT” trustworthy of telling us the real truth in every instance….which, when concluded…..means How the hell do YOU really know they “did” go?? That basis falls apart when you look around at some of the photos taken here….. http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality.html clearly, these “very elaborate” models with camera’s on trollies “orbiting” around a VERY LARGE and REAL LOOKING MOON MODEL….must have been used for something eh Muriem??? = )) With “Training” that real…..why even go in the first place??? That’s what they did, someday, everyone will know this truth. It’s just that right now, you live and believe in the world “they” have fabricated and woven in secret for you…which you accept…..not the real one which many folks are beginning to see through. The cracks in the American Hijscked Govt are so very real Muriem. America has been engaged in terrorism for over 50 years under the guise of foreign policy and you tell me we went to the moon??? Greatest Show in Earth? I’ll take Barnum. = )))
April 15th, 2010 at 5:02 am
Brian, its not that only Nasa has to lie, in case the moon landing was a fake, almost every government and scientific organisation on the earth would have to lie. Thousends of technical companies involved int he Apollo programm, Hundretthousends of engineers and scientists.
I invited you already to make an explicit theory to who is involved and who not, and how exactly they made all of this possible. Then I test the plausibilty of this theory in comparison to the naive assumption that is just happened.
I’m not interested in some random pixels, a single misguided quote, or random nazi associations. Give the complete theory what happened and who everyone is invovled in the conspiracy. Randomly accusing is a weak thing, push me over to an alternate theory and I might believe it, but is has to be a complete view of what is really else might be the case, not random smart-assness and accusations
April 15th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
nobody but the creator core group of NASA insiders close to the “astronots” would have to have known the truth. Everyone else, on the “outside” would have just been “happy” to say they built a part for the rover, or the thin aluminum Eagle Lander….(Rivets exposed…just look at “any” high res closeups) and you’ll soon realize how “unspaceworthy” these back yard “home (nut) job landers” really were!! The “stress” of the G’s in flight would have caused it to “warp” like an empty coke can! It’s really a joke….not to mention the micro sized space debri flying at hundereds of thousands of miles per hour, would have ripped through any of the modules and astronots too!!! Too funny, either way, REAL HUMAN SPACE TRAVEL ISN”T POSSIBLE….or somebody would have tried going to Mars by now….over 40 years later?? Still no other craft outside Earth’s Orbit alleged but Apollo?? C’mon. Just admit you only believe we “did it” cuz you “want” to believe it, there is no other credible proof we went, that could not also be fabricated. Any body asking why Google has a better satellite technology than NASA does??? Maybe a “private company” sends it’s High Rez satellite to a low moon orbit, and finds no trace of Lunar Apollo Activity. But then gets paid a swiss fortune for staying silent?? I mean, how else do we “cross check” NASA when the US buys off foreign Govt’s with Printed Hush Money. Hey, it’s Foreign Policy!!
APOLLO FACTS
Facts surrounding the Apollo missions
FACT: Neil Armstrong is now suffering with mental illness. A direct result of him putting his name forward as the foundation stone for the biggest lie in history. OR it could be that he has become paranoid by the overwhelming number of web sites, exposing him as a liar.
FACT: Rumor has it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake Moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before the 30th anniversary.
FACT: It takes the space shuttle 66 hours to reach the International Space Station which is a mere 185 miles above Earth. NASA claim Apollo 13 was 55 hours into it’s duration from lift off when it encountered a problem at a distance of 200,000 miles from Earth. Sheesh.
FACT: On his web site, world celebrity Uri Geller states that NASA’s Apollo Moon pictures have been crudely faked, and asks WHY? Uri however is friendly with Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, so we may ask WHY does he not ask Mitchell himself why the photos were faked?
FACT: President Lyndon Johnson made certain Apollo files classified, with a declassification date of 2026. This is so those involved in the Apollo scam would be long dead and gone, and no one alive to blame. One need not wait 19 years for the truth behind Apollo, as it is already well known.
FACT: In the early 60′s NASA officials, realizing that a manned Moon landing was totally impossible before 1970, met in secret behind closed doors. It was at that meeting they agreed upon a decision to fake Apollo 11, in the hope they would get to the Moon later on, and then shroud the earlier faked pictures for genuine Moon pictures. The reality is they never succeeded with any mission.
FACT: Arthur C. Clarke referred to Apollo 11 as a “Hole in History”. Historian A.J.P. Taylor referred to it as “The biggest nonevent of his lifetime”.
FACT: NASA had not perfected the lunar landing craft in time for Apollo 11. In 2007 they are still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again, 38 years after Apollo was supposed to have done just that.
FACT: Film footage taken inside the capsule of ALL Apollo missions, shows a light blue haze, and curvature of Earth through capsule window, when they were supposedly half way to the Moon, and in the blackness of space. This proves that capsule was only in Earth orbit.
FACT: Moon pictures on NASA’s web sites are fake, with backdrop scenes pasted. The pictures reveal a black line penciled in where background meets daylight sky, which was blacked out completely.
FACT: The LM used on latter missions, was the same spec as the first mission, ie, no modifications. It would have therefore been impossible to carry the rover vehicle to the Moon in the same confined LM, even if it collapsed into a more compact form.
FACT: The lunar rover had inflatable tires which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the Moon to inflate them. Pro Apollo NUTTERS claim the rover had solid wire mesh tires. Yes the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid 70′s when they realized pneumatic tires could not have functioned on the Moon. NASA have had 38 years in which to clear up the plainly obvious mistakes within the Apollo program. Each time some one brings up a query NASA correct it and say nothing, ie, they cannot say why the anomaly was there in the first place. Anyway I have pictures of the rover supposedly on the Moon and it has the SAME tires AND tire valves as the one they used at KSC. In other words it is the SAME one. Early close up pictures of the rover on Internet have CHANGED since the blunder was exposed on this web site.
FACT: It would have been impossible to have a water cooled space suit on the Moon, when outside temperature was already at boiling point of water, there would be no where for the heat to dissipate.
FACT: The LM was suspended from a huge traverse crane based at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, and was gently lowered at the same time it traversed over a mock Moon surface created beneath it. Check picture on REALITY site, and Channel 4 video “As it Happened” .
FACT: Trainee astronauts were also suspended from this huge traverse crane in a horizontal position to simulate reduced gravity. Check picture on REALITY site with the NASA web site picture of Harrison Schmitt tripping up. The unusual high backward leg swing is identical in both pictures.
FACT: Film footage allegedly taken by Apollo 8 as it supposedly circled the Moon, is the SAME film used for the Apollo 11 mission, except that film is reversed and run backwards, look for “tadpole like” mountain range. What NASA did was to film the mock lunar surface at LRC, traveling in one direction, then reverse camera, and film surface traveling in opposite direction, as shown in video’s.
FACT: Film footage showing Apollo missions allegedly circling the Moon, was taken by a rail mounted camera which slowly moved toward a rotating plaster paris model of the Moon.
FACT: James Lovell was reading from a prewritten script in the simulator when he did the voice over for the above film, and referred to the Moon as being “essentially gray, no color, looks like plaster of paris”. It was indeed plaster of paris he was referring to, hence the smirk on face of Michael Collins after this remark.
FACT: Anyone who believes the Moon landings must be “essentially green”.
FACT: Michael J. Tuttle who composed the fake Moon pictures, used mountain background scenes from the astronaut training sessions in Iceland, and other places, to paste on the genuine simulation pictures. He also digitally composed the 360 degree panoramic shots of fake Moon landing sites for use by NASA. His URL speaks for itself. The majority of NASA’s fake Moon landing pictures were taken/composed in the mid 90′s, AND NOT in the late 60′s as many are led to believe. This was because suspicion was aroused at the time regarding the limited number of photo’s available. NASA had to do something rapidly because of the onset of the Internet.
FACT: The Saturn V rocket had shed 97% of its weight upon reaching Earth orbit. The remaining 3% was the space capsule placed in Earth orbit.
FACT: Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from its surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above surface of Moon would be blinded by the high intensity light reflected back.
FACT: In the mid 60′s, Alan Shepherd was removed from ALL space missions due to vertigo and meniere’s disease. No one in such a poor state of health would be assigned to such a dangerous and complex mission. He was not even on the Apollo 14 mission, which in itself was only in Earth orbit.
FACT: Alleged Moon rock is basalt rock found here on Earth. NASA made it radioactive by “baking it” in a radiation oven. If it is genuine Moon rock, then it was brought back by a scoop and return probe.
FACT: The monitored radio/data signals were either transmitted from Earth and reflected back by bouncing signal of the Moon, or were transmitted via a leased channel. If a valuable source of monitoring equipment was left on Moon, then it would be used today, and not shut down in the 70′s.
FACT: In a TV interview with journalist Sheena McDonald back in 1994, the NASA Administrator, Dan Golden, (alias Dan Dare), openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention of the Apollo missions 25 years before, which supposedly went 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit.
FACT: Neil Armstrong has NO momentos or photographs whatsoever from his alleged Moon mission, however he has plenty from his test pilot days. There are no photographs of Armstrong supposedly on the Moon, because Armstrong, knowing the saga was fake, refused NASA permission.
FACT: In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2007 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k memory.
FACT: When Apollo astronauts were not in space, they were manning mission control communication for other Apollo missions, this was to limit the number of persons in the know. There were in fact two communication links to every Apollo mission. First was launch control who dealt with communication at lift off, and reentry, however once in Earth orbit communication was handed over to the limited few astronauts manning mission control. Check it yourself on film coverage released at the time. Collins, Duke, Aldrin, Lovell, Shepherd, Schmitt, Cernan etc, are all there on various missions. Lovell himself admitted that there were two communication links to the astronauts.
FACT: It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Lunar Module to the conical space capsule, as this section was occupied by the 3 large reentry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end.
FACT: In 2007 NASA does not have the technology to land a man on the Moon, and return them safely. It may be possible in the future, but such a feat is still many, many years away.
FACT: Buzz Aldrin believes he has suffered brain damage as a result of his trip to the Moon. He knows darned well that he never went anywhere near the Moon, and so could not have suffered brain damage in the way he alleges. Aldrin was the only Apollo astronaut who went public, and talked about the Moon landings during the 70′s and 80′s. The guilt, remorse, and stumbling over awkward questions put to him by the media, have put an intolerable strain on him. His psychological damage is the result of keeping it bottled up for 38 years, instead of getting it off his mind. In Aldrin’s book “Return to Earth”, he makes a remark that all 6 of them have been made to look fools. Make of this what you will.
FACT: Deadly radiation in space beyond the magnetosphere, make space travel impossible. Scientists have not yet found a way to protect astronauts from this deadly radiation.
[link to apollofacts.bravehost.com]
April 18th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Isn’t it amazing how text can have a formidable impression on the reader, even if it’s all garbage.
Here’s an example: I will say an obvious bunch of B/S, but with authority, begin the statement with “FACT” in bold capital letters, to try and make it sound legitimate.
FACT: Sheep can fly.
FACT: Cows can fly.
FACT: Oprah is a man.(debatable)
FACT: Smoking is good for you.
FACT: Driving a Ferrari at top speed while intoxicated is a good idea.
FACT: Brian knows what he’s talking about.
Now some true FACTS.
FACT: It takes the Shuttle 8 MINUTES to achieve a 185 mile orbit, NOT 66 hours! How do you expect ANYBODY to take you seriously, Brian, when you are sooo ignorant about space travel.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/sts-95/launch/
FACT: The Lunar Module WAS upgraded for the J missions (Apollo 15,16,17)
FACT: Brian says all of the LM’s were exactly the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
FACT: (this is my favorite) Brian says there’s no docking hatch on the Command Module.
FACT: I haven’t stopped laughing for days! The parachutes were BESIDE the docking hatch!
http://www.apollosaturn.com/csm.htm
Above website shows pics of the Command Module with docking hatch removed.
FACT: Canadians ARE allowed to own firearms.
FACT: In Brian’s comment (no. 795) he says Canadians are NOT allowed to own firearms.
This is typical of arogant people, thinking they know everything, when thier B/S is ALL based on ASSUMPTIONS. Just like Bart Sibrel.
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm
FACT: Brian will completely ignore the obvious truth and he NEVER admits when he’s been proven wrong.
FIBB: Ross said he was going to leave poor Brian alone.
April 18th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Well look who couldn’t stand to be away for more than a week!! Hahhaa!! Welcome back my 3rd Reich Sympathizer!! Yes, you did lie Ross…..so what makes “you” so trustworthy……like he always does…..twists what is true to fit what he’d like NOT to be true. Truth is, he’s a self deluded liar (admits it too) and wants you to trust in his lying opinion Only an idiot like Ross would do such
a stupid thing. For ex….”Ross said….that “I” said…the shuttle takes 66 hours to reach a 185 mile orbit…..that’s a lie. With a Jackass like Ross, you can count on him to rearrange the facts. Take a look at what I said…..I said, “to dock” with the space station it has taken as long as 66 hours…..to prove it takes “time” to accomplish this, the Discovery left on April 5th Monday Morning, and docked 2 days later…..not 8 min Ross….gee how much could you possibly know if you cannot even
read Ross???? = )))
Ross only believes what he reads from a “pro NASA” position anyway…..so, that if one of the asronots actually “admitted” they all faked it…..he ‘d go on believin”….Right Ross??? : ))) Keep giving us the great entertainment of the day!!
Notice that Ross was “CAREFULLY” selective of his twists of truth??? He had no squabble with Neil Armstrong’s Mental Illness….perhaps b/c Ross can especially relate to that!! In fact, he only objects to only a FEWof the Facts listed….this is b/c he is at a loss for words for some of what he cannot twist to his own liking. Are you really gonna let the rest pass Ross??? I mean, you’re the great debunking King (self acclaimed ofcourse) but we ALL know you’re just a wanna be Phil Plait. Phil is better than you Ross, just face it….so please just stop trying to be the Jr. League Nasa champion you wish you were….cuz you’re really getting pathetic at your very own “claim” to fame. Hahahaha!!!!
Ross says the LEM was upgraded for the “J” missions….but what he “fails” to say, is the size dimensions ‘were” in fact the SAME….the point being made was of “size”….but Ross never got that.
