APOLLO LANDING SITES IMAGED BY LRO!

By Phil Plait | July 17, 2009 10:50 am

This is so so so freaking cool: the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites!

LRO spots Apollo 11 landing site

Holy Haleakala!

Lunar Module diagram
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!

LRO images Apollo 14 site

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.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: NASA, Pretty pictures

Comments (977)

Links to this Post

  1. New pics of moon landing sites. « Yuo is teh suck. | July 17, 2009
  2. Och här kommer beviset för att Apollo 11 landat på månen | John Houdis BLOGG - Dagar i en entertainers liv | July 17, 2009
  3. Conspiracy theorists speak up: Are the moon landings a hoax? - Christian Forums | July 17, 2009
  4. Apollo Landing Sites Photographed on the Moon! « The Skeptical Teacher | July 17, 2009
  5. Who Hung the Moon? » Blog Archive » And in other news, the sky is blue … | July 17, 2009
  6. New Photos Of Lunar Landing Sites « DUMMR.com | July 17, 2009
  7. Friday Morning News - Magnificent Desolation Edition - MacTalk Forums | July 17, 2009
  8. SpaceMika » Blog Archive » LRO images the Moon Landing Sites | July 17, 2009
  9. First images of Apollo 11 landing site « | July 17, 2009
  10. [link] Apollo moon landing site gets photographed by LRO - Discover Magazine - Yilkes | July 17, 2009
  11. Science Blogs » Blog Archive » Apollo landing sites: 40 years later! [Starts With A Bang] | July 17, 2009
  12. Fotos de los lugares de alunizaje de las misiones Apolo | CyberHades | July 17, 2009
  13. Unicode trudna język « Miski do mleka | July 17, 2009
  14. Fresh From Twitter: A tout les … < Pierre-Luc Gagné | July 17, 2009
  15. Apollo landing site photographed. - FileFront Gaming Forums | July 17, 2009
  16. gedblog » Blog Archive » Unburdened by Evidence | July 17, 2009
  17. Moon Landing Sites imaged by Lunar orbiter... - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum | July 17, 2009
  18. Brad Heap » Blog » I haz evidence | July 18, 2009
  19. Neue Bilder vom Mond | July 18, 2009
  20. Sin tiempo para nada… excepto para el Apolo « Curiosidad Científica | July 18, 2009
  21. Scents of deScent stage « KOSMOGRAD | July 18, 2009
  22. “Apollo Landing Sites Imaged by Lro!” and related posts - KuASha Organization | July 18, 2009
  23. Bob Mottram (motters) 's status on Saturday, 18-Jul-09 19:32:21 UTC - Identi.ca | July 18, 2009
  24. A LRO fotografou o local de pouso da Apollo 14 e mostra o módulo lunar « Eternos Aprendizes | July 18, 2009
  25. The Drinking Bird | July 18, 2009
  26. Adam R Sweet (celticagent) 's status on Sunday, 19-Jul-09 01:37:27 UTC - Identi.ca | July 18, 2009
  27. Mostradas imagenes de los sitios de alunizaje de las misiones Apolo « Hazael’s Weblog | July 18, 2009
  28. Moon Hoax Conspiracy Meets Facts, Fists « SCIENCE-BASED PARENTING | July 18, 2009
  29. Fotografie miejsc lądowań misji Apollo @ techblog | July 19, 2009
  30. TechyDad » Blog Archive » Bang! Zoom! To the Moon! | July 19, 2009
  31. Revelan fotografías de la presencia humana en la Luna - Ojo Cientifico | July 21, 2009
  32. Abstruse Goose on science coolness | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine | July 22, 2009
  33. Hanging a moon at astrology | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine | July 31, 2009
  34. 60 German scientist say global warming is a scam - Page 3 | August 4, 2009
  35. Craig The Rocket Scientist vs The Conspiracy Theorists | K Exchange | October 27, 2009
  36. LRO images the Moon Landing Sites | GeoMika | April 20, 2011
  37. lunar landing pictures | June 5, 2011
  38. NASA...MOON LANDING...REAL or FAKE.... - Page 5 | July 18, 2011
  39. Neat. | Miscellaneous Heathen | December 12, 2011
  40. Craig The Rocket Scientist vs The Conspiracy Theorists | Knovel Blog | April 5, 2012
  1. madge

    NOW can we send all the Moon hoax idiots to the Moon and leave them there. PLEEEEEEZ

  2. John

    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?

  3. 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

  4. ZERO

    BABY, BABY, BABY! I hope those aren’t faked!

  5. Take THAT @joerogan!

    …oh of course… NASA did it. They are after all IN on the hoax… REALLY REALLY in.

    Sigh…

  6. Sc00ter

    To bad people will still claim we never went there.

  7. Lefty

    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.

  8. Kevin

    @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.

  9. That is truly awesome, in the original sense of the word. Thanks so much for posting these pictures.

  10. JHGRedekop

    These are great — can’t wait for the higher resolution ones yet to come.

  11. Alan

    Seriously cool! But how long before someone claims these were photoshopped?

  12. Clint

    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?

