Perhaps what that animation of the mountain or massif shows is that given different times of day (I think lunar days are many Earth days long) and slightly different camera angles, the shadows and details are revealed in changing ways. That might indicate an outdoor location, and even a real backdrop.

the silouette isn't the same , i could understand a different shadow filling the overall shape , but a different silouette like that , sorry but its strange to say the least , looks like two different mountain , and not only 2 different time of the day.

mmmh , when edited augmenting the brightness contrast , the silouette looks more similar in fact , even if the overall feeling is strange about this picture to me , but not as much as i first tough.

Posty, I can't find AS15-87-11479?

Posty made a typo... its actually image # 11749

Here ya go:

Standard Res - 191 Kb:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11749.jpg

Hi-Res - 1.2 Mb:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11749HR.jpg

Apollo 15 Image Library at ALSJ:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html



Cz

You can see the outline, just, in this super higher res, non colour/brightness/contrast corrected version.

ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS15_AS15-87-11749.JPG

PS: Thanks for the image reference update, Czero!

You can also see the outline a bit clearer in the previous image:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11748HR.jpg




No worries...



Cz

Thanks to Czero for helping out with my typo.

AS15-87-11749 was taken during the SEVA. The sun angle was 13.0-13.3 degrees.
AS15-88-11865 was taken at the start of EVA3, when the sun angle had increased to approx 42 degrees.
Source

Clearly, the differences in the appearance of the mountain is at least in part due to different shadow lengths.

Good evidence in favour of Apollo methinks.

Hat, I thank you for your comments.







On of those "opinions" about Apollo is based upon conjecture, lack of information, and technical knowledge, Hat.
What we attempt here is to provide the rational and critical thinking skills necessary to obtain the knowledge which is absent.

The other opinion is based upon experiential knowledge. Both opinions may be valid, but the validity of the latter is much stronger.



As I said clearly, if that is your position, fine. It's distressing, but it's your prerogative.




No one is accusing that it is not air. We know it is not air. It is you who seems to accuse NASA of faking the missions, and you who contends, in the face of a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary, that it is air. The burden is upon you to prove that. I don't think you understand the basics here...




I said I welcome your questions.
That clearly indicates that the channels of communication are open.
This miniscule issue, already explained more than is necesasary, is only important to you--and that's because you don't understand the basis for the explanations and wish to continue to ignore the explanations, and the simple experiments which would show you the resonableness and common-ness of the occurrance--in favor of getting an "official explanation" that makes sense to you.

As I've told you, there will be no official explanation (it's impossible), only scientifically educated possibilities, and those explanations put forth for your consideration don't make sense to you for obvious reasons.

Thus, I must reiterate:

Exactly what the narrator says it is (no matter how silly he attempts to be in this addendum to the Apollo Internet lunacy).
The flag is (obviously) moving because the astronaut is manipulating it.

Hat, I addressed your mountain issue:




That's all there is to it. You ARE looking at a great mountain picture, of a great big mountain off in the distance. Was there some question you had about it?


(p.s...the two photos superimposed on that gif by posty are different looking because the one taken during the SEVA was a 60mm lens color shot focused on the mountain in the distance from a position about 20 feet up off the surface, and the flag photo is a 500 mm lens shot with focus on the subject, which is some three miles closer than the mountain. That, plus the obvious difference in sun angles between the two, which makes a very large difference on the Moon).

This post inspired the creation of a video by myself. This will be the first of hopefully many!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSroT3RkmQ

Good work on that video TNT



Cz

Well, I'm glad it inspired you, I look forward to the others you create. can you answer this though? If we really did go to the moon, what besides collecting moon rocks and soil did humanity gain from the journey? And if it was that monumental as you imply in your video, why has'nt the U.S. gone back there again?

It suited many interests, and in particular, scientific and economic and industrial stimulous to America. I also think that when so many brilliant minds were faced with numerous test-pilot types who were useful to help realize a great and rewarding challenge, it promoted a "can-do" attitude.

We should all be thankful that NASA walked the middle ground, to give everyone the realization of a great dream, as Neil Armstrong felt back in 1969.

Maybe, one gain has been in extending the practical use of petroleum and natural gas reserves. Mostly in the U.S., perhaps. But, that benefits mankind. Reduces pollution per unit of energy wasted. Perhaps the oil problems and embargos of the 1970's, which led to calls for higher efficiency in automobiles and air handling systems saved the U.S. money, and the world pollution, while extending non-renewable resources.