Just look at the “moon” in the background of this picture…. http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/0d2e14717/en/max/1440/900/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg?format=jpg%2Cpng%2Cgif&ctf=0?format=jpg,png,gif&loadexternal=1
Now compare the above photo of the moon with these http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/
Which are clearly “faked”….even though Ross never goes to say “what” they’re actually doing, aren’t those you’re German NAZI Comrades doing “exact” models of the moon with trolly’s setup for camera footage of the errrr…..Command Module errrrrr….Orbit??? = ))) OOOOPPPSS!!!
Ummmm….where did I say there wasn’t a docking hatch on the Command Module Ross?? Are you losing your mind like Buzz, Armstrong, and Collins?? = )) I’ll let you recheck that one.
All Canadians are “NOT” allowed to own firearms. They “must” have a license, and a reason they “need” to have one….before even being “allowed” to own a gun. You are gun controlled Ross. My Constitution says I have the right to own a gun, and I don’t even need a license. So, if you have one, based on what I’ve seen here…..they should take it away from you!!! = )))))
It’s good to have you back Ross…..I actually have fun kicking you around, in fact, you even help me do it, by simply admitting you’re a liar by your own admission. I’ve already proved it was all fake, and you still don’t get it. You never will, and for those who come to the senses that today’s Govt. is only about Power, Money, and Control…..they will lie to no end, to get what they want….even though some see straight through them, and those who back them up….like Ross. I really hoped you’d debunk ALOT more than you tried to…..but we all know you’re a light weight Ross…..who, stands as a legend in his own NAZI Sympathizing mind, while those of his National German History, Doctored the Apollo Program….hey, we even got em on film DOING IT!!!! : )))
Here’s Neil Armstrong “all excited” errr….well….not really too happy about the mission he’s soon to undertake….notice he doesn’t say…”moon” at the end….but “another “heavenly body”….probably had “earth in mind”…..(as he looks down after saying it!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCTU1eLTYWM&feature=player_embedded
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 am
“”"”"”"”nobody but the creator core group of NASA insiders close to the “astronots” would have to have known the truth. Everyone else, on the “outside” would have just been “happy” to say they built a part for the rover”"”"”"”
So essentially this means 1000ooo… of people actually build stuff that actually worked, (at least hundrets of scientists and engineers were sure it would) which was never put into use, because….?
Also since only the core group close to the astronouts was involved, how do you explain the LRO images today? No if there is a conspiracy, it must involve thousends of people, starting then up until today!
So redicolous.
April 24th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Sorry folks, but these pictures are not clear enough to prove much. Not that I’m disputing the landing either way, but is that the eagle lander or a rock, I mean really???
We need much better photos showing the lunar lander, etc as these simply do not. I am optimistic that at some point, actuate detailed pictures of the landing site will be taken. I remain a 50/50 % moon landing believer.
April 25th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Muriem….I think Lorne just answered your question!! : ))
April 25th, 2010 at 12:38 am
All this didn’t start with Apollo 11…..check out the video on this “aclaimed” APollo 8 footage of “moon” orbit….which, appears allot closer than NASA can even manage today…..that is….if the footage was even “real” to begin with!! Love those “looops” the fly by….err…camera “makes” as it “spins around” to go the opposite direction around the 20 foot “mock moon” on it’s camera “trolly tracks”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnBtYpMgFZI&feature=player_embedded
April 25th, 2010 at 12:50 am
Here’s a great link further explaining how it was “faked”. Pay special attention to all the “cardboard” Lunar Landers…..errr….and the ummm….space worthy one eventually “used” in the filming….missing rivets and all. Perhaps this is the proof it was “all a paper moon” after all??
http://apolloreality2.bravehost.com/
April 25th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
brian, no, just because the images are too blurry for your taste, does not mean, you do not need to come up with a theory that explains how the consipracy goes on until today, since some people would have to fake the whole LRO mission as well. So the conspiracy must be in the next generation already, since the core team from 40 years ago will hardly be still responsible to all fake this in their 70ies. Again if, there must be muuuuuuch more people involved than the core team.
Again a complety theory please, that explains who everybody was and is involved! (yet I’m still totally missing this information). not only the pictures, but as well how the mirrors are on the moon, how the radio rays were coming from the moon, how the time slices all exactly matched (so exact you can calculate the earth-moon distance today from the delay on the recorded radio transmissions) how over 100 pieces of moon rock were brought back, who hundrets of scientists examined, having an element (Helium 3) not present at earth at all. How ten tousends of engineers and scientists were involved and still are involved in scientific projects, were at least the vast majority builds stuff that works, or strongly believes it works.
I see what you done here, you again refrain from coming up with a real thing, and turn back on pathetic pixel discussions, etc. just simple finding “holes”. This is primitive and simple, come up with the COMPLETE alternative Story, so we can check this for loopholes, and then compare which story has more holes.
April 25th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
@Lorne allan, blury images are not an argument, we’ve have enormous high quality pictures from the apollo missions themselves, yet they don’t prove anything to these guys as well.
Its a nice immunizing way of not being able to it right for these. Have low-res picuture, “way to blurry, proofs nothing”, have high-res pictures, “thats technical impossible, must be faked!”. See?
April 25th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Lorne allan: Try googling “Apollo landing sites revisited”. I’m sure you know this, but find an image you wish to zoom in on and hold the control button down and use the mouse wheel to zoom in.
Brian: go to
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
Now click on image S72-36289. Enlarge it, please. Now doesn’t it look to you like the parachute cables are off to the side of the Command Module docking hatch?
The rivets you are seeing on the Lunar Module are just for covering the insulation surrounding the pressure hull. Did you really think that WAS the pressure hull? It doesn’t fly in the air, for gawd’s sake!
You put a lot of faith in whoever runs that bravehost site. It’s 100% trash. Who does, by the way? Bart?
http://www.clavius.org/vehidx.html
April 27th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Brian, forgot to tell you to click on Apollo 16 first.
May 7th, 2010 at 10:42 am
I finally found a picture of the Lunar Module while under construction. A lot of hoax dummies keep saying that the shoddy looking appearance of the LM means that it’s not spaceworthy. This image shows the PREASURE HULL without the insulation. And the maximum g-force that it would have to put up with would be about 4 g’s during the launch. Those lite-wieght panels rivited on that you see on the assembled vehicle could easily handle that. Of course, aro-dynamics is NOT a factor as it operates in a vacuum. Remember, Grumman was getting paid $50,000 for every pound they could shed!
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
Please click on “Early Apollo” and enlarge image LM-NOID-10.
May 7th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Another interesting fact about the LM was that there were NO SEATS. This enabled the crewmen to be closer to the windows for visual access and reduced the wieght of the vehicle. ( smaller windows) Obviously not a lot of g’s happening in the landing. Armstrong reported that after the initial thrust of 10%, no g’s were felt. 40% WAS noticed, and was in fact appreciated as zero g is uncomfortable. All 12 of the Moon landers said they really enjoyed 1/6th gravity.
One personal observation of video footage on the Moon (especially with the Rover) was how the regolith (sand) fell after being stirred up. When a tire on the Lunar Rover was airborn, it took a long time, reletively speaking, to come back to the Lunar surface. The dust fell surprizingly quickly by comparison. This would indicate a much lesser gravity in a vacuum as air would hold the dust from falling for a much longer period of time. Ya just don’t see that here on Terra Firma!
May 11th, 2010 at 9:00 am
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has found the long lost Russian laser retroreflector, Lunokhod 1. Pretty kool!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-20100426.html
Duuh… a bit of a mistake on my Lunar Rover tire being “airborn” (previous comment). How ’bout “off the ground”?
May 21st, 2010 at 11:46 pm
sorry still no real definition, not close enough for my books… yeh a white dot is so convincing… like the many other white dots & shadows… come on nasa get the LRO closer…
May 22nd, 2010 at 8:50 am
rubbish: try googling “Apollo websites revisited”. Use control button and mouse wheel to zoom in.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
How does this picture prove anything?! It doesn’t show any detail. I still don’t see it – and for those that can see something from this photo – wow – you’ve got great eyes and a very vivid imaginations. There was a video shown when they supposedly left the moon that shown a lot better detail and it has been said it was taken from a camera on earth – use that camera to prove this landing – I can’t believe that we have satellites that can take pictures of license plates – but any that can provide clear – detailed images of what is supposed to have been left on the moon. I realize the distance is far greater – but come on – how about the Hubble? Oh yeah – the glare from the sun – I am sure there are filters on board the Hubble that could be used to reduce the glare. This picture still doesn’t prove anything to me. As another said – zits on the face of the man in the moon. Seems there is always some reason that clear definite proof can’t be offered. Maybe a return trip to the moon? Nope – can’t do that in any of our lifetimes – wait until everyone around then is dead and it won’t make such a difference when the truth in revealed – gotta go to Mars. Will probably be even a bigger hoax.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Another thing I notice in the picture – the mounds have the shadow on the left site – the LM shadow is on the right – and this is proof of what? Another doctored photo.
June 17th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Still a doubter:
These are not “mounds”. They are called “craters”. In other words, a deep hole in the ground surrounded by a substatial ring of soil around and above the hole. The shadow you see is correct.
Please do as I stated in comment 816. The hubble explanation has been worn out on this blog.
Please go to and read the information from these websites:
http://www.clavius.org
http://www.braeunig/space/hoax.htm
June 17th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Will learn to type someday. Mistake on website:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
June 18th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Ropss – I appreciated the explainatin of the craters rather than the mounds as I was seeing it.
And based on your explaination – I can see how the shadows are in sync – however, I still can’t see the ‘footprints’ – even when I zoom in to 500%. I would still like to see a more detailed picture – somehow – hubble or not – so the time being I am still a doubter – but willing to look at all this with a more open mind. Thanks again.
June 19th, 2010 at 8:04 am
still a doubter:
The easiest way of learning a little history about Apollo is to rent “In the shadow of the Moon”. Please watch special features too. I think if people learn about HOW they did it, the dought diminishes. Research is needed to learn the truth about history. The LRO images are only one small piece of the facts. Have a good day and thanx for listening.
June 22nd, 2010 at 4:56 am
Still a doubter, also there is no convincing alternative theory that can explain it all, so unless I get a good conspiracy theory that explains all details, all issues, one who was involved and not involved, how they managed to keep this over 50 years secret, how they managed to get the moon rocks on earth, how they manged to get mirrors on the moon, how they managed to get radio signals coming from the moon at exact the right timing intervals (the earth-moon distance is even meassurable today on the time delays in radio transmissions) and how they manage to keep a conspiracy that long secret they even can manipulate LRO images today, while they fail to keep a simple thing like watergate secret.
If I get this theory, I will compare the facts with the actual-been-there theory and weigh off for which one speaks more evidence to determine which one I see more likely to have actually happened.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:59 am
@murieum
long wait,still no flag(s)or flagrod(s)anywhere to be seen your website link in which you claim about the flag. Neither any of the six flags or flagrods to be seen.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:16 am
@Ross
India officially never claimed anything about the manned moon landing
in any of their article
July 27th, 2010 at 9:35 am
@BRIAN
In fact your and some other peoples queries,conclusion and concept are catching so hard on moon landers supporters that they are running out of ideas.Probably why they are boiling? but you manage to cool them in your
in your every says.Thanks for unveiling your knowledge on this.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:47 am
@murieum
In all of the earlier posts of photographs LRO had taken the snaps,photographs of the scientific instrument,lunar module shadow
(LM SHADOW)and the astronauts bootprints.Did the LRO forget to take the
pictures of flags or flagpoles which were not even five feet away from
the astronauts bootprints?lRO can manage to take pictures of LM SHADOW.
Did it forget to take the pictures of FLAGPOLES SHADOW which is many a
metre in length? Moreover, according to you the textile of the flags had been long crumbled to dust,but as per your so called flags photographs it is indicating the complete flags? GOD knows the truth?
July 29th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
chandan:
http://www.physorg.com/news/171102159.html
Did you actually read this? “independent corroboration of the landing”?
“tracks left behind by Lunar Rovers”?
“Chandrayaan-1 has reconfirmed the veracity of the Apollo 15 mission”?
What part of this do you not understand, chandan?
Can you at least try to imagine how TINY a flag would be, especially if it were left standing up as one launch video confirms?
Running out of ideas? We don’t need ideas. You’re the ones coming up with these prepostorous “ideas”. You don’t need “ideas” when history has allready been writen.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
@ROSS
I repeat again INDIA has neither denied nor confirmed about a MANNED MOON MISSION,Did you actually read this? Chandrayaan-1 has confirmed the veracity of the Apollo 15 mission”? AND NOT OF MANNED MOON MISSION.
PROBES may have landed there.
What part of this do you not understand, dear ross?
Can you at least try to imagine how TINY a BOOTPRINT would be than a FLAG or
FLAGPOLE or FLAGPOLE SHADOW.A FLAGPOLE SHADOW at different time,different angular position of the SUN and at different ALTITUDE casting everyday on MOON will certainly give a VERY relevant picture TO CATCH THE EYE OF LRO OR ANY SATELLITE. A FLAGPOLE which ia mere OF 5 feet and just in front of BOOTPRINT(IF YOU REMEMBER THE PICTURE ASTRONAUT SALUTING THE FLAGPOLE)at a CERTAIN TIME MUST CAST A SHADOW EVERYDAY MUCH MORE BIGGER THAN ITS SIZE CORRESPONDING TO THE HEIGHT AND ALTITUDE OF THE SUN.SO MAKING IT MORE EASIER FOR LRO TO CATCH A VERY CLEAR GLIMPSE OF IT I.E.THE ENLARGED SHADOW OF THE FLAGPOLE FLAT ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON.
But we all know it has never happened.
Earlier MURIEUM tries to convince by saying that you will get a very clear picture of FLAG when LRO WILL REACH ITS FINAL ORBIT AS IT HAS A RESOLUTION OF 0.5 .After 6 months she again tried to convinced by saying that here is your FLAG by sending a INVISIBLE PICTURE(through a website link).NOW, you are trying with a different logic.
When history has never been made than where is the question of already been writ…..dear ROSS?