  13. Michael

    Kevin – no, LRO is not in it’s 50 km mapping orbit yet. That doesn’t happen until the end of August.

  14. PG

    Awesome pictures!

  15. I call photoshop. You can tell because the shadows are all wrong ;-) Sorry, couldn’t resist upstaging the hoaxer idiots.

  16. Selasphorus

    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!

  17. Jesse

    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?

  18. That is exciting beyond belief!

  19. ZERO

    And couldn’t they have taken some higher resolution images than those? :-/

  20. Levi Larrington

    It’s all fuzzy. I don’t believe they exist.

  21. Charles Boyer

    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?

  22. 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!!!!

  23. John

    @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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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)

  26. Rich

    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.

  27. Does this mean we can’t punch Bart Sibrel any more?

  28. ZERO

    @ John

    I meant couldn’t they have zoomed in instead of having to crop the image?

  29. Truly moving. Thank you, NASA.

  30. 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.

  31. 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!

  32. Moon Denier

    FAKE! There is no moon! And where are the sled dogs they brought!

  33. Dwight

    Absolutely brilliant. What a great week this is shaping up to be.

  34. Brilliant. Those ~100m of footprints in the Apollo 14 photo are amazing. Those had to be some lonely lonely paces from the lander.

  35. @Myron you mean the site that returns 404?!

    let’s get Conspiracy #FAIL and LRO APOLLO NASA trending on twitter!

  36. Astounding images… Very impressive. These need to make the Digg front page!

  37. Has anyone seen Virgil?
    Awesome Phil. Super Awesome.

  38. BoneheadFX

    This is fantastic!

  39. Ken M

    And on the CNN main page, no coverage. But this: ” Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so.”

  40. foolfodder

    Is this technically archaeology now?

  41. Michelle

    This is moving. It really is. It’s nice to see our traces on another world.

  42. Ken M

    Holy cats. Look how close the Eagle came to landing in one of two LEM-swallowing craters. Big salute to Armstrong.

  43. 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.

  44. 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!

  45. 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

  46. 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.

  47. Stargazer

    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…

  48. John Baxter

    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.

  49. perry

    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!

  50. 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?

  51. 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?

  52. Pieter Kok

    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.

  53. TheRedTide

    And I will add without any hint of embarrassment that I choked up reading your last two paragraphs.

  54. Amazing. Coincidentally I just met Alan Bean today at his gallery at the smisthonian Very very cool.

  55. sgiffy

    @1 NO!!!!!!

    Make them stay here while the rest of us get to take a trip like that ;)

  56. 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.

  57. rob

    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?

  58. BJN

    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.

  59. So when does the Google truck drive by and give us the view from the ground?

  60. Nevy C

    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…

  61. Itzac

    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!

  62. 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!

  63. JeffS

    Simply awesome…oh, and WOOHOO!

  64. Bob

    So where are the pictures from a different country or organization? I thought this was a blog about being skeptic.

  65. 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!

  66. Nathanial Burton-Bradford

    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!!!!!!!!!!!

  67. @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.

  68. Dan I.

    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.

  69. JeffS

    @Naked Bunny with a Whip

    LOL! Good one.

  70. Peter B

    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?

  71. Mchl

    Woot!

    I sense much disturbance in conspiracy field.

  72. Charlie Young

    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.

  73. Dave
  74. 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.”

  75. Lawrence

    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…..

  76. CCCCCCOOOOOOLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  77. T.E.L.

    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.

  78. BigBob

    Hi Freakin’ Five Squared!
    Bob

  79. Alexander C

    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!

  80. John

    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.

  81. Jason Wilson

    Amazing sight. I can’t wait to see the close-ups.

  82. theMark

    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

  83. T.E.L.

    I think the photos just barely resolve the shadows of the RCS deflectors on the LMs.

  84. Michael

    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.

  85. Josh R.

    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!

  86. tarrkid

    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?)

  87. 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?

  88. Aleksandar

    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.

  89. Garrett

    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.

  90. Dwight

    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?

  91. starzzguitar

    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.

  92. Tom Roll

    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!

  93. Ian Regan

    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.

  94. Josh R.

    @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?

  95. 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!!!!!!

  96. Daffy

    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.)

  97. Tom Woolf

    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!!!

  98. 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

    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

  99. 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.

  100. 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.

  101. Peter B

    I’m looking forward to seeing the Apollo 12 landing site image – to see if the Surveyor is also visible.

  102. Greg

    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.

  103. Ken M:

    Holy cats. Look how close the Eagle came to landing in one of two LEM-swallowing craters. Big salute to Armstrong.

    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?

  104. «bønez_brigade»

    Very nice. Me likes.

  105. dhtroy

    That’s awesome.

  106. Zucchi

    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.

  107. Ala'a

    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

  108. @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.

  109. 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]

  110. TechyDad:

    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.

    Well, they wouldn’t need a return trip, since they wouldn’t really be going to the Moon, would they? :-)

  111. 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!

  112. Markus

    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.

  113. Jason Wilson

    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.

  114. Richard Drumm:

    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!

    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?”

