33 replies to this topic

[Habitat]

If indeed NASA has an eye to discrediting hoax nutters by releasing pictures, it is an incredibly sad state of affairs, in more ways than one.

[The Id3al Experience]

Dont they have a telescope that can see into very outer space? Kelper? If they can see into space, how come they cannot produce ground level photos?

[MID]

The Id3al Experience, on 07 September 2011 - 11:17 PM, said:

Dont they have a telescope that can see into very outer space? Kelper? If they can see into space, how come they cannot produce ground level photos?

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!

[Czero 101]

hortie, on 07 September 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

Why would the rover be there? They drove there got out and walked back? Seems odd and/or lame/or fake

Do some research...

Apollo 17's LRV was parked there so that it's video camera could capture this:





Cz

[Czero 101]

The Id3al Experience, on 07 September 2011 - 11:17 PM, said:

Dont they have a telescope that can see into very outer space? Kelper? If they can see into space, how come they cannot produce ground level photos?

A ground-based optical telescope with the sufficient resolution to produce recognizable images of the Apollo landing sites and the artifacts left behind would require a mirror approximately 200 meters in diameter.

Not only is that financially prohibitive, it would be virtually impossible to construct such a mirror and have it keep its shape. Assuming it didn't destroy itself due to its own weight, it would distort itself to a degree that it would be unusable.



Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 08 September 2011 - 03:16 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

Folks, I've just had to clean this thread.  This thread has been placed in the Space Exploration section for a reason.  This is NOT the Conspiracies Board!  For the purpose of this thread, the assumption is made that the photos are real, and NASA is just releasing new footage for those with an interest in the Space program.  We don't need to hear about Conspiracy theories as to why NASA may be making this up, or searching for alleged inconsistencies - there's plenty of material already in the Conspiracies Board for you to post about; edit: just to clarify - it is ok to ask questions here seeking clarification about photos or details, but it is NOT ok to blame the Nazi's or Photoshop for faking the entire event!  Future posts in this thread that break these conditions will be deleted without notice, and in certain circumstances (eg, repeated pattern of behaviour) Warnings and/or suspensions may be issued.  Thank you,

~ Paranoid Android (Forum Mod. Team)

Edited by Paranoid Android, 08 September 2011 - 08:37 AM.

[Rob Awesome]

I think the pictures a pretty cool, but I still want to see more detail, more I say!  

And as for the historical signifigance we shouldn't forget these perfectly preserved artifacts are conclusive proof that advanced electronics and equipment was once made in America.

[MID]

hortie, on 07 September 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

Why would the rover be there? They drove there got out and walked back? Seems odd and/or lame/or fake

What Cz showed you was some video of the lunar liftoff of Apollo 17's LM, shot from the Rover's TV camera, which is still sitting in the exact spot (visible on the photo) that it shot the videom from 39 years ago.).

[MID]

Rob Awesome, on 08 September 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

I think the pictures a pretty cool, but I still want to see more detail, more I say!  

And as for the historical signifigance we shouldn't forget these perfectly preserved artifacts are conclusive proof that advanced electronics and equipment was once made in America.

One day, i think someone with a digital camera will be down there, snapping some shots of the place as it is...sort of like they did with Kodak film all those many years ago when they were there last!

[petermm2000]

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?

[petermm2000]

MID, on 07 September 2011 - 11:32 PM, said:

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]

petermm2000, on 15 September 2011 - 06:10 PM, said:

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 by Czero 101, 15 September 2011 - 06:50 PM.

[MID]

petermm2000, on 15 September 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

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???

Quote

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?

Quote

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 by MID, 15 September 2011 - 10:19 PM.

[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 ...




**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 by aquatus1, 25 September 2011 - 10:35 PM.

[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..