Over 8,400 images from NASA's Moon missions

[Anomalocaris]

Over 8,400 images from NASA's Moon missions are now on Flickr in high resolution

You've seen images from the Apollo missions before, but you've never seen anything like this. More than 8,400 images from NASA's Moon missions have been uploaded to Flickr at a resolution of 1800 dpi.

Read more

[ChrLzs]

Absolute RUBBISH. These are NOT new or unreleased images. This is a stupid story that just gets repeated OVER and OVER by stupid rags like Russia Today and the DailyMail/Fail. May i suggest, Anomalocaris, that when you see RT or DM as the source, you check carefully...

There was NO new release, all the images were publicly available before this. They do, however, keep releasing new stuff (better scans, composites, etc) at their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/apolloarchive

Here's my reply on a thread on almost the exact same beatup from the DailyMail back in 2013 - that time they said it was 17,000 images...

http://www.unexplain...1

It's just what these stupid tabloids do when they run out of stories.

Edited October 5, 2015 by ChrLzs

[Anomalocaris]

Absolute RUBBISH. These are NOT new or unreleased images. This is a stupid story that just gets repeated OVER and OVER by stupid rags like Russia Today and the DailyMail/Fail. May i suggest, Anomalocaris, that when you see RT or DM as the source, you check carefully...

There was NO new release, all the images were publicly available before this. They do, however, keep releasing new stuff (better scans, composites, etc) at their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/apolloarchive

Here's my reply on a thread on almost the exact same beatup from the DailyMail back in 2013 - that time they said it was 17,000 images...

http://www.unexplain...1

It's just what these stupid tabloids do when they run out of stories.

2013?! now that's old XD sorry about that. I agree, I should investigate more when I see something in these tabloids. Thanks for the heads up

[Anomalocaris]

BBC too? lol

Thousands of Nasa Apollo mission photos uploaded online

Around 13,000 scans of images from Nasa's archives, taken across ALL manned Apollo missions between 1961 and 1972 have been given to founder of the Project Apollo Archive Kipp Teague.

Read more

Edited October 5, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[Waspie_Dwarf]

2013?! now that's old XD sorry about that. I agree, I should investigate more when I see something in these tabloids. Thanks for the heads up

BBC too? lol

Before criticising the BBC story read what Chrlz was ACTUALLY saying.

Firstly he did NOT say that this was a story from 2013, he provided a link to his reply to an almost identical story from 2013.

Secondly his objection was to your story claiming that the pictures were previously unseen and unreleased. The BBC story makes no such false claim.

So no, not the BBC too.

[Nnicolette]

I hate to say it but the pic on that page looks fake as hell. For one there are no stars. No stars at all? And for two look at how the flag is rumpled and yet the top edge seems to have a support in it to keep it straight. In fact if you look closely it seems to be sticking out at the end. Wth nasa

[Anomalocaris]

Before criticising the BBC story read what Chrlz was ACTUALLY saying.

Firstly he did NOT say that this was a story from 2013, he provided a link to his reply to an almost identical story from 2013.

Secondly his objection was to your story claiming that the pictures were previously unseen and unreleased. The BBC story makes no such false claim.

So no, not the BBC too.

Who is criticizing the BBC? I just make a question to Chrlz, because he is more informed than I on this. But thanks for answering for him anyway

Edited October 5, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[Anomalocaris]

I hate to say it but the pic on that page looks fake as hell. For one there are no stars. No stars at all? And for two look at how the flag is rumpled and yet the top edge seems to have a support in it to keep it straight. In fact if you look closely it seems to be sticking out at the end. Wth nasa

[Nnicolette]

Sorry i guess i never looked at the pics before or paid interest to the discussion of authenticity... but i mean look at that pic its pretty ridiculous.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

but i mean look at that pic its pretty ridiculous.

Only if you totally clueless about the basics of photography and are also clueless flags. You do know that flags "fly" because of the movement of air don't you? You do realise that there is no air on the Moon don't you? If you know these two things it doesn't take a huge amount of logical deduction to work out why the flag needs a support.

To the millions of people around the world that do know what they are looking at they look genuine because they are, provably genuine. Since 1969, despite many claims to the contrary, not one single Apollo photograph has been shown to be fake... not one.

On the other hand dozens of people that have claimed they look faked have been proven to not know what they are talking about.

We have an entire section for conspiracy theories, I suggest you take your comments there. There are many on this site who will be only too willing to point out, in detail, exactly how wrong you actually are.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Merc14]

Sorry i guess i never looked at the pics before or paid interest to the discussion of authenticity... but i mean look at that pic its pretty ridiculous.