  115. Bryan D

    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?

  116. 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!

  117. Focus

    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.

  118. Richard Drumm:

    It just has a couple errors in it that nobody but a graphics geek like myself would spot or dare mention.

    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.

  119. 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

    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.

    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

    The command module had a heat shield. C’mon, use Google for 30 seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

  120. Jason Wilson

    @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?

  121. 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!

  122. Ad Hominid

    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.

  123. Hmm

    I think the moon was faked, and the astronauts landed on earth but we’re all *on pluto*.

  124. 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.

  125. Mchl

    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?

  126. 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.

  127. Grisha

    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.”

  128. chaboyax

    please come back and talk now neil,virgil ect ect ect please

  129. Daffy

    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.”

  130. Mchl

    @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.

  131. Toadedge

    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.

  132. trustno1

    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.

  133. Duane

    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?

  134. Steve

    We would find it funny

  135. John

    @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.

  136. 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

  137. Chuck

    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!

  138. Grisha

    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.

  139. Ruggy

    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.

  140. 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.

  141. Jason

    How did we get those big white arrows on the moon like that!?!?!? Those are amazing!

  142. marsh

    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?

  143. Grisha

    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.

  144. Boomer

    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.

  145. 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.

  146. unconcerned

    “Shopped!”

  147. Samsoneffect

    “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?

  148. Duane:

    If an astronaut had shuffled the word “HELLO!” into the dusty regolith, would we consider that funny all these years later, or profoundly inappropriate?

    No, what would be funny if they had shuffled “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky”.

  149. Tim

    Marsh

    - I believe 14 landed where 13 was supposed to land. Someone correct me if I’m wrong

  150. Ad Hominid

    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.

  151. Daffy

    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.

  152. Mike

    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.

  153. @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.

  154. Sarah C.

    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 :)

  155. I'd_rather_be fishin'

    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…

  156. Rikke

    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?

  157. Brian

    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.

  158. IHateAnythingPopular

    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!

  159. papa_vova
  160. Nail

    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. :-)

  161. Ad Hominid

    @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.

  162. Nail

    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?

  163. awesomekip

    Wow. You can even just make out one of the landing legs on the Apollo 14 LM. Epic. :-)

  164. shrdlu

    See the live (+40 years) radio traffic between apollo 11 and houston on
    http://www.twitter.com/apollo11live

  165. 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?)

  166. IVAN3MAN

    Ken B:

    No, what would be funny if they had shuffled “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky”.

    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.!

    :mrgreen:

  167. Ad Hominid

    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.

  168. Party Pooper

    What about this evidence is physical and tangible?

    Some pictures transmitted and presented on a website?

  169. Joe

    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.

  170. @ 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.

  171. Chip

    >>”…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.

  172. Robert

    Why couldn’t Hubble have done this years ago?????

  173. 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.

  174. John

    @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.

  175. Meg

    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!

  176. Nail

    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?

  177. Yahoo Phoenix

    Anyone with a copy of Photoshop could put together images like that. They prove nothing.

  178. # 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

  179. Yahoo Phoenix

    Anyone with a copy of Photoshop could have produced those images. I, for one, am not convinced.

  180. Just one thing. When and where was that “discovery of the light bulb”?

  181. mark

    Wow.. what another astronomical waste of money. friggin NASA.. what a joke.

  182. Peter K

    Oh no, We are polluting the moon. Surely this will have an affect on global warming.

  183. Markus

    (And I should of course have said CSMs, not LMs. People are really paying attention here, huh?)

  184. Ad Hominid

    @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.

  185. Peter M Schmidt

    All pictures are obviously photoshoped! It is too convenient that these pictures suddenly pop up now.

  186. 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!

  187. 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!

  188. Kenton

    litterbugs

    pack in – pack out
    I always say, but then I don’t work for NASA

  189. Alan French

    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

  190. Sarah

    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.

  191. Nemo

    @IVAN3MAN:

    UP YOURS, U.S.S.R.!

    What part of “We came in peace for all mankind” did you not get?

  192. Chip

    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.

  193. kid cool

    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.

  194. Jack

    Shopped! I can tell by the pixels!

  195. John

    @ 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.

  196. 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……….. 8-) 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.

  197. I need higher resolution photos to be convinced. Too easy to be doctored without anyone knowing because they are so pixelized already…. :-/

  198. PoorOldEdgarDerby

    The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was invented by God to test our faith.

  199. How many of these HB/pseudo-skeptic comments are real and how many are just trolling?

  200. Levi in NY

    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.

  201. doofus

    @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

  202. Jay

    “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

  203. frank zenn

    yep. that settles it. we’re all seeing what we want to see.
    good luck with that vision problem thing.

  204. 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.

  205. IVAN3MAN

    Nemo:

    What part of “We came in peace for all mankind” did you not get?

    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:

    Everything that we do ought to really be tied into getting onto the Moon ahead of the Russians. [...] otherwise we shouldn’t be spending this kind of money because I’m not that interested in space. …the only justification for it [the cost] … is because we hope to beat them [the Soviet Union] and demonstrate that starting behind, as we did by a couple years, by God, we passed them.

