NASA's LRO sees Apollo sites in new images

[petermm2000]

We did that....40 years ago, see?

One of thousands of surface level pictures we took on the 14 EVAs we did on the Moon.

We actually haven't needed any pictures since then.

The LRO pictures are just fun!

One little correction - we do not question if USA landed on the Moon. Yes - they did. The pictures; however, were taken on special grounds on Earth.

Call it double stimulator or exercise ground. The cross marks do not cover on these pictures, shadows do not comply with logic, lack of dust and there are no visible stars.

Stars are visible from the Moon WAY MORE CLEAR THAN FROM EARTH AS THERE IS NO LIGHT POLLUTION. Also - no clouds to speak off.

So - here you have it. At the same time - please tell all the conspiracy buffs to get a real job. Apollos landed on the Moon - only NASA screw it up by releasing the idiotic pictures.

Still - beautiful picture. To much HD to be genuine from there....

[Czero 101]

One little correction - we do not question if USA landed on the Moon. Yes - they did. The pictures; however, were taken on special grounds on Earth.

Call it double stimulator or exercise ground. The cross marks do not cover on these pictures, shadows do not comply with logic, lack of dust and there are no visible stars.

Stars are visible from the Moon WAY MORE CLEAR THAN FROM EARTH AS THERE IS NO LIGHT POLLUTION. Also - no clouds to speak off.

So - here you have it. At the same time - please tell all the conspiracy buffs to get a real job. Apollos landed on the Moon - only NASA screw it up by releasing the idiotic pictures.

Still - beautiful picture. To much HD to be genuine from there....

I'm sorry but you're wrong with your assertions that stars should be seen, etc. There's nothing wrong with the pictures, just the person interpreting them

If you knew anything about photography at all, you'd know that the Moon pictures were taken during the Lunar morning / afternoon with the sun high in the sky. This is essentially the same as taking a picture here on Earth on a sunny, cloudless afternoon. The exposure settings required to get adequate pictures on the Moon's surface features were not adequate enough to capture the relatively weak light from the stars. Standing in the shadow of the LM, with the camera set to a long, wide exposure, perhaps pictures of the stars could have been acquired. But the bottom line is that they were there to study the Moon and its surface features, not the stars. The relatively insignificant distance between the Earth and Moon means that the stars would appear virtually identical when seen from the Earth or the Moon.

As for light pollution, there are plenty of places on Earth with little to no light pollution that allow for excellent star observations.

Also, on Apollo 16, pictures of stars were acquired with their IR camera, so to say that there were "no pictures with / of stars" taken on the surface of the Moon is factually incorrect.

"Too much HD to be genuine"...? Not sure what you mean by that. Perhaps you're not aware of the fantastic optical quality and clarity achievable by good, old-fashioned film cameras with high quality, low grain film. Hasselblad cameras were among the absolute best quality cameras using the highest quality Ziess Biogon lenses. Even by today's standards they are very highly regarded pieces of equipment.

Cz

Edited September 15, 2011 by Czero 101

[MID]

Hello everyone

What is most amazing for me is the fact that ALL Apollo 11 - 17 (-13) landings are in the same are! Just imagine - the other side of the Moon has thousands of kilometers of space to explore. Yet - NASA was landing all Apollo missions in just ONE are.

See for yourself: http://www.google.com/moon/

Have you ever wonder why? Even if the landings are kilometers away from each other - still just one black spot area on the Moon.

Maybe John Lear was right - it was our, Earth, designated are?

What is amazing to me is that you can appear here, without researching a bit , and actually post such nonsense.

There were six Apollo landing sites, spread all over the face of the near side. That's a hell of a big area. And you mention the far side, as if that was an option with line-of-site communications being all that was available???

One little correction - we do not question if USA landed on the Moon. Yes - they did.

Oh, good. I suppose then that this argument is over?

The pictures; however, were taken on special grounds on Earth.

Call it double stimulator or exercise ground. The cross marks do not cover on these pictures, shadows do not comply with logic, lack of dust and there are no visible stars.

Stars are visible from the Moon WAY MORE CLEAR THAN FROM EARTH AS THERE IS NO LIGHT POLLUTION. Also - no clouds to speak off.

So - here you have it. At the same time - please tell all the conspiracy buffs to get a real job. Apollos landed on the Moon - only NASA screw it up by releasing the idiotic pictures.

Still - beautiful picture. To much HD to be genuine from there....