The flag was wired up to wave since there is no wind on the Moon and the photos you are talking about were taken during lunar day so, like a photograph on earth during the day, the stars aren't visible.

[Rlyeh]

The flag was wired up to wave since there is no wind on the Moon and the photos you are talking about were taken during lunar day so, like a photograph on earth during the day, the stars aren't visible.

Even at night the camera needs some preparation in order to capture stars.

http://digital-photography-school.com/beginners-tips-for-night-sky-and-star-photography/

[Merc14]

Even at night the camera needs some preparation in order to capture stars.

http://digital-photo...ar-photography/

I know but she is asking such an old and thoroughly debunked question that I am guessing an ulterior motive and this isn't the section of this forum for that type of conversation. Thanks for the link though, I hadn't seen that site before.

[toast]

I hate to say it but the pic on that page looks fake as hell. For one there are no stars. No stars at all? And for two look at how the flag is

rumpled and yet the top edge seems to have a support in it to keep it straight. In fact if you look closely it seems to be sticking out at the

end. Wth nasa

[+Hammerclaw]

BBC=impeccable source. On rare occasions when they do get something wrong, they fall over themselves to make ammends.

[+Hammerclaw]

I hate to say it but the pic on that page looks fake as hell. For one there are no stars. No stars at all? And for two look at how the flag is rumpled and yet the top edge seems to have a support in it to keep it straight. In fact if you look closely it seems to be sticking out at the end. Wth nasa

The lack of stars often puzzles people. Here's an explanation. http://www.physlink....perts/ae323.cfm The human eye is much more sensitive than film. All the photos of stars you have seen were long exposures. Edited October 5, 2015 by Hammerclaw

[ChrLzs]

Nnicolette, please go and take a picture outside in daytime. Do you see any stars in the picture?

Hint - NO.

Why is that?

Are the stars not there?

No, they are all there, shining just as brightly as they always do (in other words, not all that brightly, and certainly not brightly enough to show up when the camera settings are 1/250 @ f8, and they will be during daytime...)

So why don't they show up in Apollo images?

Frankly, just from that last answer, you should realise why.

THE CAMERAS BEING USED ON THE MOON WERE SET UP TO TAKE DAYTIME EXPOSURES.

That's because the SUN was out shining brightly down upon the scene, and they obviously wanted to see the scene and the astronauts - which were all lit up brightly by the Sun....

If they had set the cameras to take a night time exposure, the entire landscape would have been bright white, no details whatsoever, and the light spill would have been a problem, probably wrecking the frames taken on either side.. Amongst all the flaring light, a few stars might have shown up, but as a record of mankind's visit the images would have all been wrecked...

The thing is, NASA are not dumb. They knew that the stars were not important..

They also knew about cameras, film and exposure settings.

They also knew about the lunar environment, and they understood that a blackish sky (no atmosphere) DIDN'T mean night time...

They carefully THOUGHT about the things that needed to be considered...

Nnicolette, do you now understand these things? It would be good if you did, because seriously, this "no stars" thing is pretty much the stupidest argument that Apollo deniers ever brought up. It is just completely and utterly daft. But that seems to be a requirement for Apollo denial.

[JesseCuster]

I hate to say it but the pic on that page looks fake as hell. For one there are no stars. No stars at all?

Do you know that's one of the most often repeated and ridiculously wrong claims from the faked moon landing conspiracy crowd? Of course there's no stars visible. The camera's were set to correctly expose for the surface of the moon, not for the sky. If the photos were taken such that stars were visible then the astronauts and moon surface would be completely washed out and overexposed.

And for two look at how the flag is rumpled and yet the top edge seems to have a support in it to keep it straight. In fact if you look closely it seems to be sticking out at the end. Wth nasa

The flag is rumpled because it had been just unfurled and the support is there because there's no air/wind to make a flag fly. It'd just flop down vertically like a regular flag in still air.

I genuinely don't understand your objection here. Do you think the flag should look flat and pristine like it had just been ironed? I don't understand.

Edited October 6, 2015 by JesseCuster

[Nnicolette]

Thank you to those of you who took the two seconds to properly explain for someone who had never seen the picture before instead of being a complete douche to me about my 'motive' for pointing out how odd the picture appears.

[Nnicolette]

Chrlz i also think its utterly daft to get such a thrill out of calling people names on the internet as if doing so proves your superior intelligence but hey whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

[Astra.]