Can try with next idea
August 1st, 2010 at 4:51 pm
chandan:
Verasity (conformity of truth or fact) of the Apollo 15 mission was confirmed be the Indian orbiter. This was written by a reporter from India. In other words, India is saying that Nasa is telling the truth. So ya think the Indian spaceflight community hasn’t a clue as to weather Apollo 15 was supposed to be manned or unmanned? Wake up! Nasa says that 6 of the 9 manned Lunar missions landed men on the Moon. So does India. So does Russia and the list of foriegn Countries goes on and on.. So do I. So do most intelligent people.
Probes MAY have landed there? Is that your evidence? Du yu think a probe can make ROVER TRACKS?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20091028_apollo.html
Click on “view larger image” and then zoom in. Hold control button down while spinning wheel on mouse. ROVER TRACKS. Apollo 15,16, and 17 had Lunar Rovers. ROVER TRACKS. Ya know, those parallel lines ya see all over the place. Apollo 17…Rover tracks!!!! Challenger Decent stage. Also google “Apollo landing sites revisited”.
I’m glad there are Moon landing conspiracy theorists. Really…makes me feel like I have a huge brain…relatively speaking.
August 1st, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Chandan: On Nasa website use image at bottom of page.
August 1st, 2010 at 10:17 pm
@ross:
I am repeating again INDIA [OFFICIALLY] has neither denied nor confirmed of a manned moon landings. If their is one reporter from India telling — verasity of apollo mission than their are several other reporters from India and as well as other countries telling STRONGLY the faking of MANNED MOON MISSION.
CHANDRAYAAN-1 has also left some of his signs on MOON.PATHFINDER,SPIRIT,OPPORTUNITY AND SOME OTHERS had also left some of their signs on MARS. Does it mean mankind have landed on MARS OR on MOON.
Click on “view larger image”–Its of no use its the same thing to be seen:–
Moreover,their should be more than one flag or flagpoles as all the landing site were the same.LRO has sent picture of lunar module shadow(LM SHADOW).I really don’t know why did he shut his eyes and forget to take the picture of FLAG(S) or FLAGPOLE(S) SHADOW at that time.The SHADOW of more than one flags or flagpoles(many a meter in length)should have been taken by LRO if it can manage to take the SHADOW of lunar module .Why not of 4-5 feet of flags or flagpoles?at the same place, same time?
NASA has sent 6 times in a row without fail (40 years back) their man on moon.Why is he shying away now to sent again.Now even water has been confirmed there.Has NASA technology deteiorated in last 40 years?NASA who made six times in a row without fail, it must be child play for them for one more time.Please don’t make lame excuse of budget. The budget is much more than 40 years back.
The fact that whole world know that even if we reach, mankind still doesn’t have that technology to survive long enough or come back or return their probes or mission back once it has landed on moon Thats why no country still risks of sending a manned moon mission.(including NASA)
Nasa says that 6 of the 9 manned Lunar missions landed men on the Moon. .. So do I. So do most intelligent people.
You may be telling that not most of the intelligent people(Take it Easy).
I’m sorry that there are Manned Moon landing believers theorists. Really…makes me feel What brain……..????relatively speaking.
August 2nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
chandan: I showed you a newspaper article which is documentation from another Country. (comment 742) Do you think that YOU saying in bold capital letters that other Countries are strongly denying the manned Moon landings means anything at all? Hey everybody, chandan says….Oh, well it must be true then! chandan says so.
Did you ZOOM IN on the website image that I showed you as I instructed, or are you afraid of what you might find? The LM decent stage is about 12ft across with footpads 30ft apart. If one ZOOMS in on the images you can distinguish it and rover tracks (Apollo 15-17). The flag would have (standing upright) less than a foot of viewable area from above. The shadow would be dependant on the sun angle which would rely on pure luck. Can you at least try to understand the simple difference in size of the artifacts? I’m done arguing about the flag. If you can’t even understand how difficult it is to see something THAT SMALL, than I really am talking to an idiot! I would like to think otherwise though…
6 times in a row without fail? Ever heard of Apollo 13? It’s always the same with you people. You don’t know your history, yet you think that what you say has any merit whatsoever?
You think that the budget has no significance for a Lunar mission? WOW! Here’s some more history…Apollo was getting about 5% of the gross National budget for almost 10 years in the sixties. Today Nasa gets less than 1%!! Ever heard of a guy called Nixon? He killed Apollo and the budget, and unfortunately, the Shuttle was not designed for deep space. We’ll find out in about September what the Obama administration will do.
Here’s a website showing what Niel Armsrtong and other Apollo astronauts think of the new budget.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/14/armstrong_letter/
The Constellation programme was started in 2003 by the Bush administration which would take astronouts BACK TO THE MOON. It was underfunded and now Obama wants to CANCEL it. Now, why do you suppose Niel Armstrong and many other Apollo Veterans want Constellation (a modern version of Apollo) back? If they’d FAKED IT 40 years ago, do you think they’d want thier secret exposed?
August 5th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
ross:
You showed me a newspaper article which is documentation from another Country. (comment 742) Do you think that YOU saying in small letters that other Countries are strongly believing the manned Moon landings means anything at all? Hey everybody, ross says….Oh, well it must be true then! ross says so.
Why are you afraid and turn blind of seeing those uncountable articles and documentation from so many countries including AMERICA itself(including American and other countries astronauts scientists) which very straight forward CLARIFY that we never made it to the moon.Do you think that all these astronauts and scientist are fool? or you are more smarter and know
much more than these space scientists.
Did you ZOOM IN on so many of the website image that is showing you the faking of moon landings or are you afraid of what you might find? The shadow would be dependant on the sun angle which would rely on pure luck.
In fact, I was not knowing that what a true idiot with your idiotic concept you can be. In fact now I had started to think otherwise though…
Even it rely on pure luck (which is not the case you are trying to presume)IS LRO ashamed of getting those pictures.in past so many years?
Had LRO got the LM SHADOW by luck?and not the faintest of the flag shadow in the same picture just near to LM .
Please,Please don’t try to make others believe by sending these photos of Rovers and Flags etc.In fact the world is laughing after seeing these photographs.
By anyway, they had made it six times.Why are their legs shaking to make it seventh time .They had budgets for so many of their space missions to go in space again and again(columbia,Discovery,etc.etc.etc)but not for another manned moon missions.
During last 40 years till now NASA had invested so much on their space programs that they could have easily gone 12 times on moon.
It’s always the same with you people. Either You don’t want to know or you are being afraid to know the fact, the truth, behind the story, yet you think that what you say has any merit whatsoever?
Please stop showing this DRAMA OF Niel Armsrtong and other Apollo astronauts think of the new budget AND The Constellation programme was started in 2003 by the Bush administration which would take astronouts BACK TO THE MOON. It was underfunded and now Obama wants to CANCEL it.
WE ALL KNOW IT WILL ALWAYS BE CANCELLED. REASONS– AGAIN WE ALL KNOW
August 6th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Geez chandan, lots of repetition goin’ on. Good for you.
Geez chandan, lots of repetition goin’ on. Good for you.
Didn’t I just say that? I’m done haggeling. You win!
The 400,000 people that worked on the Apollo programme for 10 years did it ALL for a joke. Boeing and North American Aviation built the most powerfull machine in human history (next to a nuclear bomb), wheeled the 364 ft rocket at 1 mile an hour out to the launch pad for a laugh. Siesmometers around the entire mainland USA registered when the Saturn V took off, but it was all for fun!
The world is FLAT.
Oprah is beautifull.
Everybody loves to pay taxes.
I’m sure you WON’T do this chandan, but go to the video store, if there’s any left, and rent “In the shadow of the Moon”. Meet these people you conspiracy CLOWNS call liars and actually see something real. No Hollywood. No B.S. Carefull, cause it’s REAL!
August 8th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
chandan, I repeat quite simply. I don’t know what the flag pole would prove to you. There you have clear shots of the landers, yet you claim its all faked. On one of the picture *I* do see a pole. But well you’d just claim “its faked”. There is *nothing* that would prove to you.
I repeat also once again, don’t argue me with that. Provide me the full alternative we-werent-there-theory that explains it all. Who was everybody involved in the conspiracy? How did get the tons of moonrocks from the moon? The transmissions? The mirrors up there? Up the conspricay still active today involving tousends of people.
I will then decide which of the two theories sounds more convincing and everyone else should do the same.
So far I’m missing to see alternative theory, its all just talk about some pixels, talks about india, our random nazi allegations.
August 8th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
There are better picutre already available if you search a little.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090929_apollo11.html
But I doubt it will proof you anyting. But again its the wrong game. *You* provide us a *complete* alternative theory what actually happened. And we can test this one then for plausability. And a please a *COMPLETE* theory, not some random bits here and there.
August 8th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
And there is the flagpole of Apolle 17
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20091028_apollo.html
Of course you now post “oh some black pixels proof nothing to me”… oh well, who still wants to disbelive in existence itself can still do.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Great job Chandran!! These clowns would “continue to “baleeve” even if the astro Nots admitted publically that they really did fake the whole Lunar Landing at langly!! I have this great picture of all 3 astronots Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins….all 3 cooperated to have their picture taken in a “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil” jesture. It is hilarious!! Spells it out for me!! Don’t ask Don’t tell was alive and well during Apollo!!!
August 13th, 2010 at 2:55 am
Brian, I see once again one of you guys stay vague with random allegations. So typicial.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:01 am
There is a simple explanation to every single question you conspiracy theorists bring up. You don’t hear them, because you choose not to listen to them. Rationality did not get these ideas in your head, so a rational explanation will not get them out.
Astro Nots…Oh now I get it! You’re saying they’re Not Astronauts. That’s soooo funny! Haa haa haa, Tee hee hee! Who was the GENIUS that thought of that? Oh I guess I’m way out of my leauge here, when I’m dealing with such intelligent people. Astro Nots. Brilliant! Sooo creative!
murium keeps asking, I’m asking, If these men weren’t Astronauts, then what did they do? Did they actually get into the Command Module on top of the enormous rocket and then get out in the middle of the ocean in front of all the Navy personel to wittness? Did they actually go into outer space? If they did, aren’t they Astronauts? Surely with such genius and creativity, one could come up with a SIMPLE EXPLANATION as to what happened? Or is that too much too ask?
August 14th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Ross, could we please stop calling a u conspiracy theory? I’m missing the theory aspect of it, as I’ve yet to see a complete alternative theory, to the standard they-were-actually-there modell. I mean in principle I would be open for alternative explanations, but I’d to see them first
and one that answers all the basic questions (much more basic as Ross’s), I’m not doubting you could not have filmed the apollo-11 pictures in a studio, but there is so much else that needs to fit in a conspriacy theory, that actually is worth the name theory.
* Who was and is everbody involved? (And who wasnt and isn’t?) Start for once getting precise on this point. This involves, how many people need to shut up tight, for this to work?
* This has to include people from back then up until today who’d need to “fake” LRO pictures.
* How did they get all that moon rocks on the earth that fooled hundreds of scientists (supposing you don’t count every scientist to be included in the conspiracy) (remember every nation on the earth got one, and these included an element – helium-3 which does not exist on earth)
* How did they get the mirrors up on the moon?
* How did they get the live radio transmissions coming from the moon?
* If you suppose this was done with robot drones, how many people needed to be involved in the conspiracy, to build this drones, to operate them and of course everybody until the last one keeping up tight?
* How did they get drones working so well, back then? Drones that can setup mirrors, collect rocks and all that (when all the russians managed without men operating on-site was to crash one into a mountainwall)
* If not everyone of nasa and all the companies building parts for the rocket, the lander, the rover was involved (this would including thousends of people). Does this mean, they all built equipment that actually worked? At least they were all convinced it would. Wouldn’t it been much simpler to simply use it?
* If you keep arguing about the van allen belt, this data *every* scientist can check, and how much radiation you really get when passing it. Does this mean *every* astro-scientist is involved in the conspiracy, lieing about the radiation concentration in the van allen belt?
September 25th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
Great photos, I was excited to check them out last night after listening to a local science program.
But I just noticed something this morning, it’s looks like the shadows are cast in the wrong direction in every instance. Clearly, it looks like the sun is coming from the right of the photo in every shot, yet the shadow is being cast from the left of the lunar module. Why is this so?
For example: Apollo 17 – the rims of craters are clearly receiving the light from the right of photo and casting a shadow to the left. Yet, the lunar module has light coming from the the left and is casting a shadow to the right. I’m NOT a conspiracy theorist. I call a spade a spade and something looks wrong here.
In the interests of science, I want a scientific explanation please.
September 27th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Pavlo, it are craters not hills. The directions fit. Its not that the majority of planet including tenthousends of scientists who’ve seen this picture are too stupid to realize something simple as this.
And once again, you’re playing the wrong game together with the conspiracy “theorists”. Don’t discuss with people not able to realize how lights and shadows in holes are being cast… If you are calling anything a fake, provide a *complete*, *scientific* explanation, of how “they” pulled that off, including a *complete* explanation who “they” actually are.
And even if the landing would’ve been faked. Now supposing “they” pulled something of, which including all the evidence there is, all the issues that fit, would be the cleary the most incredible perfomance ever in humanity. Much bigger than the relative simple performance actually flying to the moon. You suppose, they are suddendly so mentally ill, to make the shadows so simply wrong in the supposevly “faked” LRO images. Seriously.
October 1st, 2010 at 9:05 am
Pavlo: The craters are holes created by meteors, or similar materials. When a hole is created, the soil (regolith) makes a large ring around and above the crater. The shadow is correct.
October 28th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Each side (the believers and the hoaxers) think the people in the other side are poor sad fools, believing a load of rubbish.
There are no valid reasons to have extra ‘shadows’ placed in strategic positions in all of the nasa images and there are also blacked-out censored areas too. If you do not believe me, look carefully and you will see the straight lines, sharp angles, and fuzzy borders to the shadows. Some even have obvious signs of being added and have no detail in them whatsoever which is not what true shadows should be like.
Anyway, I think there must be something going on but I do not know how much and how far it extends.
I am pleased that these images have satisfied you and only hope that you are all happy in your comfortable informed positions. Everything you see in these images is an illusion created to keep you from knowing the truth. You really need to insist on the answers to all those awkward questions.