Other obvious things are needs for increased education to accomodate a high-tech endeavor (Lunar Program). And, better high-tech equipment for the medical world.

Thus, perhaps engineering advances from the aerospace disciplines translated into better use of resources, and better equipment for different sectors of society. Hopefully, that can repeat.

It also put a "spin" on space, as far as the public was concerned- that it should be used for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and the Soviets have apparently seen the light, and so far, respect space. Not that it matters a whole heck of a lot, if things go to heck in a handbasket between superpowers...

Not that they would be so foolish- the jet stream would blow it right back in your face.

Going to the Moon was something we can all find enriching, in my opinion. All of us. We can live, knowing that at least we got that far, in mankind's history. We can discuss that, and our mutual differences, hopefully in a civilized manner.

Ah, I'm afraid if you don't know the answer to that one you never will!



They did. Three flights to the moon that didn't land (Apollo 8, 10, 13), and six that did (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17).

With more to come planned for 2020!

Actually, he has been given the answer to that question before. Mid posted this in a response to another of ninety9's posts:



... but it looks like ninety9 either didn't read the reply or may have chose to ignore it.



Cz

It doesnt really matter now whether or not we landed on the moon because we have gone so much further then that in space exploration...why look back when there is so much more to discover for our future.

Because lies hurt...

Man himself has traveled & discovered squat in space exploration in comparison to the size of the universe. As far as man going to the moon, tis only a walk from one side of our house to the other, we havn't even met a planetary neighbours yet lol!

Which makes what we have done that much more meaningful. The finite confronting the infinite. The mind of the Universe, turning and looking 360 degrees in all directions. Reaching out to know itself in a flash.

Thank you, NASA.

Not if your name is Bennett, Percy or Sibrel, then you can make a decent living selling them.

Is this entire thread really about the moon landing and whether or not it was a hoax?

Out of all the conspiracy theories I've come across, claiming the moon landing was faked has quite possibly made the least sense to me.

I usually at least take interest in a conspiracy theory out of curiosity if nothing else, but this one seems like it has zero to base it on.

Depends what side your on bud

Hear hear. I'm not sure if the entire thread is about the moon landings (plural!), but I presume so. Of course, you have to take into account an elusive number of repetitiveness and double/triple posts.

This is small compared to the last one

Yeah but this as betta spelars

I'm on the side of science, logic, common sense and overwhelming evidence bud.

So we agree on some things then Just love the sarcasm
The problem most people have with the 'moon landings' is the fact it's all to be believed from an American stand point, 'you know - the Global messiahs' bud.

1) Every single lunar landing and liftoff scene are odds , and should enable questioning of the apollo program at the very least (if you didn't saw a lunar liftoff or landing for a while , rocommend you a quick check on youtube , search lunar liftoff , landings) note the quality of the video aren't the biggest problem , the main problem is the overall motion , that left a strong feeling of fakes.

2) In a apollo 15 , a flag is seen moving from a complete standstill , just when the astronaut pass close to it , exactly as it could have happened if the scene was filmed in an atmosphere (well on earth) , this should enable questioning also at the very least.

3) The official radiations datas of the apollo program are nothing spectacular at all , and given that they have allegedly crossed the VAb's twice and gone beyond our protective magnetosphere , where the radiations are higher than in classical low earth orbit , they should have set up new radiations exposure records of their respective time , yet it is not the case , and when you know that the very Earth shield against a good 1/3 of all incoming radiations constantly , while in low earth orbit , that's mean when you are farther away , the earth shield less obviously (it block less angles and the GCR radiations commes from all angles) , that alone count for a FREE increase of radiations whatever you do you can't escape that background increase , of course the very earth protective magnetosphere also shield a lot against all incoming radiations , that's a second unavoidable increase of radiations you have there when you are outside of it , as they claimed to be , all of this is free increase you can't escape this even if you think about it very hard...