    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:

    The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the 40-yard lines. [...] For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

    Also, astronaut Frank Borman later described the Apollo Program at a Newsuem event:

    I was told that the CIA had intelligence that the Russians were going to try and put a man around [the Moon] before the end of the year, and that was the reason for the change in our mission. Because, after all, the Apollo program was just a battle in the Cold War.

    Basically, the U.S. adminstration just did not want to see the light of a Communist Moon over the U.S.A.!

  206. Grisha

    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.”

  207. Grisha

    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.

  208. 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

  209. 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

  210. L-Boogie

    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.

  211. doofus

    I don’t see any of Sheppard’s golf balls on the Apollo 14 pictures.

  212. Grisha

    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!”

  213. spaceman

    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?

  214. 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!!!

  215. Craig

    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.

  216. Mr. Roy

    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.

  217. Naomi

    @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!

  218. 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

  219. T.E.L.

    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.

  220. 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

  221. Michael Kingsford Gray

    Some commenters seem to believe that they can see the LEMs, when in fact all that is left behind is the descent stages.

  222. Crudely Wrott

    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.

  223. Pfft

    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.

  224. Ken

    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. :-(

  225. Duane

    #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.

  226. BSqminus4ac

    “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.

  227. Bud Mears

    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.

  228. Carter

    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.

  229. Greatar Humana Destinia, The Prophet

    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

  230. 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

  231. 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

  232. 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.

  233. 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

  234. 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

  235. 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.

  236. Jack Hagerty:

    Sorry, but I’m not sure how to do the direct link thingy.

    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.

    :cool:

  237. AnttiR

    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.

  238. #177. Robert:

    Why couldn’t Hubble have done this years ago?????

    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.

    :cool:

  239. Mark Hansen

    The irony of Pfft’s statement is that it is this “NASA crap” that allows him to whine to the world at large.

  240. Curious1

    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?

  241. Curious1

    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?

  242. Child of Apollo

    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.

  243. doofus

    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.

  244. Pat Montana

    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!

  245. Not that it wasn’t real to be before but these images just bring all that awesomeness back to the forefront

  246. Patrick H.

    The moon hoaxers need to be rounded up and given electro shock therapy.

    Seriously. You are all pathetic.

  247. none

    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.

  248. 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

  249. doofus

    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.

  250. daniel

    NO! you mean to tell me the space aliens didn’t remove the moon landing evidence…it is a sad,sad day. LOL

  251. 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

  252. none

    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.

  253. Stu

    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. :-)

  254. none

    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!

  255. Brian

    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

  256. Frank B. Chavez III

    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.

  257. Awesome pics. Thanks for sharing.

    MHB parodies: hahah
    MHBs: You have some research to do. Your ignorance is showing.

  258. Hugh Morley

    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!

  259. beagledad

    So if these pictures aren’t faked, then how come there aren’t any STARS in them, huh? Explain that one away!

  260. Andy

    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.)

  261. Pat Montana

    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.

  262. The Hoax is finally dead for good!! Awesome :)

  263. Lula

    I just believe that the first one was staged, look at the space race, russia was always ahead, but I could be wrong

  264. FAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    FAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

  265. Tim

    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…

  266. Steve A

    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

  267. robinpa

    @ 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.

  268. Joey Joe Joe

    @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?

  269. Old Muley

    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.

  270. Andrew G.

    OBVIOUSLY photoshopped… jk

  271. 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.

  272. We Never Went

    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).

  273. We Never Went

    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.

  274. WoodGuard

    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!

  275. Daffy

    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…

  276. Daffy

    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?

  277. @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

  278. Larry

    Meh! Get back to me when they find that golf ball

  279. 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.

  280. mary o'dea

    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.

  281. Rift

    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…

  282. thanx Rift

    and May Walter RIP, dang he didn’t make it to the anniversary.

  283. Plutonium being from Pluto

    Awesome photo – congrats to the LRO team. 8)

    @ 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.

  284. TS

    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.

  285. Grisha

    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.

  286. Sabrina

    Wow, I’ve waited all my life for these photos!

  287. Rift

    @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…

  288. Rift

    @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

  289. Fadi

    just another hoax!

  290. SINA P.

    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.??????????????

  291. Suw Mirage

    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!

  292. @ Tim #286:

    … 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. …

    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.

  293. Scott Smith

    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.

  294. Seriously, I think that Phil Plait should ask the Hive Overmind Discover 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!

  295. doofus

    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.

  296. PeteC

    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.

  297. John

    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.

  298. Kagehi

    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.

  299. muriem

    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.

  300. carl

    @Sina P,
    Those are not hills, they are craters.

  301. Peter

    “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.

  302. Nigel Depledge

    Dennis (99) said:

    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.

    Yes, that’s right, they didn’t have the technology for a re-useable heat shield.

    And?

  303. Nigel Depledge

    Ken B (104) said:

    (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.)

    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.)

  304. fsdfdfsd

    The shadows are going the wrong way

  305. Nigel Depledge

    Marsh (145) said:

    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?

    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.