October 29th, 2010 at 2:18 am
wfan, no, its not about images “satisfying” anybody. Having multiple *theories* is fine, but I dont see an alternative theory I can weigh against the normal we’ve-been-there-”theory”. All you got are the shadow have “straight lines” and “fuzzy borders”? Comeon, give me some more! Give me an alternative *theory*, of what happened, that answers all the “akward” questions of obvious evidence that is there. and then we can judge both against each others, whichever we think are more likely. Well what else shoult they have instead of “straight lines” _or_ “fuzzy borders”?
I dont think hoaxers are “poor sad fools”, but I see how they think they so a “smart ass” in questioning anything and discussing random pixels in images, without actually really caring to visit any basic physics class. Well let me tell you just this, you all are not that smart as you believe you are, just by asking stupid questions.
Currently state of affairs, we have an “akward feeling about the borders of shadows” against Radio transmissions from moon, live TV Transmissions, moon rocks, LRO pictures, thousends of involved people, a spawn of more than 40 years of history with at least one generation switch, and even such little details as a set of school pupils “meassuring” the earth/moon distance today, by the time delays of talk within the recoderd radio streams, actually not one apollo mission but one and a half dozend, etc. etc. So dont tell my I’m a “sad fool”, which theory I see more likely.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I know this is a little out of context, But would you be interested in doing an episode or two on your new TV show, Phil about debunking all of this annoying Moon landing hoax BS? I would like to help , if possible, on digging up info or something like that. Look forward to the new series and well done eh!
November 14th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Wow! Grainy photos where nothing is identifiable with the naked eye. Yup that sure proves that man walked on the moon all right! C’mon people, what are you really seeing here? a big grey dot, a couple of lines in the sand, and a smaller grey dot. Sure, the photos show SOMETHING but they prove NOTHING! I will change my opinion once the photos are clear and we can actually see a lunar landing module instead of a blurry grey dot. BTW, we saw a vapour trail then an explosion at the Pentagon on 9/11. That proves that a plane hit the building right? Even though there is no plane visible. You CANNOT BE AFRAID TO QUESTION EVERYTHING. I will be the first to admit that I’m wrong, when I’m wrong. There are NO aliens in area 51, and Elvis Aron Presley IS dead. How do I know this? Because there is proof!!
November 14th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
The name “Einstein” is obviously used as sarcasm as one reads this “ingenious” comment. Why do you children always proclaim that the LRO images are the only thing that can prove the reality of Apollo? And how can you prove that there are no aliens at area 51? I personally don’t think so either, but I sure as hell can’t prove it and neither can you, unless you’re a former employee from the Groom Lake facility and if that’s true, you’d better keep your yap shut! I would 100% guarantee that if you saw perfectly clear images of Decent stages of the Lunar Module, the American flag, and individual boot prints, you’d still blab “oh they faked the 6 Apollo Moon landings”.
http://www.clavius.org
November 28th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
All of the post that I have read so far are from 2009. So where are the higher resolution pics that were supposed to be forthcomming? Just as I thought, they’ll never come.
November 29th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Just look at the latest Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter pictures. You have your high resolution pics as requested. Hot dog!
December 1st, 2010 at 9:42 am
Hey Mr Hagemann, the day we were suppose to see clear pictures of those sites is behind us, isnt this telling you something?
December 1st, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Roger D.
If NASA created the biggest cover-up in human history by faking the 9 Apollo Lunar missions, don’t you think that they’d have created their own extremely clear, high resolution pictures of Decent stages, footprints, the flag, etc from today’s LRO images? If they’d faked it back then, why not fake if today? IF the 400,000 people that worked on the Apollo program for ten years did it all for a JOKE, and if all you fake Moon landing people were right, then why not just photoshop some snazy pics to keep you happy?
http://www.clavius.org
Try googling “Apollo landing sites revisited”. Hold control button down and zoom in with mouse wheel.
Has the education system in the US diminished so badly that history has become a lost subject?
December 19th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
The LRO has two cameras on board, one camera has more resolution than the other, why has NASA stated they will not use the camera with the higher resolution to photo the past apollo landing sites? China also has a camera in orbit that has more resolution than the LRO cameras, will they send us photos of the apollo landing sites? What ever happened to the photos the Japanese orbiter was to send back a few years ago?
December 20th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Its not “two cameras”, but the LRO is designed to scan the normal surface. Since the landers contain highly reflecting metals, they cannot turn it fully up, otherwise the reflection on the mirror burns down the receiver.I doubt any high resolution picture would convince you guys anyway feeling so smart by playing dump. What Japanese/Chines orbiters? What were they designed for?
BTW: The current disasters the US goes through due to wikileaks, where they lost secrets over “collateral murder”, now all internal diplomatic documents, ever wonder why there isnt anything about the trivials like a faked moonlanding? Or do you come up with another theory NASA also staged whole wikileaks, having Assange on their payroll just to deflect from their deceptions?
December 24th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Jim L: The Japanese orbiter had less resolution than the US LRO, and the Chinese orbiter should have much better resolution and at a lower alltitude. Who knows though, if communist China will release these images to the public and if they have any interest in the Apollo landing sites. I hope so.
February 28th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-20100426.html This NASA site shows an image of a Russian lander that had a robot rover that was missing for 40 years. This rover put reflectors on the sruface of the moon along with another robot mission from Russia. Is is possible that the reflectors we were told the Apollo crews put on the moon were in fact the Russian reflectors? The image of the lander on this image was taked by the LRO, I don’t know what the altitude of the LRO was when this image was taken. When are we going to get the images we are waiting for?
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Jim L.
The US didn’t know where the Soviet reflectors were located untill just recently. Cold war, remember? Right after Apollo 11, The Americans used the first one deployed. They placed three. Apollo 11, 14, and 15.
http://www.universetoday.com/35703/apollo-landing-sites-pose-a-threat-to-lro-instrument/
March 8th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Jim L,
A question you should ask yourself is “Why would NASA even mention the Russian reflectors if they’d been lying about which mirrors that they used all of this time?”
I hope your not one of those “Duhh ya they faked the Apollo Moon landings” types.
March 25th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Ross H.
I was twenty years old when the Apollo Missions were launched. I as most believed NASA sent men to the moon because of the evidence we were fed at the time. In the early 1990’s I had found a few interesting sites via the internet with information about the Lunar Landings that stated the Lunar Landings may not have taken place. For the past ten years I have kept my ears and eyes open regarding this issue and to date I have not found supporting evidence that proves without a doubt we landed on the moon during the Apollo Mission Period. However, I do believe NASA sent men in orbit during each of those events but that is all the Astronauts did were orbit the earth and return to earth as they were scripted to do. There was a NASA program I watched in 2010 where a spokesman from NASA clearly stated to his audience that NASA has never sent an Astronaut higher then an orbit of 300 miles above the earth in which an Astronaut went outside a space craft because of the radiation. If you have an open mind and you go through a few of the many sites on the internet you will see there are many who share these thoughts for a variety of reasons. I was hoping the LRO could have put these issues to bed however that never tool place. I don’t think NASA wants to dig a deeper hole than they have already done, sorry. With five other countries other than the USA that have sent up orbiters to the moon, I expected to get evidence showing either way but nothing came of any of them. I truly believe it will take more knowledge than the six countries that have sent craft into space to accomplish a manned mission to the moon at this point. If you do a little more research you will find the real reason it is important we get to the moon soon, it is the abundance of Helium 3 on the lunar surface. Perhaps the recent incident in Japan will prove to be the driving force that will make us focus mining on the moon and I hope I’m alive to experience it.
March 25th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Cold Fusion
March 28th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
So how do you know that there is an abundance of Helium 3 on the Lunar surface? Did aliens bring some regolith back to Earth? And I suppose that all of the geologists from around the world that examined the 840lbs of rocks plus regolith, that the six manned landings brought back, all say that you can’t find anything like that here on Earth are a bunch of fibbers too?
http://www.clavius.org/envrocks.html
So why build the Saturn V, a three stage monster rocket for Earth orbit only? The two stage Saturn 1B was sufficeint and used on Apollo 7 to test the new Command and Service Module in Earth orbit in Oct of ’67. The S4 booster on top of the Saturn V (third stage) is what sent three astronauts on their way to the Moon on Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. So building this complex booster with it’s own guidance computer, manoeuvreing thrusters, and the ability to re-ignite for TLI (Trans Lunar Injection), and oh ya, bring along the Lunar Module, was all done for fun? The 450,000 people that worked on the Apollo programme for 10 years did it all for a joke? The Russians TRACKED the Apollo spacecraft heading to and from the Moon. Are they in on the “conspiracy” too? Why fake it 9 times, for #$%% sakes?
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-20447.html
And what the hell do you know about radiation? Here’s what Dr. James Van Allen himself has to say about this fake Moon landing crap.
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
The Hubble telescope is at an altitude of 353 miles, deployed and serviced (by astronauts in spacesuits) from the Space Shuttle. Duhh, I think your spokesman is wrong (240,00 miles wrong). You say you’ve done research, and you don’t even know a well known fact like that?
http://space.about.com/od/telescopesandoptics/p/hubbleinfo.htm
March 28th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
If you open your mind too much, your brain falls out.
March 29th, 2011 at 10:05 am
If you have a brain to begin with…
March 29th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
everyone is born with a brain, just a few let it fall out.
March 30th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
This is another fact about the Van Allen belt. All this “Apollo faked the Lunar missions” bile always comes back too “Oh, there’s too much radiation”. Only a hanfull of people on the entire planet knows ANYTHING about radiation. Just look at how ignorant people are about the Japanese power plant. Websites like Clavius and others I’ve read consult physicists that are well educated on the subject of radiation. We take in radiation all year long. You’ve got Alpha particles, Beta particles, Gamma rays, Charged particles, yet these fake Moon landing doorknobs are all experts in the field…ya right. Ya get a sun tan from mild exposure to Gamma rays, which I believe is the nastiest of all. Turn on the old satellite TV, cause the satellite is right in the middle of the “nasty” Van Alen belt. Ever heard of an electromagnetic pulse? These satellites have been out there (22,000 miles out) for DECADES and work just fine.
The Apollo missions lasted less than two weeks. They were in far greater danger BEOND the Van Allen belts as any Solar flare headed in their direction could have been fatal. Luckely, Solar flares are directional and they were lucky! I’ll be the first to admit, these 24 men that went to the Moon and back were extremely lucky to make it back alive. Had it continued, fatalities would have mosy likely happened. John Young (Apollo 10, 16) said that a Solar flare occured inbetween Apollo 16 and Apollo 17. Had it occured while they were walking on the Moon, they’d have most likely been killed! After the explosion on Apollo 13, people gave them a 10 percent chance of making it home.
These astronauts are a different type of person than average. Test pilots (most of them) On Apollo 8, the first mission to the Moon, the odds were calculated as a one in three chance of a successfull mission, one in three of an unsuccessfull mission and getting home alive, and a one in three chance of being killed.
A mistake on Apollo 7 on comment 863. It was Oct. of “68.
http://www.solcomhouse.com/gemini.htm
This shows Gemini XI (scrole down) was at an altitude of 739.2 nm. in the mid sixties!
March 31st, 2011 at 7:02 am
I also dont get it, why this radiation claim is going on and on. Especially now with Fukushima most people reading news and info should by now have an understanding of radiation dose in Sievert.
Van Allen puts in average 1mS (1/1000 Sievert per day), 10mS in a year is what you get by normal medical x-rays if diagnosed. 50mS in a year is what workers handling with radioaktivity have as limit. I dont get it why the conspricy claims it would be around “fatal”, so after about 2000ms. 1mS / day is serious, if it lasts longer, if you live in a house with 1ms/day you’d have 365mS in a year, and very likely will get cancer sooner or later. But apollo flew right through the belt within little time. The total dose wasn’t that big. Sure in their total trip, the dose the astronauts got is quite notable. I suppose their chance to get cancer later on is somewhat higher than average, if they wouldnt compensate that by their much higer than average fitness training they went under. But as worrysome the Van Allen Belt is, its no where near immediate fatality.
March 31st, 2011 at 6:37 pm
http://www.spacedog.eu/spaceflight/lunar-missions/stunning-new-lro-images-of-apollo-14-landing-site.html
Here’s a nice one of Apollo 14. I really hope that China’s Chang-2 LRO takes some images of Apollo landing sites as it has taken some TREMENDOUS (15km altitude) stereo camera images of the Lunar surface.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread628783/pg1
April 2nd, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Interesting facts, muriem. Jack Swigert (Apollo 13) passed away at an early age from bone cancer. I suppose, it could have been because of the Lunar voyage, but tough to prove. Jim Lovell, went twice and is still going (strong I hope) at 83. So did John Young and Gene Cernan. I imagine that radiation effects different people in different ways.
April 4th, 2011 at 6:40 am
Ross, the first link is a 404. I suppose it has been deleted by the great conspiricy?
Radiation, yes, its all so statistics. Like smoking, you can become old and healty while smoking, its just less likely. We don’t had enough astronauts to get to significant results. But radiation even beyond Van Allen does play a concern when planing long term travels. It is a serious concern to get a human to Mars, something AFAIK not solved, the neceassry shielding would be too heavy to get the whole craft into space. In contrast to anything else, Moon is just a hop off earth, one trip around the block and hop on.
April 4th, 2011 at 11:39 am
murium, THEY spelled it wrong, so the Apollo 14 link was wrong. Here goes…
http://www.spacedog.eu/spaceflight/lunar-missions/stunning-new-lro-images-of-apollo-14-lanidng-site.html
Landing is spelled “lanidng” darn typing error conspiracy!
April 18th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
last year you could actually use google earth (moon mode) to zoom in on the apollo landing site. you could see rover prints and the actual landing module left behind. I dont know what they did with that.
April 19th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
bill,
Have you tryed googling “Apollo landing sites revisited”?
April 19th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
This is waaay kewl!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ
April 20th, 2011 at 2:38 am
Ross, that sure gonna convince them.
NOT!