Once again all the apollo mission official radiations are nothing special at all , and in fact they softly fall into comparable Low Earth Orbit figures , the only peak radiation is the one of apollo 14 , wich is 6 times higher than apollo 11 one for example , but in fact even this peak mission , is beaten by Gemini 10 , twice higher radiation/hours than apollo 14 , STS-31 also yeld such 'high' level , both are Low earth orbit mission , making pretty clear that this apollo 14 peak , could very well be a low earth orbit mission as well just at a higher latitude/altitude nothing more , also they've claimed hours and hours of EVA in which they are less protected than in the Command module , and should have logically had an tremendous increase of radiations , too bad that , when you look at the datas , and take for example apollo 15 mission , wich have 295 hours total time , including 19 hours of EVA in , about 0,25g/cm2 shielding , plus 47 hours on the moon surface in a thin shielded Lunar module (compared to the Command module again) , they only end with an official total radiations of 0,30 rad (roughly 0,75 rem) , wich is the kind of radiations you could have INSIDE the ISS station , in low earth orbit , for the equivalent time , ISS is better shielded than the Command module ever was by the way , proving that these radiations are nothing more than low earth orbit ones.

3a) They've claimed to have send man outside our protective magnetosphere while the Sun was at his peak years , and during peak years , there is a lots of sunspots , and every single sunspots can yeld unpredictable solar flares , solar flares than can increase the radiations in a spectacular way (you can have several solar flares per day in peak of activities) , this is totally unlogical to send man outside our magnetosphere in such a dangerous chaotic period , even if the background GCR are lower in the solar peak years (at least for what i could find on the subject) , the serious threat of an unpredictable solar flares unfortunately outbalance the overall risk and make it fall in the highly unlikely , to launch man outside protective magnetosphere in these condition , in my point of view , also they've claimed to monitor the sun , and some think they've predicted solar flares , this is false , monitoring the sun at that time meant , they observed when a solar flares was already comming , and nothing more than this , they can't predict solars flares to this day , they certainly couldn't back in the seventie's , unless they've made an incredible 'mistake' somewhere , the only thing can know is how high is the risk , because they see more sunspot , and nothing more than that , so remember this , in solar peak years there is more sunspots , so a constant higher risk ... , yet that's the moment they've chosen to launch them ? cross fingers guys !

4) they've claimed to have done EVA's on the way back to earth , in other words , when the mission was more or less completed already , this high-risk for low gain (in my point of view) prove how fake the whole affaire is , but even if you don't think this , take a look a these EVA's , they are probably the most comical 0 g's EVA's you will ever see in your life , they move exactly like they're attached with wires at chest level , and certainly not like if they where in 0 g .

- these points are of course my opinion on this , and there is probably many many others ones , i think they are the most interesting and the ones that enables the questioning of this apollo mission (that i believe to be a fraud) .

This is the key thing about your post and that of every other HB, it consist entirely of opinion and belief and is devoid of evidence. Hoax belief is exactly that, a belief. In this it is nothing like science and more like a cult. Believers will follow their beliefs despite evidence not because of it. Truth searchers will base their beliefs on evidence. If ever strong evidence is produced that backs up the HBs point of view then I will change my belief. That evidence does not seem to exist, if did someone would have posted it by now.

I do have proof that certain people did not go to the moon, but the fear of being ridiculed and slapped by every nasa nut here would have me becoming a member of the scientology group and rubbing shoulders with the little guy

Well we total disagree on what evidence is. You seem to think that the personal opinion of people with no specialist knowledge of a subject = evidence.

Which is exactly why the Soviet Union would have exposed any such fraud. They didn't because they, like everyone else that understands the evidence, realises that the Apollo landings were one of the most documented historical facts of all time.

Your post seems to confirm that the problem that many (if not all) hoax believers seem to have is a pathelogical hatred of the US (or at least it's government). It seems that they are simply not prepared to accept that a US Government project could have achieved something as grand as Apollo. They will cling to this belief despite the fact that there is zero evidence to back them up and vast amounts of evidence to prove that they are wrong.

Edited to add text highlighted in blue.

the evidence is not a single apollo radiations figure couldn't have been achieved on normal low earth orbit condition , and the peak figure (apollo 14) only shown what you can already do once again in low earth orbit , with just a higher altitude , but maybe you want to show me your evidence showing me how the 19 hours of apollo 15 eva wouldn't make an increase of radiation on that 295 hours long mission ? wich is of course totally absurd given the environment in wich they occured , no magnetosphere protection , high scattering of secondary emission on the very moon surface , all of this increasing radiations in a trememdous way , also note always exposed to the sun , unlike earth orbit in wich they are roughly exposed half of the time.