  306. J-C

    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?

  307. RST

    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.

    .

  308. Nigel Depledge

    Robert (177) said:

    Why couldn’t Hubble have done this years ago?????

    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/

  309. J-C

    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?

  310. Nigel Depledge

    John (179) said:

    @Chip the root of my disbelief is the guy in charge at the time (Nixon)

    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.

  311. 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
    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

  312. Nigel Depledge

    Ad Hominid (189) said:

    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.

    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).

  313. Grisha

    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.

  314. Munky

    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 :)

  315. carl

    @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.

  316. I'd_rather_be fishin'

    @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.

  317. Scott Smith

    Ah well.. it appears that none of the hoaxinati have decided to take up my challenges at #316. hahahaha

  318. Mark

    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.

  319. Rift

    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….

  320. Daffy

    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.”

  321. 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

  322. Alex Cicelsky

    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.

  323. Scott

    When will we have Google Moon like we do Earth and Mars? That would be sweeeeeeeet.

  324. 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/

  325. Grisha

    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/

  326. 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.

  327. 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

  328. Woof

    @Odd Texas Coach:

    I remember the Apollo 1 disaster… I was 11 years old.

    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! ;-)

  329. Flying sardines

    @ 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..

  330. Daffy

    Jack Hagerty,

    Well, I do apologize for being pedantic. I have no idea why that one nags at me…

  331. Nut-Job

    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].

  332. Nigel Depledge

    RST (333) said:

    I think you people see what you want to see and don’t see what you don’t want to see.

    * 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.

  333. Nigel Depledge

    Munky (341) said:

    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.

    Try here: http [colon slash slash] blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/

  334. Nigel Depledge

    [Quibble mode ON]

    Daffy (347) said:

    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.

    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?

    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.”

    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]

  335. Nigel Depledge

    Alex Cicelsky (349) said:

    Anyone who contends that the Apollo program used money that could have been better spent on earth can get my ear.

    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.

  336. RST

    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?

    .

  337. Arwis

    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.

  338. Justin Olson

    @ 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.

  339. gss_000

    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.

  340. Arwis

    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.

  341. Peter

    @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.

  342. So it should have been “something with which I will not put up”. You see?

    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.

  343. Matt

    “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.

  344. Nigel Depledge

    RST (365) said:

    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.

    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.

    The lander as described is just a blurred pixel and people here call it stunning?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    I don’t think I could see footprints in that image even if I took LSD and looked at it.

    Maybe you should have followed Phil’s link to the NASA page, hmm?

    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.

    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/

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

  345. Nigel Depledge

    Naked Bunny with a whip (368) said:

    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.

    Oh!

    This explains so much! Thanks!

  346. Nigel Depledge

    Kenton (193) said:

    litterbugs

    pack in – pack out
    I always say, but then I don’t work for NASA

    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.

  347. Daffy

    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.

  348. Deborah

    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?

  349. Dustin

    okay so if I put an arrow on a grainy picture, that would count as proof? More please….

  350. Mike Mullen

    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.

  351. 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!

  352. Nigel Depledge

    John (201) said:

    @ 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.

    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.

  353. Nigel Depledge

    Constantskeptic (204) said:

    I need higher resolution photos to be convinced. Too easy to be doctored without anyone knowing because they are so pixelized already…. :-/

    To be convinced of what, though? And how would a high-res pic be protected from doctoring?

  354. Nigel Depledge

    Ivan3Man (215) said:

    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.

    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…

  355. Stu

    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.

  356. IVAN3MAN

    Nigel Depledge:

    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…

    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.

  357. T.E.L.

    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.

  358. IVAN3MAN

    Stu:

    Why the **** are we still bothering to even *try* to convince the HBs trolling here that they’re wrong?

    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.

  359. Peter

    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.

  360. Stu

    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… ;-)

  361. John

    @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.

  362. @Rift
    we are kindred spirits
    Lay a flower for me pls

  363. Eric West

    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

  364. Keith

    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.

  365. Rift

    @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…

  366. Steven Avery

    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

  367. Randall

    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.

  368. Nigel Depledge

    Stu (387) said:

    Why the **** are we still bothering to even *try* to convince the HBs trolling here that they’re wrong?

    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.

  369. Nigel Depledge

    Rift (396) said:

    It [Hubble] pales in comparison to those in Arizona or Hawaii.

    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.

  370. Nigel Depledge

    Rift (396) said:

    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.

    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”.

  371. Peter B

    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).

  372. 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/

  373. fairuse

    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

  374. daniel

    Hmmm…Phil, could we be looking at one of your top 10 pics for 2009? ;-)

  375. Arwis

    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”?

  376. Nigel Depledge

    Steven Avery (398) said:

    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 ?

    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.

    btw .. are you a geologist ?

    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.

    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.

    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).

  377. Nigel Depledge

    Mr. Roy (231) said:

    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.

    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).

  378. Nigel Depledge

    Pfft (238) said:

    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.

    Thus speaks the Playstation generation.

    If you took the time to understand what a huge technical achievement this is, you’d be impressed too.