Its just more footage for them to claim some random pixel is not what they think it should be, cause they failed in physics. This people wouldn’t believe it, if you fly them up and bang their head onto the lander, theyd just claim you put the faked lander there yesterday, or connected them to a cyberreality while they were asleep. If you completly fail to be smart in anything, you just convince yourself you are oh so smart, cause you disbelieve in the moonlanding, thats how it all works. Moon conspiracy is not treated with more footage, but with social care of the conspirationists, will have to find something they can be really good at, to give them real self-esteem.
April 20th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
[...] other news, the newest images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show the Apollo landing sites. Oooooooh! This entry was posted in Astronomy and tagged link, lunar, moon, photography, [...]
June 5th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
[...] APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! | Bad Astronomy | Discover … Jul 17, 2009 … NASA | This is so so so freaking cool: the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken pictures of the … [...]
June 6th, 2011 at 8:49 am
a little spec on a pic is not evidence , how many unmanned crafts were sent to the moon ?
A human cannot pass through the earth’s radiation belts , a 2meter thick lead capsule is the only thing to protect them and that is a fact !! If you really did something why fake anything to prove it ?
June 8th, 2011 at 3:04 am
sid. If you’d have any actual understanding of the mechanisms of radiation, you’d not post such nonsense. That is a fact !!
June 10th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
sid: You tell us exactly what kind of radiation (I’m assuming you’re talking about the Van Allen belts). Read my comment # 867
“The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.”– Dr. James Van Allen.
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Last man on the moon post got me thinking.
to think to have a left a book there in the rover, like a collection of Shakespeare’s sonnets or plays or some such. The alphabet written in the soil.
hopefully it won’t be that long that something like that would take on real poignancy. Of course at the time MAD stilled ruled the day and who knew we haven’t wiped ourselves out yet and it could have been forever. Seriously.
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
This is the best you have? The greatest accomplishment of mankind – like of all time – and 50+ years later with all of our techonology you still cant get a good picture of the landing sites? Let me guess you guys dont find this strange, right? So Japan China send sats to map the moon and they cant get any good pics either? Oh thats right Japan doesnt have any real good cameras. I forgot.
June 23rd, 2011 at 9:13 am
Terry,
These are some of the non-fiction books that I’ve read:
A Man On The Moon. Author: Andrew Chaikin
Rocket Men. Author: Craig Nelson
Magnificent Desolation. Author: Buzz Aldrin with Ken Abraham
Moon Lander. Author: Thomas J. Kelly
How Apollo Flew To The Moon. Author: W. David Woods
Lost Moon. Author: Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger
Spaceflight. Forwarded by Buzz Aldrin
NASA The Complete Illustrated History. Author: Michael Gorn
Apollo A Retrospective Analasis. Author: Roger D. Launius
Stages To Saturn. Author: Roger E. Bilstein
I’ve read Flight Journals from Apollo 8 and Apollo 11 and own these documentaries:
The Wonder of it All
Moonshot
Magnificent Desolation
To The Moom
For All mankind
Moonlanding 1969-2009
Live from the Moon, The Story of Apollo Television
Journey to the Moon
In The Shadow Of The Moon
The Mighty Saturns
Moon Machines
I’ve also spent hundreds of hours researching the history of Apollo on the internet, WHICH INCLUDED visiting hoax websites, and hoax debunking websites.
I really enjoy the LRO images, but realize that they are not necessary to “prove” that men walked on the Moon (40+, not 50+) years ago.
There were 300,000 people, including 20,000 contractors hired to build the Saturn V booster alone!
No, Terry, I don’t find this strange. What I DO find strange is the fact that there are so many ignorant, arogant, disrespectfull twerps out there that think it’s cool to INSULT the half million people that worked so hard for years to make it possible for the 24 astronauts to go to the Moon and back safely!
THAT’S WHAT I FIND THAT IS STRANGE.
July 10th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
is that the best you can do. i can do better with my 3 to 9 tasco deer rifle scope. pictures should be better once china goes and leaves something you can see. my grandfather said it was movie pictures and i say so to. all the picture taking equipment nasa has and this is best you can do?
July 12th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Duh, ya, richaed, maybe like the world is flat too, and cars are like the dominant species of this planet…
July 14th, 2011 at 2:23 am
So this thing went to the moon 2 years ago, sent back blurry images and on NASA’s website much better close up images are promised when it gets into its final orbit. TWO YEARS AGO!!!So where are the close up better images? I went to NASA’s website and found nothing. These images prove nothing, absolutely nothing. From NASA’s LRO page:
“LRO will spend at least a year in a low polar orbit approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) above the lunar surface, while its seven instruments find safe landing sites, locate potential resources, characterize the radiation environment and test new technology”
Find safe landing sites???? Didn’t they find safe landing sites 40 years ago and USE them? Now they’re searching for them? Wow…. And they need to characterize (whatever that means) the radiation on the moon? The biggest problem they faced 40 years ago was radiation and NOW they need to look into it? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. NASA is demonstrating to the world that it doesn’t have much knowledge of the Moon even though they were apparently there so many times. Laughable!!
July 17th, 2011 at 7:37 am
Andrew Murphy:
If NASA had faked the six manned Lunar landings between 1969 to 1972, don’t you think that they could have, WOULD HAVE, created larger, more distinct images of Apollo landing sites to try and decieve the public today? Is your imagination so limited, that this NEVER occured to you?
Untill Obama cancelled the Constellation program, NASA was planning to set up permanent bases on the Moon, so perfect locations, with the least amount of radiation was only one part of detailed landing site factors. The longest time anyone stayed on the Moon was approximately three days, 40 years ago. Long time exposure to radiation is far more harmfull that short term.
The Apollo programme was Americas proudest achievement. It’s people like you, Andrew that try to bring us back into the dark ages with your ignorant assumptions, based on NOTHING to support your theories. Read my comment #884. What research have you done? Everybody’s entitled to their opinion, but how relevant is that persons opinion when they don’t KNOW ANYTHING?
July 18th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
[...] instead of all this empty rhetoric. This is all the analysis that kind of nonsense needs. APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine__________________Scott [...]
July 25th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Big deal. Its so blurry, it could be anything. And in this day and age of high end computers, you can fake anything. The truth is in the old photo’s and movies, before we had photoshop and computer graphics. And in those is the proof that the moon landings were faked. Multiple shadows and all.
Lets see what the Chinese have to say when they ACTUALLY go to the moon.
July 26th, 2011 at 9:31 am
“Mutliple shadows and all”?
http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html
“India’s first Lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax, the country’s state run space-agency said wednesday.”
“US, Russian, and Japanese scientists have previously found evidence of Apollo 15′s landing site by studying photographs.”
http://www.physorg.com/news171102159.html
http://esa.int/esaMI/ESOC_40_Anniversary/SEMMFE7CTWF_0.html
The website listed above shows Spanish involement with their deep space network (DSN) tracking station.
http://www.parks.antf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/parks_operations.html
One of Australia’s DSN tracking stations… They had three…
Goldstone, California had another DSN tracking station…
Duh, ya like I guess India, Russia, Spain, Australia, and Japan are like in on the conspiracy too. Geez, there sure are a lot of fibbers out there, from different countries and all. Duhh I bet ya thousands of dudes were paid off, and have been keeping a reeaally big secret for all this time. Hey, Logan9773…do cows fly too?
July 26th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Ah yes, the tin foil LM, the hypersonic CSM that “took off” without any visible smoke or obvious means of propulsion flew 69 miles into space to dock with the orbiter travelling at @4000 mph. One of the astronauts in a well known documentary mentioned that the LM couldn’t support itself on earth when he noticed a picture of the LM shot on earth with it’s legs extended, so either the LM was strengthened for “earth” use or it was too weak to be a stable and reliable take off platform…was it anchored down?….how the hell could it survive the rocket blast that I presume the lift-off necessitated.
Newtons 2nd law) The relationship between an object’s mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.
Newtons 3rd law) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
July 27th, 2011 at 9:26 am
john shaw:
The LM landing gear was folded in, during the launch, and was supported from the frame. There was very little g-force during the Saturn V launch, as it weighed over 6 million lbs. at lift-off. It took 15 seconds to clear the launch tower. The Shuttle, by comparison, was almost out of sight, after 15 seconds.
And what does speed have to do with anything in a vacuum? Aerodynamics are not an issue. I can’t believe how many of you people that actually think that the LM was made out of tin foil. You think that you’re so smart, yet you FAIL TO DO ANY REASEARCH. The “foil” you see is called aluminized kapton and about 25 layers of it was used for insulation and radiation protection. Did you actually think that this foil was the only thing used for the crew compartment?
And why do you say “the hypersonic CSM that took off”? The CSM (Command and Servive Module) was the name of the vehicle that was in orbit, not the one on the surface of the Moon. The assent stage of the LM (Lunar Excursion Module) launched, using the decent stage as it’s platform. And you aren’t going to see a huge orange flame in a VACUUM. And are we forgetting that the Moon has only one sixth gravity? The entire weight of the assent stage with the two crew members and rocks was less than a ton. There is a documentary called “Live From The Moon” which shows the entire Apollo 17 launch, and you can see an orange flame as the assent stage dissapears into the Lunar sky. The Lunar launch was recorded from a camera, mounted on the Lunar Rover, and was remote controled by an operator from the ground. Also, the 33,000 lb. (Earth) weight of the LM during the landing was barely 5000 lbs. when it landed on the Moon.
Before any attempt to land on the Moon was established in 1962, the “mode” or method used, had to be decided. Lunar orbit rendezvous was the idea that a man named Dr. John Hobalt insisted on. His persistance payed off and is what made the whole thing possible. Ground tracking radar (using three locations on Earth) and the guidance systems from both the CSM and the LM, using rendezvous radar made Lunar orbit rendezvous the best choice.
Instead of mocking NASA, john, you should be in awe of what happened 40 years ago.
July 27th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I do not mean to mock anyone..let’s keep this as a science based debate.
OK, so the LM was the platform that the assent stage “took off” from and the CSM was the cylindrical thing that orbited the moon..I did look it up, but obviously I got it a bit wrong…respect due, I stand corrected on that.
I was referring to the fact that the bottom section of the “lander” that had to withstand being used as a rocket-blast-capable platform for the assent stage when they “took off” from the actual moon surface not the initial take off from earth which is obviously real..I’m not a crackpot….!!!
Combustion requires three things, heat, fuel and oxygen or some form of oxidization…if you cannot get something to burn how can you have combustion and if you have no combustion then how can you generate thrust for take-off, just because you are on the moon the laws of physics still apply, certainly all of the newton laws as were used at various points or would have to have been used to accomplish the landings and “take offs”.
Fire/combustion/explosions needs oxygen, heat, and fuel you cannot have it both ways…..i.e you will have to some sort of oxidizer or some sort of oxygen emulator, so yes fire is possible but not burning with oxygen gained from the moon as it has no atmosphere from which to harvest oxygen….it is a triangular relationship. That is why petrol vapour is so explosive as the petrol and air (fuel +oxygen are effectively one thing), then only an ignition source (heat) is required, if you take away any of these three things then the fire/combustion will be extinguished or unable to ignite/combust in the first place if fuel, heat and oxygen are not all present.
If the assent stage or whatever it was that “took off” with no visible smoke or obvious means of propulsion had to travel to 4000mph to dock with the orbiter it would have to be travelling at hypersonic speed.
If you want to use gravity and the fact that things weigh more than less than six times less on the moon as the would do on earth as a point, then consider this:
If humans have evolved to “cope with” a planet (earth) that has six times as much downward force also known as gravity as the moon then why are the astronauts moving so slowly when there is no air resistance and more than six times less gravity acting on their person, I would have expected the astronauts to be able to lift the lunar rover single handedly and more sensibly and naturally be able to jump to an obviously “superhuman” height when on the moon and astronauts being able to move at considerable speed giving their original evolutionary design parameters….nah, no chance or evidence of it…just slow movements like they were walking in something with about quarter of the density of water….I’ll be honest, if you believe that the actual moon landings as portrayed by TV etc did not take place, everything you see regarding the moon pictures makes a lot more sense.
Looking at the “extraordinary” design of the very angular assent stage which as a pressure vessel would have been better if it were round or roundish, not angular, submarines are based on the architecture of whales, which are not angular, angular creates uneven pressures within any craft…aircraft bodies not angular, windows corners on airplanes not angular due to related pressure and metal fatigue issues, and on entirely circular on very deep sea vessels…not angular. I fully agree with you that aerodynamics obviously were not an issue but there are other factors at work in outer space such as the vacuum trying to suck the “air” from inside the spacecraft cabin…just the opposite of a submarine. Sputnik Yuri Gagarin Vostok I capsule …not angular, the space stations’ main body you guessed it.
Cones shapes seem OK.
That tin foil stuff that blocks radiation and insulates in outer space, was it used/handed out at three mile island or chernobyl?, come to think of it the space suits that block all the radiation on the moon so effectively could also have been handed out.
25 layers or not, the man from NASA said “it was about the thickness of 2 sheets of aluminium”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_15_liftoff_from_the_Moon.ogg
July 27th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Here is a couple of lift-offs. Apollo 17 is the only one that got the whole thing. You can just see the flame from the engine as it disappears into the Lunar sky. (have to download)
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo _Lunar_Module
Here is a good picture of the LM before it has insulation and panels (cylindrical). (Second webpage below) Scroll down about 3/4 of page. Those panels (angular) are just to cover most of the “foil” , or aluminized kapton, so that it doesn’t fall off during the assent. You can see some of it uncovered on the assent stage. This covereing wasn’t neccessary on the decent stage, as it didn’t recieve as much delta-V, or g’s. The landing gear doesn’t look so feeble either. Lots of reading on webpage below.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720018253_1972018253.pdf
http://www.ehartwell.com/LMSCATPictures.htm
http://www.ehartwell.com/LMSCATPhotos.htm
On the website listed above, scroll down to “LM Exterior” and you can see a little gold aluminized kapton exposed.
As far as astronauts moving slowly, imagine this; downforce (weather from the astronauts ankle or knee moving) makes them hop up, instead of moving forward quickly. And would you jump ten feet high and risk damaging your pressure suit on the Moon? And, yes they did lift the Lunar Rover by hand occasionaly.