Well, I imagine I could prove that some people never went to the Moon as well, belial.
I only ever knew 24 who did! I think 18 of them are still alive...18 of 6 billion or so.

Since that constitutes only 0.000001% of humanity (that's 1/1,000,000th of a percent), statistically, you could say no one's been to the Moon!

What should the figures have been? What is the actual level of radiation in the Van Allen Belt? Unless you can produce this figures (and not a single HB has done so yet) then this is totally meaningless. It is just more waffle and more personal opinion, what it is not is evidence. So come on then, produce the figures from a reputable source.

i don't talk in the particular VAb's issue wich is of course important , but just a bonus for me , because i know how this can be turned and twisted (the last one i've heard being , they avoided the VAb's by passing above) the last one was they crossed at the edge so less radiations , seems like everytime this issue is raised they are taking less radiation ... , so i will not insist much on the VAb's there , but mostly on the 19 hours of EVA's on a totally unprotected surface , constantly bombarded by GCR , and in this case constantly exposed to the sun and all possible radiations he could yeld , and the final total radiation figure being absolutely hilarous , a 0,30 rad wich again , is what you could have on ISS station (inside) or MIR , or Shuttle , in low earth orbit (these craft are all better shielded than the Command module was , and much more than a spacesuit of course and more than the lunar module also.

They are odd because you don't know what you're looking at. In reality, they are quite normal and expected.
A "strong feeling of fakes" is not a substitute for understanding what you're actually seeing.
That can be obtained here...if you would ask specifics about it.





Already killed... ...thoroughly.



Already killed as well. Perhaps reading some of the many posts concerning this subject, and learning about about radiation in its various forms, would help you understand that it was not an operational problem for anyone who's ever been in space.





Thank you for the expert opinion!
I have learned alot from this piece of conjecture.

-


Again...seek and ye shall find. If you want to know, rather than believe, you can ask about it.
You're having a very tough time of it vis-a-vis any substantive argument in support of your positions. In other words, you can't prove any of them, as Waspie has so directly indicated.

There is a statement that applies here, me thinks: "Get with the program!"

ASK...

There's a whole lot you can learn.

Believing in silliness is a lazy man's way out, when the facts are right there for you to learn about, study, and come to understanding of. It's the meaning of life!

What are the radiation levels on the Moon? What radiation level would astronauts ACTUALLY be exposed to?
Same prpoblem LLL, you are spouting personal opinion and claiming it is evidence. Same challenge, produce the figures from a reputable source and show that they support your belief.

They may hurt but there has to be a point where we need to move on...as far as what we have discovered its been quite alot compared to what we knew then, we've discovered bacteria on Mars, a slight sign of life, water on the moon ect...people should probably be more worried about where we are going to live after the earth is all used up and the ozone is on its last bubble then whether we actually landed on the moon or not....

I ask mid , i ask you what are the official VAb's radiations readings of all the apollo missions , (this one for waspie don't let it down he want these VAb's figures he want them badly , from memory they are of 2.37 rad/hours average but i can be wrong tough ) , what are the offical EVA's radiations exposure of each landed (allegedly) apollo mission , in particular the strange apollo 15 figures wich i must confess is totally unlogical for me , answer to these question , and only then you might have started to be able to think that you 'killed' the radiation issue MID , and thank you for the good laughs again , also your flagpole rotation deserve an explanation i guess , what his the inclinaison angle of your rotating pole ? i quickly double checked , it could be more than 15 or 20 degree , wich again add a slower motion of that eventual rotation (pulled by a 1/6th g gravity wich is already extremly slow compared to earth one) and remember the friction is still there it is not a 'free fall' rotation.

Aaauughh!

LLL, what are you talking about?
Is turned and twisted your way out of doing a little simple research and understanding the clear explanations given?
A bonus...?

You can find all this for yourself.
Van Allen radiation was a minimal issue. The trajectory was planned with those ~30 degree Earth orbital inclinations to have the spacecraft pass through the shallowest parts of the belts (please study the structure of the belts and you will clearly see this) subsequent to TLI, so as to minimize time of exposure (which is the key to dosage in this type of radiation).

This is not a twist and turn. It is a pragmatic fact (smart people did this stuff, LLL. Some really, really smart ones), and the only explanation given you.