  379. muriem

    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]

  380. Nigel Depledge

    Carter (244) said:

    I just wish I was there the day Edison (presumably, or someone he plagiarized from) ‘discovered’ the light bulb.

    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?

  381. T.E.L.

    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.

  382. Nigel Depledge

    Curious1 (257) said:

    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?

    Go read comment 241.

    http [colon slash slash]blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/#comment-199959

  383. RST

    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?

    .

    .

  384. Nigel Depledge

    None (265) said:

    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’.

    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?

    Or for the very sucrose/frutose/glucose crippled…

    Do you actually have any idea what the metabolic differences are between this sugars?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Ah, and higher-res photos will convince you, will they?

    What about the ones the astronauts took while they were on the surface?

    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’.

    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.

    If they told you those were a ‘yeti’s’ foot prints – how would you prove they are not?

    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.

    Again – I wish they were real!

    Well, they are. Why do you doubt this?

    But they could just be macro photos of acne not Apollo’s jettisoned landing gear.

    Rubbish.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    Well, yeah, so what? Any CG artist could create any view that you ask for. That doesn’t bear any relation to reality, though.

    Truly, you are bunch of desperate ‘believers’.

    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.

    [some random drivel omitted]
    Ask why are these ‘photos’ are so low res…

    I don’t need to becuase I understand the technical challenge.

    [more random drivel omitted]
    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.

    I wouldn’t trust Google to speak my weight. What do they know of science? Still a great deal more than you, seemingly.

  385. Peter B

    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?

  386. muriem

    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.

  387. Rick

    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.

  388. We Never Went

    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.

  389. Josh

    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

  390. T.E.L.

    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.

  391. muriem

    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]

  392. jesper

    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…

  393. Duncan McKenzie

    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

  394. Dan

    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.

  395. T.E.L.

    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.

  396. John

    @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.

  397. James H

    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

  398. muriem

    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?

  399. PeteC

    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?

  400. anonymous

    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 ;)

  401. el tigre

    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!

  402. Arwis

    @ 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.

  403. muriem

    @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!

  404. muriem

    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!

  405. jj

    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….

  406. jj

    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

  407. Dan

    @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.

  408. John

    @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.

  409. jj

    @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.

  410. jj

    @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?

  411. John

    @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.

  412. John

    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.

  413. jj

    @ 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?

  414. T.E.L.

    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.

  415. kkjjgoh

    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!!!

  416. jj

    @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!

  417. Nigel Depledge

    TEL (414) said:

    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.

    I did not know this before. Thanks, Tel.

  418. Nigel Depledge

    Rick (420) said:

    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.

    Rick, your vile insinuations contribute nothing. Go away.

  419. muriem

    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 )

  420. Peter

    @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.

  421. muriem

    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.

  422. Peter

    @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.

  423. muriem

    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.

  424. Nigel Depledge

    Jesper (425) said:

    Just want to say that these pictures proof nothing;

    So, isn’t it fortunate that no-one here is seriously claiming that they do.

    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.

    Irrelevant. We’re not talking about law courts, we’re talking about scientific instruments.

    Secondly the way this blog is written just makes me sick cause its all SUBJECTIVE speach.

    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?

    All this sweet talk may be due to one of the following two things; ONE: they

    Who? C’mon, let’s have names and job titles.

    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…

    There is a third thing awaiting us on the moon, but I fear it is something that is beyond your reach: new knowledge.

  425. Nigel Depledge

    John (429) said:

    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.

    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.

  426. Nigel Depledge

    Muriem (431) said:

    BWT: To be fair, we might ask as well, why do these hoaxers disturb us so much we even reply on it?

    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.

  427. EH2ZED

    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.

  428. EH2ZED

    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.

  429. Nigel Depledge

    JJ (438) said:

    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.

    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!

  430. Nigel Depledge

    JJ (439) said:

    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

    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?

  431. Nigel Depledge

    Dan (440) said:

    I get concerned when someone confuses sound judgment based on a preponderance of easily verifiable facts with stubbornness or narrow-mindedness.

    Hear, hear.

  432. Nigel Depledge

    JJ (442) said:

    @dan….reasonable would be allowing the outside chance that what seems to be a strange conclusion could be the right one.

    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.

    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?

    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?

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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?

  433. Nigel Depledge

    JJ (443) said:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    They are legit, because we already know what is at the locations that were pictured. We know because humans left it there.

    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?

    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.

  434. Nigel Depledge

    JJ (446) said:

    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.

    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?

  435. Nigel Depledge

    JJ (449) said:

    @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!

    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.

  436. Nigel Depledge

    Stu (271) said:

    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.

    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.

  437. Soapy Sam

    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.

  438. 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 :) ))

  439. PeteC

    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.

  440. Nigel Depledge

    None (272) said:

    Or put this way…

    [Some random drivel removed]
    1. such patterns may commonly exist on the moon due to the rolling of dust/whatever;

    2. they were photoshopped so desperate ‘believers’ like you would ‘champion’ their ’cause’;

    3. this was a random incidence?

    Except we already know what is there!

    Does it matter?

    Why ask such a banal question?