As for the fuel used on the LM, of course there was an oxygenator added to the fuel! How do you think the shuttle manoevered and came home? In fact, the fuel was so toxic, that if you breathed more than 5 parts per million, you’d lose a lung. Here’s an exellent webpage describing space only rocket engines.
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/techengine.html
Delta-V, or change in velocity was a thousand times easier to do on the Moon with no atmosphere and one sixth gravity. There’s no way in hell it could have been pulled off if these two extremely important facts weren’t true.
Also, radiation from Chernoble was a completely different type of radiation than what was on the Moon. Gamma vs. charged particles.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:05 am
I saw the document that you put up and thanks for that, but that still does not change the fact that the actual astronaut said what he said.
Yes as a science project there would have to be a real technical report so OK, although it seems to be dated 1972, the last year of the missions. It also says on page 2 “The successful Apollo 11 lunar-landing mission provided the first opportunity for a complete flight test of the landing gear under both natural and induced environments”. So in other words they did not know if it was going to work, no trials, no earth strength full size mock up?
As you said the change in velocity was a thousand times easier to do on the Moon with no atmosphere and one sixth gravity….that rule whatever it is must also apply to the astronauts as they also have mass and move about, however their muscles and brains are evolved to cope with six times as much gravity. My reckoning says that the astronauts should have looked “turbocharged” when freed from 5/6 of there weight (at least initially) but still with the strength of an “earthling”. What’s more I cannot see how the astronauts could have trained for this.
If the astronauts had mentioned that they had to at first retrain their muscles to not over jump or something I would be more convinced but I never saw or heard anything about that.You could have thrown a moon rock or even taken a pool ball or something to demonstrate the phenomenon…not seen that either, if you can show me evidence of that I would be grateful.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Objects thrown on the moon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxM&feature=related
Alllan Shepard shot a golf ball during Apollo 14
Are you also aware they weared massive space suits. On earth you couldn’t even move with these on surface – they train in pools.
By all respect – You are just an ignorant idiot
July 29th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
What were these things, were they scientific experiments?
You’re doing well maaaaan but do you realize that if you train (in water I will assume) in a pool than what you’re body will do is respond by increasing it’s muscle mass…have you heard of weight lifting? let me explain it’s exactly what I have been telling you maaaaaan weight lifting relies on you increasing the gravity on your person…your body compensates by adding muscles as you body would have to do if you lived on a larger planet than earth, we would all have to have more muscle to resist gravity…you see maaaaaaan.Training in a heavy dense pool of water is entirely wrong and if anything should increase your earthling strength and would just mean you should be able to jump even higher on the moon. Can you run as fast through water as through air. This is the reason why the astronauts and people in space have to exercise to stop their bodies doing the opposite maaaaaaaan.
This from a man who thinks that radiation from solar flares and the sun is different from radiation and charged particles from a nuclear reactor and that’s why they didn’t use it. Have you heard of the aurora borealis….maaaaaan?
Come to think of it have you heard of the principle of how another ficticous character gets his “superhuman” strength…Supermans’ body is supposed to be adapted to the heavier gravitational environment of planet krypton…makes some sense to me, the superman writers may have sought a scientific and plausible basis and worked out this premise long ago…do you get me maaaaaan?
Oh, before I go, did he get the ball back, how far did it go?
July 29th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_sun_give_off_gamma_rays
July 29th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
john: I think muriem was being polite when he called you an idiot. The owner of this website warned us about people like you. No matter how much a person politely trys to debunk the stupid crap that you “fake Moon landing” twerps come up with, the more rediculous and off topic your arguments become. You’re not only disrespectfull towards the 24 astronauts that went to the Moon, and their families, but also to the 450,000 people that worked on the Apollo programme for 10 years. Was I being disrespectfull towards you? I like hope so maaaaaan!
July 29th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
“Are you also aware they weared massive space suits. On earth you couldn’t even move with these on surface”. The word is WORE not weared or is it weird?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/moon-landing-gallery/?pid=1688&viewall=true
July 29th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2011/01/moon_outshines_the_sun.html
July 30th, 2011 at 4:38 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28pressure%29
This table as far as I can tell suggests that the vacuum (that is the force trying to suck the air from the interior of a spacecraft cabin or any pressurized body in outer space) in outer space and on the moon is opposite in nature and also greater in magnitude than the pressure inside the core of the Earth. I am not a physicist and I am not sure how that would manifest itself or how it would affect the design of any spacecraft etc however I feel that the window and door seals and the general structure would have to incredibly strong…think submarine, conveniently the table also reports the pressure reading at the bottom of the Mariana Trench (the lowest point on planet earth as far as is known), about 10 km below ocean surface. This depth as I’m sure most of you know has been visited by mankind..here is the vessel that achieved it.
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=treste+submarine&pbx=1&oq=treste+submarine&aq=f&aqi=g-s2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3446l8168l1l8470l10l10l0l0l0l0l256l1689l2.3.5l10l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=115cd28ba45c205e&biw=1024&bih=561
Regardless of what I may speculate about these matters, these would have to be the atmospheric conditions that the astronauts operated in whilst on the moon surface, the table gives readings for both night and daytime pressures on the moon and it is about a trillionth of the earths’ atmospheric pressure…..That’s some powerful vacuum….maaaaaan!
July 30th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
What makes an ignorant fool? If you don’t understand a thing about an issue yet arrogate to question it all instead simply wanting to learn.
Vacuum isn’t that powerful compared to sea pressure. The minimal pressure you can get is 0. Nada. The normal pressure we live in is 1 atmosphere. 1. So the difference is 1 atmosphere. Thats what a space vehicle must sustain. Or most airplanes. You have 0.25 atmosphere at 10km height. Humans do well even at 0.7 atmosphere.So they do 0.5 atmospheres difference.
Sea on the hand you have 1 atmosphere difference per 10 meters sea level. So 10km sea depth is 10000 times stronger than space.
Reading from your comment, you are just not capable to realize what a logarithmic scale means, like the table you linked. I repeat myself, by all respect – You are just an idiot.
The difference between 10^-11 und 10^-13 is 10^-2 … or in other words… 0.01 pascal. Aprox the weight of an apple seed on earth on a square meter. Nothing! Next time pay a little more attention in school.
July 30th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
The difference is not 0.01 you idiot it means 100x less pressure. You should brush up on your maths.
Taken from the table.
10−13
Pa
0.1 pPa Interstellar space pressure (approximate)
10−12
Pa
1 pPa Lowest pressure obtained in laboratory conditions.[1]
This is a linear relationship what you are saying is that the second reading should be 0.9 pa
it isn’t it is one tenth of the original..and it is on tenth of the pressure.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1855.html
http://ookaboo.com/o/pictures/picture/23881055/A_large_vacuum_chamber
Remember the external pressure is 1 atmosphere so please explain why these look like submarines and why they have the same reinforcing bands as the submarine I showed you before?
Do you know the difference between micro, nano and pico etc
The relative pressure is what you have to take note of that is the pressure differential between the inside and the outside of any given vessel hence the immense bulk of the vacuum chamber that is because when you evacuate the chamber the natural at sea level pressure would be enough to crush weak structure when evacuated why do need double doors and the enormous structure?, answer:you still have to stop the sides of the vessel caving in. The air exerts about the weight of a small car on your head/body it your bodies internal blood pressure that stops you from being crushed under the eight of the atmosphere?
Put a balloon on your mouth and form a vacuum ..you will find that the balloon partially inflates, why? because of the relative pressure difference between you mouth and the air pressure…there is also an experiment whearby you boil with some water in an old oil can and drive the air out when the can cools the vapour condenses and forms a low pressure area within the can, the metal can is the crushed as it cools by just normal atmosphere pressure…it’s all relative
What about the gamma rays and the space suits that the astronauts couldn’t move about in on earth? Did you see the pictures?
You seem to have little scientific knowledge as far as I can tell.
July 30th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
The difference is not 0.01 you idiot it means 100x less pressure. You should brush up on your maths.
0.01 is a decimal representation of 1/100th, idiot, not the number to be subtracted from the original figure. You looked it up in google didn’t you?
Taken from the table.
10−13
Pa
0.1 pPa Interstellar space pressure (approximate)
10−12
Pa
1 pPa Lowest pressure obtained in laboratory conditions.[1]
This is a linear relationship of sorts, what you are saying is that the second reading should be 0.9 pa, it isn’t it is one tenth of the original..and it is on tenth of the pressure or 10x the pressure if viewed the other way round.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1855.html
http://ookaboo.com/o/pictures/picture/23881055/A_large_vacuum_chamber
Remember the external pressure is 1 atmosphere so please explain why these look like submarines and why they have the same reinforcing bands as the submarine I showed you before?
Do you know the difference between micro, nano and pico etc
The relative pressure is what you have to take note of that is the pressure differential between the inside and the outside of any given vessel hence the immense bulk of the vacuum chamber that is because when you evacuate the chamber the natural at sea level pressure would be enough to crush weak structure when evacuated why do need double doors and the enormous structure?, answer:you still have to stop the sides of the vessel caving in. The air exerts about the weight of a small car on your head/body it your bodies internal blood pressure that stops you from being crushed under the eight of the atmosphere?
Put a balloon on your mouth and form a vacuum ..you will find that the balloon partially inflates, why? because of the relative pressure difference between you mouth and the air pressure…there is also an experiment whearby you boil with some water in an old oil can and drive the air out when the can cools the vapour condenses and forms a low pressure area within the can, the metal can is the crushed as it cools by just normal atmosphere pressure…it’s all relative
What about the gamma rays and the space suits that the astronauts couldn’t move about in on earth? Did you see the pictures?
You seem to have little scientific knowledge as far as I can tell.
July 31st, 2011 at 12:15 am
The 0.01 you refer to is a decimal representation of 1/100th (of the original number) not the number to be subtracted from the original sum. So actually in other words it means 100x less. You looked it up in google didn’t you? but you didn’t know what to do with the figure it showed you hahaha.
July 31st, 2011 at 9:01 am
Here is a website that shows constuction and systems of the Lunar Module. As I’ve been trying to tell you john, the shape of the crew compartment IS CYLINDRICAL!!!
http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATSystems.htm
You try to impress us with your math, and compare space travel with submarines.
Submarines have to deal with tons of external pressure.
The LM was pressurized to 4.8 PSI of pure oxygen, with basicaly 0 lbs. pressure from the exterior.
4.8 lbs? woopy dick! How can anybody compare that with a submarine? But of coarse, you shut your little brain off and go LA LA, LA, ignoring common sense…
August 1st, 2011 at 12:26 am
10^-13 is a tenth of 10^-12 but it doesn’t matter to constrction. Its hardly any actual difference. To speak of “vastly different conditions” is just plain non-sense.
Whats the difference between the weights of 0.1g and 0.01g? 0.09g. does that matter? hardly.
Whats the difference between the weights of 10kg and 100kg? 90kg … that matters.
1 atmosphere pressure is still a lot to take account of, so the spaceship doesnt explode. Actually they flew with aprox. 1/2, as I said the human body does well with somewhat less.
It just is nothing compared to the 100 atmospheres a submarine has to take care at a depth of 1000m. Get it?
What you are telling us that 4.8 PSI internal pressure vs. 0.0000000145037738 external psi is some radically different than 0.000000580150951 psi? haha. (I spelled the numbers out, since obviously you can’t handle floating point notation)
And they you compare that to a submarine with an external PSI of 146959488.0 at 1000m depth? hahahaha!
I repeat myself, you are just an ignorant fool
August 1st, 2011 at 11:35 am
Here is another couple of pictures showing the crew compartment of the Lunar Module during construction. Notice the “reinforcing bands” as john calls them, around the cylindrical hull? Click on second picture from top.
http://www.wlox.com/story/15164325/space-enthusiest-mourns-apollo-not-shuttle
So, john, instead of doing a simple google search and finding this out for yourself, you have to babble, wrongly, about pressures and a”very anglular assent stage”.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I suppose that this is a waste of time, but john, and any of you other Apollo deniers out there, would make the effort to purchase “To The Moon” (Nova). It’s the best documentay, that I’ve seen that describes the whole thing and say to yourself that these people are are full of it, or possibly think, woops, maybe I have to reconsider my idea that moon landings were faked may be wrong.
August 4th, 2011 at 4:15 am
@Ross http://xkcd.com/386/ Take it easy
August 5th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Ya, the internet can be an incredibly usefull tool, or an instrument for stupid people to share their stupid ideas.
Actually, I’m much more interested in re-awakening some interest in Apollo. One of my outlandish ideas is to create a hologram of the Saturn V. 400 feet tall with launch tower. Maybe this is impossible, with present technology, but seeing that beauty would certainly cause a little conversation!
August 8th, 2011 at 3:19 am
holograms are so 1980ies
August 14th, 2011 at 2:41 am
Im still at awe when looking at the moon… To climb Everest or to dive to the Titanic but, being at an out door party with friends at night and to be able to say I walked up there pointing at the moon. Incredible…! Its funny Neil not ever saying much about it…It only adds to the great trip..I still remember that old movie H G Wells First Men on the Moon.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Eric: There is a documentry called “When We Left Earth, The NASA Missions”, which has Armstrong talking about the first Lunar landing. Pretty cool stuff.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1491301153783337827#
August 29th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
that photos prove nothing. guys, a dumb question: why moon rock cannot be accessible for free trade-off?
it would be really nice solution to fund nasa projects 
perhaps, moon rocks have been so top secret because of there is excrement of green men XD
August 30th, 2011 at 10:27 am
can any body explain that why the shadow of rocks and crater is on left side and of the module is on right side when according to nasa the sun is on left and low ?
August 31st, 2011 at 3:01 am
What a load of crap. So if this module is 4 metres wide just look at the footprints, the astronauts tracks they are about the same width, must have had big boots. Also didnt they supposed to have taken a buggy to the moon? Why no mention of it, maybe the martians took it for scrap. Come of it NASA we know you have equipment that can take a photo which allows us to read the print on a newspaper. What we want for proof is really clear close ups that display USA on the side of the landing craft and the size and make of tyres on the buggy.
August 31st, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Is there a moron convention going on?