The information has been provided you so you might learn these things yourself.
If this is the manner in which you study and learn (by not doing so), I wonder, what is your purpose here?

ok and for the retunr they had the same angle ? , also since you already know the radiations yelded by these VAb's crossing , can you give one (or even everyone if you have) apollo mission VAb's radiation exposure in and out ? for example apollo 11 , 0.18 rad , what percentage was VAb's radiations ? or apollo 15 0,30 rad , what percentage for that one (i agree apollo 15 is my favorite , with the flag and all that).

I know this is a bit off topic, but I can't let this go.
Sadly we haven't yet.

Again, no we haven't. We have not found any life off of the Earth yet, we have discovered that the conditions on Mars MAY have been ablr to support life in the past, that doesn't mean that it still exists or that it ever existed.

Again this is a huge exaggeration, some observations have suggested that it is possible that some water ice may exist in some of the permenantly dark craters at the Lunar poles, but it has not been confirmed.

Whilst this is possibly true I am sure both sides in the debate will agree that if the US did lie about Apollo it would be hugely important. It would indicate that the US government has been lyiing about one of the most important achievments of the 20th Century and is continuing to lie. It would have had to have carried on this lie through the Administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr (and probably the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson before that). If true it would totally undermine any trust in the US Government. That would be a pretty important event.

All I can say is that if the HBs truely believe all thise administrations managed to keep the lie going that have a lot more faith in the competence of the US Government than I do.

Rockerchick,

I think you're missing the point of this thread.
It is actually (and very hopefully) to teach about things that HBs don't know. Education is very important, especially in this day and age.

We have indeed discovered so much more than we knew in 1972 about the planets and the universe at large. No doubt about it (although I think you're exaggerating some of the findings a wee bit). . But I think that anyone who actually believes that Apollo didn't happen is so far removed from understanding what science has in fact discovered pertainint to the universe since (they don't have the slightest concept of what Apollo discovered, and what Apollo has resulted in) that it's likely pointless to discuss these matters with them.

Further, the concept of the Earth being all used up and the ozone layer being on its "last bubble" is more political fodder than anything concerning substantive science, and has nothing to do with what this thread is about. It is, however, a clear indication of my point...that education, and rational, critical thinking, is something that must be cultivated in many minds today.

All I can say is:

I AGREE WITH YOU 100%

MID you said , dosage was the key point while crossing the VAb's , it is certainly the case , but did you know these partocular doses ? i didn't i only know the total radiation , but since you seems to be confident in these dose (that are the key point) can you give us the doses of these apollo missions ? , the ones that crossed the VAb's of course , and also , if you know the doses for the particular EVA time exposure it could be very interesting , remember that apollo 15 , 295 hours , 19 hours of EVA in thin 0,25g/cm2 shielding , only yelded a magical 0,30 rad overall , this is clearly the biggest achievment of all the apollo missions (if they are real...) , so knowing what are the percentage of VAb's radiation (that they crossed twice) and the EVA of that toall 0,30 rad could ba amazing , do you know this ? and if you don't how can you be certain that this official number isn't anything else than a low earth orbit one ? remember that i also think in the same apollo mission , a flag moved from a standstill because of an atmospheric disturbance , of course if you could prove that these apollo 15 radiations are really genuine cislunar (full scale radiation) datas , then the flag issue will also lose a little 'strenght'.

since i saw you like to educate people on-the-fly , with your unprecedented knowledge , i will be glad if you educate me on these two important question (for me at least).

What did they use to blast-OFF from the moon on Apollo 16, what kind of explosion was that on this video?
I'm not saying it's fake, but, it looks like a Hollwood B movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk5zQgNgV8Q...feature=related



Here on Apollo 15, are those spots on the camera lens, or are those stars in the background?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA...feature=related

let me say it for you then please , it IS fake .

As you have avoid backing up any of your claims so far (indeed after making a claim about radiation you then have to ask someone else {MID in this case} what it was, showing that you are not arguing from a point of knowledge but from a point of ignorance of the subject).

So let me ask you (and ninety9) another question, what exactly should a launch from the Moon look like?

I feel your pain.



Willful ignorance can be maddening.

For instance, there should be NO DOUBT as to the answer to the question "where are the stars"?, yet there are still websites argueing that the lack of stars in the Moon images means that the landings were faked.

The answers are available, however you can't make a person learn something that they don't want to learn.

Sad but true...