    Because – YOU HAVE NO PROOF… ******** EITHER WAY *******

    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.

    Puppet… you have endorsed what was **** HANDED to you *****.

    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.

    Take a 1st year Philosophy paper at what is called a ‘university’ and return to this forum’s thread.

    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.

  441. Nigel Depledge

    Lula (283) said:

    I just believe that the first one was staged, look at the space race, russia was always ahead, but I could be wrong

    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.

  442. James Peters

    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!)

  443. muriem

    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.

  444. Grisha

    @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.

  445. muriem

    Its okay, I stand corrected, I never actually researched into von Brauns history.

  446. DaveS

    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.

  447. Nigel Depledge

    PeteC (472) said:

    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.”

    Ah, yes. I did not allow for the “Last Thursdayism” argument.

  448. Nigel Depledge

    Muriem (477) said:

    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.

    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.

  449. Nigel Depledge

    Grisha (478) said:

    The US did not get the “dregs”

    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).

  450. Nigel Depledge

    Tim (286) said:

    Most of the posts in this thread are about these pictures being indismissable proof against the famous conspiracy theories.

    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).

  451. Nigel Depledge

    WoodGuard (296) said:

    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!

    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.

  452. Dan

    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.

  453. RST

    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.

    .

  454. Mike Draper

    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.

  455. Dan

    @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.

  456. Peter

    @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.

  457. muriem

    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

  458. RST

    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.

  459. T.E.L.

    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.

  460. Scientist

    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 !

  461. RST

    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.

    .

  462. muriem

    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.

  463. seekravota

    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!!!

  464. Nigel Depledge

    RST (487) said:

    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.

    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).

    I believe we went to the moon and have been going there for years and probably have a base there.

    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?

    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.

    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.)

    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.

    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.

    My crowd would question why we drive in cars powered with a gasoline engine that was invented around 1910. Thats 100 year old technology.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    This is an outright lie.

    Even the rockets are what? 60 year old technology?

    But more sophisticated and more efficient now than they were then.

    Why does technology seem to trickle out if any comes out at all?

    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.

    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 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?

    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.

    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.

  465. T.E.L.

    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.

  466. Nigel Depledge

    RST (492) said:

    muriem, as long as I pay my taxes then I have every right to complain.

    Only if your complaints have a basis in fact.

    I can remember in the 1950’s them saying that a cure for cancer was right around the corner.

    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.

    If I contract to your company to provide a service or product then you have to provide what you agreed to in that contract.

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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?

    No, it’s a free market economy. If you want more stuff for free, move to a socialist country.

    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.

    You cannot blame the government for this. TV stations supply whatever sells.

    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.

    If that’s the only progress you can think of, then you haven’t bothered looking very hard.

    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.

    What rubbish! If you’re talking about publicly-funded research, the knowledge it generates is freely available, as it has been for many years.

    It always seems to come back to us with an expensive price tag attached to it.

    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.

  467. Nigel Depledge

    RST (495) said:

    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.

    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.

  468. spacenerd

    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.

  469. T.E.L.

    Gregorious Said:

    “http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp”

    Uh-huh. What about it?

  470. Dan

    @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

  471. 6SUP

    WOULD U PUT YOUR LIFE ON IT FOR SURE IT’S THE LAND SITE?…PERSONALLY I WOULD NOT

  472. Pat Montana

    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?

  473. 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.

  474. daveydave

    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?

  475. @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.

  476. 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).

  477. 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

  478. 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

  479. Scott Smith

    @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.

  480. PLK

    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!

  481. 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.

  482. muriem

    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….

  483. Peter B

    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?

  484. DWD

    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.

  485. muriem

    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 :-)

  486. @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!

  487. DWD

    @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…

  488. @ “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???

  489. Dan

    @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–

  490. Pat Montana

    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! 8)

  491. Dan

    @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.

  492. J-C

    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.

  493. J-C

    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.

  494. Pat Montana

    @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.

  495. J-C

    @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.

  496. 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

  497. Pat Montana

    @ 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.

  498. 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

  499. @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.

  500. Pat Montana

    @ 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.

  501. J-C

    @ 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.

  502. @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.

  503. gonz

    if they can fake a moon-landing, why cannot fake a blury blck and white picture ?
    c’mon!

  504. Phil Plait's a hypocrit

    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

  505. daveydave

    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

  506. Peter

    @daveydave

    Posting crackpot nonsense helps to make your case.

  507. Nigel Depledge

    J-C (531) said:

    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.

    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.

  508. Nigel Depledge

    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.

  509. RST

    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

    .

  510. Peter

    @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.

  511. RST

    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.

    .

  512. Peter

    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.

  513. RST

    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.

    .

  514. Peter

    @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.

  515. RST

    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.

    .

  516. Peter

    @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.

  517. 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?

  518. Steve

    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.

  519. Nigel Depledge

    RST (545) said:

    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.

    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?

  520. Nigel Depledge

    RST (549) said:

    I think you paint a broad brush over conspiracy theorists. Some believe in certain ones while others don’t but believe other conspiracy theories.

    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.