August 31st, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Ross, you’re so clever
be deigned, shed your compassion to morons/plebs & ans to me, great sir 
Pleeeeeaaase.
September 3rd, 2011 at 5:53 am
@SarK0Y moon rocks are not top secret. “Goodwill Moon Rock” were gifted to 135 nations. So any conspiracy theory must include 135 nations in the consipracy as well other scientific instutions and museums with the rocks.
@im because when light comes into a _crater_ the shadow is on the other side. take light source and a hole and try it out.
@William because the picture are Apollo 11 and 14, the lunar rovers were taken on Apollo 15, 16, 17
At you three, you think you are smart, by actually you are just being stupid.
September 4th, 2011 at 10:01 am
@muriem
+ check it out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226075.stm 
—————————————————————————
moon rocks are not top secret. “Goodwill Moon Rock” were gifted to 135 nations. So any conspiracy theory must include 135 nations in the consipracy as well other scientific instutions and museums with the rocks.
—————————————————————————
i’ve said of availability to free markets
many private persons, companies would like to’ve own piece of Moon despite big price
September 5th, 2011 at 10:34 am
SarKoY:
The aricle you produced says that the US gave out Moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in the ’70s, just like muriem said. Did you forget to read that part? GAVE OUT MOON ROCKS TO MORE THAN 100 COUNTRIES. Scientists from around the world examined these rocks and NONE of them say that you can find rocks like that here on Earth.
http://www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_goodwill.html
Here is another website that explains the Dutch “Moon rock”. The retired Prime Minister was BLIND and almost completely DEAF, according to his own grandson, when he thought he was recieving an actual Moon rock.
http://io9.com/5362581/when-is-a-moon-rock-not-a-moon-rock
What the hell has availability to “free markets” have to do with their authenticity? Get a clue, you simps.
September 5th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
@ Ross
))) what does it mean “US gave out Moon rocks to more than 100 countries”???? 
do you think political agenda cannot keep “100 countries” silent 
? Ross, my friend, i’ve asked really simple question: why moon rocks have no been capitalized to fund nasa projects? why nasa has sniveled about lack of’ir budget????? 
——————————————————–
The aricle you produced says that the US gave out Moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in the ’70s, just like muriem said. Did you forget to read that part? GAVE OUT MOON ROCKS TO MORE THAN 100 COUNTRIES. Scientists from around the world examined these rocks and NONE of them say that you can find rocks like that here on Earth.
——————————————————————
countries???????
September 5th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
———————————————–
The retired Prime Minister was BLIND and almost completely DEAF, according to his own grandson, when he thought he was recieving an actual Moon rock.
————————————————————————————
who did hand out moon rock to him was deaf’n'blind too, right?
September 6th, 2011 at 3:24 am
SarK0Y, 135 moon rocks where given to 135 different nations! Are you so dump or do you just consider it funny to act like?
September 6th, 2011 at 9:21 am
@ muriem
nations????
so loud word, my friend: so-called nations, in fact, are only “family” circles, driven by political reasons. can you, me or anyone else buy some moon rockies for own possession???
September 6th, 2011 at 11:23 am
@John “I’m sure this will shut up the hoax believers once and for all.”
I bet it will just like the Obama birth certificate shut up the birthers… oh, wait.
September 6th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
What I find amusing is all the people that claim – OMG IT”S TRUE, WE WENT – LOOK THERE”S THE PROOF – hahaha – idiots – these “images” are indistinguishable at best. Unmanned missions aside – the LM is too square and the wrong proportion to the “footprints” – This also means that NASA has played the “look all the stuff is still down there and hasn’t been “blown” away yet” card, so that when china sends their first unmanned mission – which they’ll do sooner than later – they can confirm all.
Still – as some will deny or confirm no matter what they are looking at – I look forward to independent confirmation. NASA confirming NASA is like goldman sachs doing they’re own auditing. They could say they found martians there and everyone would believe ‘em – basically coz people are more willing to believe what authority tells them rather than doubt – coz doubt would mean they were being lied to by their own government and that just can’t happen. Reminds me of when NASA claimed it found extra terestial bacteria on a lone rock found in Antartica – WOW – how did they find a lone rock in a pile of rocks? – Hmmmmm
September 6th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Also in regards to moon rocks – you all know that they are plenty of moon rocks already on this planet don’t you – they were round long before the Apollo missions. Antartica has tonnes. Which could be evidence that the moon is a dead planet, that crashed into ours long ago- a bit like all the Niburu theories.
September 6th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
On closer inspection of the images it is clear that the LM on the Apollo 14 site has no height profile comparative to the shadow – it is merely a 2 dimensional image – also on the Apollo 11 landing site – the eagle has a shadow profile shaped like a christmas tree, the shadow is also misaligned to the craft itself but is slightly high – that is, coming off horizontal but above halfway on the profile – look closely and you’ll see what I mean – a shadow coming off that point on the craft should come off at about a 10 degree gradient off horizontal to be consistent but then it would be wrong to the surrounding shadows, what a dilemma – any thoughts on why this would be? In fact NASA could say it was a tree was growing on the moon and you would all believe ‘em. These photo’s are even more dubious than I originally suspected.
September 6th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Also diverging shadow lines were explained by NASA as being natural in a single light environment yet in these photo’s there are no diverging shadows at all – they are all horizontal – if the original photo’s have diverging lines and these don’t, why would that be? Unless NASA is trying to over compensate. For those that don’t know – the diverging shadows of the original Apollo 11 mission are one of many reasons “conspiracy theorists” believe the images faked. Single light source from sun distance = single shadow angle for all on that environment as in these photo’s – no divergence – this is due to the distance of the sun to moon – only a close light source produce diverging shadows – nice one NASA – you prove yourselves inconsistent yet again.
September 6th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
two additional moments:
1. so powerful rocket has been mothballed. can’t it be useful to provide orbital stations & interplanetary automatic missions???
2. double – dip reentry ain’t been used for LEO. but it would allow to decrease weight of TPS for the spacecrafts.
September 7th, 2011 at 9:27 am
I don’t know which idiot to deal with first…
Here is another website that shows hoax, and hoax dubunking sites.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html
I suppose it would be too much to ask for all of you hoax believers to read some of these, and I mean both types (hoax, hoax debunking) of websites. Clavius.org is one of the best.
Be carefull! There are a lot of big words. Maybe get mom to help.
September 7th, 2011 at 9:58 am
I wonder if Dr. Plait has seen these latest landing site images.
http://spaceflightnow/news/n1109/06apollo
I can already hear Al and SarKoY saying, like duhh ya, like those are like fake and the world is flat and Oprah is hott and Volvoes are like faster than Ferraris…
September 7th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Ross, my friend, can you just ans my simple questions w\o the left links?
why so greatest benefits of that program have been kicked out in nowhere? %)
September 7th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bflb3OqOTg how they look??? Proud??? Euphoric??? they just returned from the greatest journey many can die for !!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 21st, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Conspiracy nuts:
If you do any kind of research on the entire space program you will see a logical, methodical scientific process for going to the moon. Starting with Mercury, Gemini, then Apollo; plus the Ranger and Surveyor probes. They did not just build a big rocket and go, this was a decade of deliberate scientific and engineering one by one problem solving. So all of that was faked? The technology was developed over years of experimentation. . You cannot find a single aspect that was not documented and tested before going. It was incremental and thought out process.
September 22nd, 2011 at 9:05 pm
@TwinStar2
oh, come on, bro, decades have been away & most advanced of manned missions from nasa is apollo?????? XD for many decades, irreplaceable shuttle has served nicely to waste buckies &, at the end, they returned to “old-fashioned” russian rockets; at the end, they cannot resuscitate saturn 5, cannot develop something comparable to… only 3d animations have come from’em
it ain’t nothing but facts as-is.
September 26th, 2011 at 6:34 am
During the Apollo program, NASA received almost 5.5% of the national budget. Today its about 0.5%. Its just a question of money put into and honestly after the second or third moon landing additional were just little of neither national or scientific benefit, not to speak of what after the six that were a seventh or more moon landings would have gained us. National pride was the main motor to fund the apollo program. For most scientific queries, you don’t need humans. An automated probe is doing just as fine as is much cheaper in space with little life-support or extra security measurements.
September 29th, 2011 at 8:55 am
I thought the first man on the moon was Norman Collier (at least according to my mate) doing his broken microphone reoutine.
October 1st, 2011 at 10:00 pm
@muriem
if that was real, they wouldn’t have any troubles of money at all because:
————————————–
During the Apollo program, NASA received almost 5.5% of the national budget. Today its about 0.5%.
————————————–
oh, come on
1. experience reduces cost to R&D & using.
2. lunar rocks can be capitalized to fuel their projects with hella heap of buckies.
October 3rd, 2011 at 1:04 pm
I was at my unit’s old facility the other day clearing out some old lockers and I found some Mounted Transparencies of “Apollo 12″, but they look like screen shots off a very old television. Any ideas? Here’s my e-mail- pvtmartinez@gmail.com
October 6th, 2011 at 2:29 am
This ‘picture’ clearly shows that the light source is from the right – shadows are being cast to the left from the apparent nodules (bumps) on the claimed lunar surface. So how is the shadow of the Lunar Module shown to be cast to the right, indicating that the light source is on the left? Contradictory! The LM shadow falls in the opposite direction compared to all the other surface shadows – and no one has commented on this? Further, the poor image quality of this ‘photograph’ does not substantiate anything and cannot be used as proof for anything, obviously. ‘Evidence’ such as this would not be accepted in a standard court of law. Nothing specific is depicted or can be recognised from this blurry image. The ‘opposing’ shadows require explaining!
October 6th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Tony: The crater is a hole with a rim of regolith (soil) above and around it. It’s this rim, or lip around the crater that seems to confuse some people. When a meteor makes a hole, the regolith has to go somewhere, and it forms a ring around the hole that was created. So the shaded and sunlit parts are correct. I’m not sure how you can conclude that the light source is from the right, when it’s obviously from the left side of the image. This has been explained more times than the number of flees there are on a thousand camels.
November 1st, 2011 at 3:29 am
go to Google map and look at your city at 100 meter scale just like that picture you just posted and tell me please :
was the ” scientific instruments ” they were carrying same size as a car ?
or was the lunar module ” which is not supposed to be there because it took off from the moon ” same size as your house ?
and surprisingly after 40 years you can see traces of their footprints on a 100m scale picture appearing wider than a highway !! and even 4 times wider than the “Lunar module” itself in the same picture ?
and after all those years and after getting pictures of mars and sending drones to further planets examining them , cant we get a decent picture of the closest rock to earth ?!
and on the other hand .
I will assume they went to moon , took off earth , reached the moon , orbited , separated from the ship , managed to land safely on those ridiculous LM landing pods , left the LM and took a walk !!!
if you explain to me how they took off the moon using this pathetic foil covered thing you call LM and join the space ship and then back to earth . I might accept the story !
November 5th, 2011 at 9:03 am
diaa: It’s impossible to explain the complexity of the Lunar Module in a couple of setences. For starters, it was a two stage vehicle. The decent stage remained on the Moon (approx, 13 ft) and the assent stage returned to the CSM (Command and Service Module) that was in Lunar orbit. This mode (or method) was called Lunar Orbit Rendezvous.
People like you that do absolutely no research and expect to learn about Apollo in one quick lesson are usually not worth bothering with. However, it’s wrong for me to assume that you won’t do the research, so here are a couple of items that you should read or watch:
To read: Andrew Chaikins: A Man On The Moon
David Woods: How Apollo flew to the Moon
Thomas J. Kelly: Moon Lander
Watch: Novas: To the Moon
Science Channels: Moon Machines
What you accept is irrelevant, diaa, if you’re completely ignorant about the subject.
November 22nd, 2011 at 5:44 am
it looks like cheese :L
December 9th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
These fuzzy pictures are not convincing enough. I was a space travel fanatic whilst growing up and believed in the Apollo moon missions wholeheartedly, like most young teenagers. Over a number of years now however, I have been researching the whole issue of whether or not men walked on the moon, and I would say I am about 90 percent sure that they did not. There are certain anomalies, such as strange lighting, which believers are not able to answer satisfactorily. Usually they simply ignore this ‘problem’.
One thing I have recently been wondering about lately though is, if stars were not visible from the moon, apparently due to the glare from the moon and the setting of the astronauts camera’s, why was the earth able to be seen so brightly and in such detail in the many pictures of it from the moon’s surface? Surely if the glare and cameras settings did not allow for even the brightest star to be visible in an absolutely pitch black sky, how was the earth visible in complete technicolour detail? Surely it would have looked somewhat ‘washed out’ at least?
I have read the scientific arguments for not being able to see the stars, but there are counter scientific arguments which also make sense. Stars are not able to be seen in a blue sky on earth, with the sun’s glare overpowering them, but surely the brightest stars would be at least slightly visible from the moon’s surface against a totally black sky? Nevertheless, it is the visibility of the earth from the moon which doesn’t make sense if the stars were not visible at all, even though they are bright white points of light, brighter than any part of the earths surface. I tend to think that NASA couldn’t replicate the stars, and would have been found out by professional astronomers in that the position of the stars didn’t match the location at which they were supposedly situated on the moon, so they opted to simply leave them out of the equation and the faked photographs. They couldn’t leave the earth out, however, as people wanted to see this, and of course, it did not pose the problem of location as was the case with the stars.
December 12th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
[...] LRO has taken pictures of the Apollo landing site; you can see the lander and even the astronauts’ footprints. This entry was posted in Geek [...]
December 14th, 2011 at 10:24 am
edward: “brighter than any part of the Earth’s surface”? Duhh, like the closest star is 4 and a half light years away. The Earth is about 240,000 miles from the Moon. Haven’t you ever gone out, when there is a full Moon at night in the city, perhaps, and noticed that the Moon is visible, but the stars are not? Or shine a flashlight into your face. There’s the Moon. What happened to the stars? What you are 90% sure of is 100% rubbish.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Ross: Actually, the closest star is 4.2 light years away from earth, so from the word go, you don’t have your facts straight. You have missed the point of my post. Perhaps there is something not quite right with your eyesight, but whenever I have been out at night when the moon is full, I can quite easily see a number of stars, and this is with a bright streetlight right outside the front of my house. I said that stars are brighter than any part of the the earths surface – and they are. Which part of the earths surface, as viewed from the moon, glows bright white? The blue sea? The brown or green land masses? Or do clouds usually glow as bright as stars.