Chrlz i also think its utterly daft to get such a thrill out of calling people names on the internet as if doing so proves your superior intelligence but hey whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I don't think he was calling you any names Nnicolette - it's more to do with his 'style' of posting. It took me a while to get use to it as well.

I understand he can come over as being a little 'brash' at times - but if you can put that aside - he is actually explaining and sharing things that he knows about - for those who may not be as well informed.

Hell - I'm still learning new things - no shame in that

[ChrLzs]

I'm gunna go broke if i have to pay you $5.00 every time you're nice to me, Astra.. so just cut it out...

Nnicolette, I apologise for sounding mean, but maybe this little story will help... Apollo was my 'thing' back in the 60's. I was a nerdy bright-eyed 11-year-old youngster who just loved aircraft and jet engines and rocketry, and when I found out they were going to go for the Moon, I was beside myself with enthusiasm. I just ate this stuff up, collected every news clipping, read every article, and began what was huge learning process, to the point that you can even now ask me *anything* about the Apollo program, and I probably won't have to look it up... I even visited and got to know some of the wonderful folks at Parkes radio telescope - they were instrumental in bring back the tv signals (may I recommend the quirky, slightly inaccurate, but really well-done film, "The Dish" - the kid in that is pretty much me!)

Even as that kid, I understood that this mission was going to be in space, and that is a very 'alien' environment. So what does that mean? Well, amongst other things like no, or 1/6 gravity, there was no air on the moon. Which results in a dead black sky in broad daylight! So these guys were working under a glaringly bright Sun in dazzlingly bright conditions, yet there was a black sky. Even as a kid (I was interested in cameras too) I knew that meant they would set their cameras up for daylight, and that means there was no way in the world that the camera would show any stars. Just the same as here on earth - in daytime do you see stars? No, of course not - but they are still there, shining just as brightly, even through that blue sky..

It also means that unlike at night time, where your eyes have opened right up and adjusted to the low light, their eyes could not do that... unless they went to a lot of trouble to shield their eyes they simply could not see the stars, just like their cameras.

Try it at home - from your brightly lit kitchen, see if you can see any stars by looking out thru the window. And then remember that your kitchen is not even close to how bright daylight is...

If (for God knows what reason) the astronauts wanted to see a star or two, they would have to spend about ten minutes with their eyes covered to dark adapt. Now that would be ten minutes of VERY valuable time, and bearing in mind they had huge white helmets and white gloves on, that process would have been difficult and could be dangerous - if they fell while their eyes were shut, that could damage their suits.. bad, bad thing (although as they discovered later - their suits were pretty dam tough so they didn't worry too much about a fall). But for what? They already had plenty of time to stargaze when their craft was in shadow on the way... On the Moon, they were interested in the MOON, you know - the brightly lit thing they were standing on, and that took up more than 180 degrees ie half their entire field of view?

It's just a completely daft idea, and yet Apollo deniers keep bringin' it up, and people like me get VERY sick of explaining this over and over.

Anyway, is there anything about all that you don't get? And may I ask, who gave you the idea?

[Merc14]

It's just a completely daft idea, and yet Apollo deniers keep bringin' it up, and people like me get VERY sick of explaining this over and over.

Anyway, is there anything about all that you don't get? And may I ask, who gave you the idea?

Explaining it over and over with little effect on the hardcore deniers. Thankfully there are fewer and fewer of these morons wandering about but they still number in the millions.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Merc14

[Astra.]

I'm gunna go broke if i have to pay you $5.00 every time you're nice to me, Astra.. so just cut it out...

[JesseCuster]

Thank you to those of you who took the two seconds to properly explain for someone who had never seen the picture before instead of being a complete douche to me about my 'motive' for pointing out how odd the picture appears.

Oh boo hoo!

You called the photo "ridiculous" and you question the fluttering of the flag and the lack of stars in the sky. That's straight out of the moon landing conspiracy playbook. Either you picked up these silly criticisms of moon photos from the moon conpsiracy nuts or you completely independently came up with the same criticism of how the flag and lack of stars are some how how and instead of simply asking why the photos and the flag and stars are the way they are, you simply dismissed the photo as "ridiculous".

In that respect, you can't blame people for simply assuming you're another of the same cookie cutter conspiracists who don't understand the photos and simply read these complaints online somewhere and dumped them here.

Perhaps in future you'll honestly and openly ask about something you don't understand instead of simply publicly dismissing that which you instantaneously don't understand as "ridiculous".