  521. Nigel Depledge

    Skeptical (553) said:

    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?

    Google Earth is composed of aerial photographs as well as satellite images.

  522. Nigel Depledge

    Steve (554) said:

    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

    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.

    than this brand new .5 m camera can capture of a MUCH larger object from 31 miles up through no atmosphere?

    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?

    I didn’t think so.

    Only true if your facts are correct. One at least was wrong.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  523. Nigel Depledge

    RST (545) said:

    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?

    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.

  524. Steve

    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.

  525. Dan

    @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.

  526. J-C

    @ 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.

  527. Steve

    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

  528. James H

    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.

  529. RST

    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.

    .

  530. Pat Montana

    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.

  531. Pat Montana

    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.

  532. Pat Montana

    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.

  533. JOHN

    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.

  534. SCOTT

    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.

  535. Fab

    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

  536. Nigel Depledge

    Steve (560) said:

    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.

    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.

  537. Nigel Depledge

    John (570) said:

    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 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.

  538. muriem

    “”"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.

  539. Bob

    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!

  540. JOHN

    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.

  541. Stacey

    *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.
    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.
    8) 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).
    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!

  542. Kevo

    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.

  543. muriem

    @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°

  544. muriem

    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.

  545. Emilio

    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!

  546. where are the pics of the moon rovers?

  547. muriem

    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…

  548. JOHN

    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.

  549. muriem

    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.

  550. muriem

    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.

  551. JOHN

    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

  552. muriem

    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]“”"”

  553. John

    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.

  554. muriem

    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.

  555. 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)

  556. Marty

    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….

  557. IVAN3MAN

    This picture sums up very well the points that muriem above was making:

     

    What Bloody Conspiracy?

  558. IVAN3MAN

    @ 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!

    :cool:

  559. 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”!

  560. Jeff

    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?

  561. @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

  562. muriem

    Jeff, honestly I’m not seeing anything on this picture. But apollo 16 mission had a moon rover with them, maybe its that?

  563. Jeff

    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.

  564. IVAN3MAN

    CHANDAN:

    Is the only footprint existing there or print of other things like
    legs of lunar module,vehicle driven on moon surface etc. also there[?]

    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.

    Surveyor III footpad print.
    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.

  565. IVAN3MAN

    Deleted by author.

  566. xana01

    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?

  567. Josef Birmann

    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.

  568. IVAN3MAN

    @ 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?

  569. muriem

    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.

  570. ahmad

    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.

  571. Keyhole

    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.

  572. Tiro

    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

  573. @ Tiro,

    Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.

  574. Show Me The Pics

    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.

  575. Show Me The Pics

    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.

  576. muriem

    @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.

  577. wilbeck

    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 …

  578. muriem

    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!

  579. CHANDAN

    @IVAN3MAN:-
    WELL,NASA LOST THE ORIGINAL TAPES OF FIRST MOON LANDING,DOES THEY HAVE THE ORIGINAL TAPES OF OTHER MOON LANDINGS ?
    CHANDAN

  580. Johnny

    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.

  581. mark

    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!

  582. BD

    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.

  583. Vykintas

    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.

  584. muriem

    @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.

  585. 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.

  586. IVAN3MAN

    @ CHANDAN,

    Extract from Wikipedia; Moon landing conspiracy theories — Tapes:

    [...] Only the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes made during the moonwalk are actually missing, those of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 do exist. For technical reasons, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) carried a Slow-scan television (SSTV) camera (see Apollo TV camera). In order to be broadcast to regular television, a scan conversion has to be done. The radio telescope at Parkes Observatory in Australia was in position to receive the telemetry from the Moon at the time of the Apollo 11 Moonwalk. Parkes had a larger antenna than NASA’s antenna in Australia at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, so it received a better picture. It also received a better picture than NASA’s antenna at Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex. This direct TV signal, along with telemetry data, was recorded onto one-inch fourteen-track analog tape there. A crude, real-time scan conversion of the SSTV signal was done in Australia before it was broadcast around the world. The original SSTV transmission had better detail and contrast than the scan-converted pictures. It is this tape [that was recorded] in Australia, before the scan conversion, which is missing. Tapes or films of the scan-converted pictures exist and are available. Still photographs of the original SSTV image are available. Also, about fifteen minutes of the SSTV images of the Apollo 11 moonwalk were filmed by an amateur 8 mm film camera, and these are also available. Later Apollo missions did not use SSTV, and their video is also available. [...].

    [Emphasis mine.]

  587. IVAN3MAN AT LARGE

    Charlie:

    These photos prove nothing. They would be thrown out of any court of law as being insuffient [sic] photo should be worth a thousand words not a butt of confussion [sic]. I’ve seen better UFO photos. I worked in the industry. The Appolo [sic] program was a means to an end. The program had to be shown as sucessful [sic] for the shuttle program to advance (a military bomber in space to drop the MX MISSLE [sic] 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.

    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(!). :roll:

  588. Luke

    It’s All Lies, Believe Me, I Know.

  589. DaveD

    Those people who think we never walked on the moon will never be convinced and that doesn’t bother