You haven’t grasped the point of my post. I suggest you re-read it. It is your opinion only about the percentages of what I believe. Many thousands of people believe as I do – some of them believe 100% that men never set foot on the moon – many of them intellectuals. Your ‘duhh, like’ expression indicates that you are certainly no intellectual. Most likely, a foolish teenager, or an older person with the brain of one.
I suggest you go back to your children’s ‘space books’ and fantasise (as you no doubt did as a child, and probably still do) about being an astronaut and travelling to distant worlds. Unfortunately, with your mentality the chances of realising your dream is nil.
December 14th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Ross: Your mention of Proxima Centauri is rather foolish – there are other stars millions of light years away, and yet are brighter than Centauri, so what is your point? Incidentally, your suggestion of carrying out the simple exercise of shining a flashlight in my face, and thus not being able to see the stars is equally nonsensical. I very much doubt that the glare whilst standing on the surface of the moon would be equivalent to that of shining a flashlight in one’s face.
I notice you have used the ‘duhh’ comment elsewhere in this forum. It says a lot about you.
I would like to know how you (in your infinite wisdom – at least in your own mind, in any event) can explain the fake moon rock which was given by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Rijk Museum in Holland for display soon after their mission. As you may know (but probably have blocked from your mind) when scientists tested the rock out of interest on the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission, they found it to be nothing more than a piece of petrified wood. In other words, Apollo 11 astronauts gave a piece of ‘moon rock’ which they had supposedly collected from the surface of the moon during their mission, to the museum to be a prized display, yet it was no such thing – rather, an almost worthless piece of fossilized wood. What was NASA’s reponse to the finding? An unbelievable, yet unsurprising: “No comment”. What does this tell you? It should raise at least some doubt in your mind about the missions, yet I suspect it won’t.
You are thus as blinkered and as dogmatic in your views as you accuse the ‘non-believers’ of being.
December 14th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
edward:
io9.com/5362581/when-is-a-moon-rock-not-a-moon-rock
I hope this website is correct. The former Dutch prime minister was blind and almost completely deaf according to his own grandson.
Ya, your such an intellectual. What about seeing the Moon in the daylight here on Earth? Did your “intellectual” brain think about that one? You insult and offend the 400,000 people that worked long hours on the Apollo program for almost 10 years, so if I offended you…GOOD!
December 14th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
eddy baby:
http://www.clavius.org
These people are so patient with Moon landing conspiracy dummies.
My previous webpage didn’t turn out. Try googling “moon rock not a moon rock”
December 15th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-135/hires/iss028e016142.jpg
Here is an image of the space station with the Shuttle. See any stars? Or that’s fake too, right? Get a clue.
Try my comment 924 for Moon rock explanation. One blind, and mostly deaf 83 year old is not someone who makes thousands of people big fibbers for the last 40 years.
I’ve read:
Andrew Chaikins A Man On The Moon. Gives a complete history from Mercury to Apollo
Buzz Aldrin’s Magnificent Desolation.
Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger’s Lost Moon. All about Apollo13
Craig Nelson’s Rocket Men.
Roger E. Bilstein’s Stages to Saturn. Every detail about the launch vehicle that took men to the Moon
Thomas J. Kelly’s Moon Lander. Every detail about the construction of the Lunar Module
W. David Wood’s How Apollo Flew to the Moon. Tremendous detail about cislunar navigation, orbital mechanics, rocket science, and mission planning.
I also own 13 documentaries and other related books not mentioned, as well as spending hundreds of hours on the internet, reading hoax and hoax de-bunking websites.
None of the mickey mouse “evidence” raises any doubt in my mind, and if you’d have done a fraction of the research that I have edward, you’d not only shut up about this hoax crap, you would be in awe.
December 17th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Ross: aka Homer (duhh!) Geddit? Why is it that believers are so touchy (make that agressive) in their desperation to believe in the obviously faked moon missions? (I can almost see your face redden and your veins begin to pop, Ross). I know what you are thinking, and that you would like to reply that it is because we non-believers are so ‘stupid’, but is it only that, or is it because we often touch a nerve, so to speak, a point which you have not thought of, and which you find difficult to answer?
I have yet to visit Clavius to investigate your excuse, but according to your post no. 924, are you implying that the retired Prime Minister not only did not realise he was being presented with a piece of fossilised wood, but that he also was imagining that it was the Apollo astro-nots (I know that you enjoy that one) who were presenting it to him? He simply imagined the whole Apollo astronauts (better?) presenting him with a moon rock scenario, did he? Even afterwards, for forty years mind you, neither he, nor anyone else (including the granson) realised that he had been given a piece of fossilised wood by another party, and the ‘moon rock’ was proudly displayed for decades on end. Defies logic, I’m afraid – but that is what you believers are especially good at doing – believing wholeheartedly the illogical.
I wonder why I’m supposed to be so impressed by the books you’ve read, and the number of hours you’ve spent perusing hoax and hoax-debunking websites? I have a few video and DVD documentaries of the ‘moon landing’ myself and have probably spent at least two hundred hours over a number of years researching the abovestated sites. You seem to be a rather pompous sort of chap, and you have made a fool of yourself by assuming that I had not even done ‘a fraction’ of the research that you have carried out. I have done plenty, and I am not convinced – in fact to the contrary. Awe? Of you?? Thank you for being such a funny bloke.
‘Micky Mouse’ evidence? People who use this analogy foolishly forget that Disney’s Micky (and friends) still pack a mighty punch at Disneyworld/Disneyland and remain a huge and successful attraction – and so it is with ‘Mickey Mouse’ evidence for men not having landed on the moon – evidence which packs a mighty whallop – except to gullible, die-hard belivers like yourself, that is.
I hate to tell you this, Homer, but I’m not going to shut up about the moon hoax – indeed, I tell everyone I know about it, and they are now also all fervent non-believers, in awe of the information which I have presented them with.
I can tell from the way you present yourself, that you have an unsubstantiated and inflated opinion of yourself, and are a decidedly unpleasant fellow. You are obviously very angry and bitter. It’s sad really.
PS. In my next post I will elaborate on a number of oddities pertaining to the so called Apollo astronauts behaviour, and comments, especially that of Neil Armstrong – the ultimate con-artist. Too bad his guilt drove him bonkers, but you reap what you sow.
December 17th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
A monkey with a computer. How quaint. You didn’t go to Clavius. You either didn’t look at the image in 957, or you did, and are to embarrassed to comment. I guess it’s insecurity that drives you types. Your always right. It doesn’t matter what the subject is that you’re arguing about, but you’re right. No matter how ridiculous, or how obvious it is that you’re wrong, you’re right. You can’t even begin to imagine that one should look at both sides of the coin, like I have, to determine the truth. Stupidity and arrogance are so very similar.
I’m being rude because I don’t like arrogant people. I don’t like disrespect. You’ve been extremely disrespectful to some of the best people America has ever produced edward, or should I say Brian.
However, trying to talk any sense into you twerps is as useful as eating nails to cure an ulcer.
December 24th, 2011 at 4:33 am
As usual, your comments make it obvious that you simply do not read, or more likely do not understand, what you are reading, Ross. In my previous post I stated that I had spent at least two hundred hours researching both hoax and hoax-debunking sites. How is it then, that according to you, ‘I can’t even begin to imagine that I should look at both sides of the coin’?
If you cannot understand simple phrases, what was the point of the hundreds of hours which you supposedly have spent reading such sites?
I think you have been watching too many old Charlton Heston ‘Planet of the Apes’ reruns, Ross. I hate to have to inform you that the above is fiction/fantasy, not fact – as you fervently believe. This applies too, of course, to the Apollo moon mission television episodes which were aired between 1969 and 1972 – all of which were of course, pure fiction. The fact that you think a monkey can operate a computer, makes it obvious that you do indeed believe in the authenticity of the portrayal of talking apes in films such as ‘Planet of the Apes’.
A word of advice to you, Ross. It is better to remain silent and appear to be a fool, than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. I suspect that you will not follow my advice however. Actually, in a way, I hope you don’t. I do so enjoy responding to your posts and making a complete fool of you.
Of course I had been to Clavius in the past, but quite a while ago. I visited again, in the hope that they would have added more worthwhile information to their feeble ‘proofs’ and ‘evidence’ for the supposed moon landings. No such luck. The same illogical, nonsensical conjecture. Incidentally, the fact that both you and other believers can become so excited about a few blurred specks and blotches supposedly imaged by the LRO says a lot about your gullibility and propensity to imagine anything which suits your belief system. In believers minds, it’s really a case of: “I want to believe.” Talk about blind faith!
On to the stars, or lack thereof. The photo you were so keen to show me does not prove much, if anything, Ross. Of course it would be difficult to see stars in it. A bright glare is facing almost directly into the lens of the camera, not to mention the bright white reflection of panels and other hardware – no wonder the stars have been outshone. That was not the case on the moon, however. You may, or may not know, that the moon’s albedo value is only that of 7, which is equivalent to that of tarmac – not very bright in anyone’s books. Thus there was not as much reflection from the surface of the moon as believers would have everyone believe. The sun was also not shining into the lens of the cameras in all the fantastic and professional-looking photographs which the astronauts took with cameras strapped to their chests which had no viewfinder…yet another unexplained miraculous feat by our intrepid adventurers.
Moving on to the moon rock that was not a moon rock conundrum. I googled the aforementioned, as you suggested. I scanned the first 40 sites which were displayed, and checked on four which looked as if they might have some worthwhile information (including of course, on the ‘blind, almost deaf’ former Prime Minister). Funnily enough, not one mentioned the maladies which he supposedly suffered from. Not one said that it was all just a misunderstanding on the part of the former Prime Minister. Notwithstanding that, which may, or may not have been true, what more than one newspaper article DID mention, was that museum spokesperson Xandra van Gelder vetted the gift of the moon rock by means of a telephone call to NASA. I suppose that was also some kind of misunderstanding. So here we have an elderly man, blind and almost deaf, who imagined that U.S. Ambassador J. William Middendorf was giving him a piece of moon rock brought back by the Apollo 11 astronauts. Why would Middendorf give retired Prime Minister William Drees a piece of fossilised wood in any event, as it was worth almost nothing.
We also, however, have a not very old, and neither blind nor deaf museum spokeswoman who also ‘imagined’ that she had telephoned NASA in order to verify the moon rock given to William Drees. Perhaps she had been telephonically connected to an immigrant Mexican gardener, and given that she was Dutch, and he Mexican, the conversation was completely garbled and unitelligible, (not unlike that of Apollo believers) with one not knowing what the other was referring to, or talking about. Is this what you would have us believe, Ross, that staff at the Rijk Museum (not to mention the retired Prime Minister) were complete idiots?
Actually, I believe the title of ‘idiot’ should be applied to anyone who can believe that more than one person got their story back to front regarding the moon rock given to the museum. Let’s face it, Ross, how else could you explain this faux pas (or more accurately – hoax) on the part of NASA, except to make out that it was a complete misunderstanding on the part of others?
Actually, you are rather an embarrassment to the ‘pro-Apollo’ fraternity. Your obnoxious, rude demeanour in fact detracts from your message, and is to your detriment. Regarding your ulcer, I suggest shovelling a large handful of nails (panel pins should do the trick) into that facial cavity of yours, chewing slowly, and swallowing. Wash it down with a large glass of grapefruit juice – it will suit your bitter nature.
Merry Christmas!
Edward
P.S. My next post will include the many odd comments, behavioural abnormalities, etc, of the Apollo astronauts as promised – unless you give me cause to once again make an utter fool of you, which no doubt you will – but I’ll include the above, nontheless. I’m sure you’re looking forward to reading it!
January 16th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Dont know if any of you have noticed, if you look at all the bumps on the moon they have light on the right hand sides and a shadow on the left sides, Now if you look at the displayed so called landing craft the shadow is on the right. More proof of hoax and doctored photos. OH and by the way for all those who try to use the argument as to why the Russians didnt deny just read this.
The head of Russia’s beleaguered space programme hinted on Tuesday that foreign powers may be behind the string of failures that struck his agency in the past year.
Roskosmos chief Vladimir Popovkin told the Izvestia daily he could not understand why several launches went awry at precisely the moment the spacecraft were travelling through areas invisible to Russian radar.
“It is unclear why our setbacks often occur when the vessels are travelling through what for Russia is the ‘dark’ side of the Earth — in areas where we do not see the craft and do not receive its telemetry readings,” he said.
“I do not want to blame anyone, but today there are some very powerful countermeasures that can be used against spacecraft whose use we cannot exclude,” Popovkin told the daily.
There you have it, if they cant track their own craft today once it is out of sight how the hell do you all claim they tracked the Americans to the moon.
January 16th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Another bit of proof of hoax was that of the non parrallel shadows which i can assure you all that nobody except a brilliant person like me has ever given a perfect explanation. NASA with their hoax busters tried to convince us that this was normal because they claim there is more than one light source on the moon which is total rubbish because in that case there would be non parrallel shadows for every item on the moon, which there was not. Now to prove what caused then just go outside and draw a large circle and mark it out 1 to 12 as a clock face with the direction from 12 to 6 being towards the sun. Now if you put a post on the centre line between the 3 and the centre and a post between the 9 and the centre the shadows from these post will be parrallel due to the sun being far away. Now when the sun goes down if you stand on the 6 with a large light the shadows from these post will be one on about the 10 oclock amd the other on about the 2 oclock, both non parrallel. The reason for the non parrallel is not 2 scources of light but just 1 at close proximity. ie in a studio. HOAX
February 1st, 2012 at 10:56 pm
This does not disprove the hoax at all, you are believing what you are told once again. They are saying that is apollo 14 landing site and it is supposed to be the truth, cmon people. A hoax may have been done 40 yrs ago and what better way to try and disprove this hoax than by the people who created the hoax, nothing has been disproved, I still think no one has ever set foot on the moon, LOL!!!