I think you made another mistake there. This is a great opportunity for you to learn that relying on HB webpages and repeating their nonsensical positions wholesale is not intellectually sound.

You're right. There can be no light pollution on the Moon. Light pollution is a term that astronomers on earth use to describe how night time artificial lighting disrupts the efficacy of teloscopy.

On the Moon, my freind, there's no artificial lighting, but the important point is that we were there in BROAD DAYLIGHT. DAYTIME, get it?

That's why the stars weren't visible. The Sun is very bright, and it makes pupils contract and very dim things aren't visible, just like here on Earth.

But I get it. The black sky means night to you, so naturally there should be stars visible.

Unfortunately, that's wrong. So, rather than you correcting me, I think I should humbly correct you.

If it was night on the Moon, we wouldn't have been there as we needed to see where we were landing. But, If we could've landed at night, you wouldn't see the surface, save maybe dimly by the light of a tiny Earth glow, and stars would indeed be visible in most areas of the sky.

No, stars are not highly visible on the surface of the Moon in broad daylight, especially to a camera set to photograph the brightly lit objects on the surface.

The fiducials are visible in all surface images. You may not see them as they disappear in very dark, or very brightly lit areas.

Unfortunately, your belief in the Moon landings, commendable as it may be, is somewhat diminished by your lack of understanding of basic photography.

These photographs represent pretty closely what the visual conditions are on the Moon. They were taken by what was probably the finest land camera of the time with the finest color (and black and white) film made.

What would be fun now is if you carefully consider the other few statements you made:

The lack of dust (frankly it's all you see on the surface practically...dust).

And the shadows not following logic.

What do you mean by those two?

AS16-107-17452, taken April 22,1972. Something unusual abot this photo in respect to the dust and the shadows?

Edited September 15, 2011 by MID

[petermm2000]

**EDIT**

**Peter, please do not quote long posts, particularly when they contain images, just to respond with a handful of words**

He said it all – but he can not speak ...

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

**Similarly, if you expect to be taken seriously in a discussion, you need to express what about your post you consider to be worth discussing.**

Edited September 25, 2011 by aquatus1

[ChrLzs]

It is the height of bad manners and laziness to 'argue' by posting Youtube links on forums with no explanatory text.

But given I see above that Peter can't be bothered trimming quotes, didn't bother researching why people and cameras can't easily see stars in broad flippin' daylight, nor has he bothered to address the reply (even though it has been explained hundreds of times here and elsewhere) - such behavior is hardly unexpected.

Perhaps next time he might choose a topic that he actually knows something about..

[MID]

He said it all – but he can not speak ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfCzUuA8M4U&feature=related

Neil has said a great deal, and very well, many times over the years.

But if you think I am going to allow a nonsense post including you tube videos of Neil Armstrong that are deliberately mis-interpreted, in lieu of answering the question I put to you, you've got another thing coming.

I asked you what you meant by referring to "the lack of dust" and "the shadows not following logic".

Answer the question.

Show me the lack of dust on the lunar surface, which is obviously covered by it. And show me the illogical shadows.

Neil Armstrong said nothing about these things, and he wouldn't be doing so, as he saw the dust, brought some back with him, and described the completely natural and very dark shadows and visual characteristics of the lunar environment.

You speak to these supposed anomalies.

[DONTEATUS]

Looks into the blackhole from which such sillyness must come from too Mid ! Where do these people get this stuff?

Neil A. is an American hero ! Nuff said !

[MID]

Looks into the blackhole from which such sillyness must come from too Mid ! Where do these people get this stuff?

Neil A. is an American hero ! Nuff said !

I...do....not....know D!

Neil is an American hero, sure (despite the fact that he would blush at the thought of calling himself one), but more importantly, he has spoken to the Apollo program with more accuracy and eloquence than anyone else.

Fools of course mis-interpret, or attempt to put ridiculous meanings to the words he has spoken in his many addresses over the years. Sibrel did it, other fools have done it as well, and--a plethora of HBs, lacking in the discipline of a scientific/mathematical education, follow the fools regularly.

You can't worry too much about it though.

Forest Gump said it best:

"Stupid is as stupid does." No fanfare. No attempt at qualifications, just a simple statement on the state of things as they are.

We can merely attempt to teach, and hope someone gets it!

[aquatus1]

**Tone it down, guys. Whatever else Peter is, he is new to the forum, and we do make allowances for that. Driving him away is not teaching.**