Having just re-read my own post above and several of the others leading up to it, it is obvious that this thread is becoming a little heated again. Lets all cool down and try to be polite to each other even if we disagree with the others point of view. I, for one, apologise for the tone of my last post. This thread has needed very little moderating of late, let's keep it that way.

Why is the argument wrong?


http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-54205/Moon (a small amount of dust circulates within a few metres of the lunar surface.)

Dan Dare

Turbonium, are you seriously trying to say that they're stage lights and lens flares? Because your "stage lights" seem to match up perfectly.


Or were you just trying to provide some fun distraction for 'us' to keep us busy for a bit while you're trying to pull together a counter-argument on the craters?

I don't think we're talking about a visible or even easily detectable amount of dust here. It's on the same density of thin smog, if that even. And it's apparently created by large impacts.
The lunar atmosphere is kind of comparable to solar wind...of miniscule density, but there. Certainly not capable of any material mechanics when we think of our atmosphere and wind erosion, etc. It's not an atmosphere that could support or turbulate the dust thrown off by the rover wheels.

For the stage lights, please tell us this is in jest. Where are there any double shadows? What is creating the bright glare just above the stage lights?

MY point is.
Why is it that the dust and there is a lot of it that is thrown up by the moon buggy's wheels, just fall straight back to the moons surface.
If you look at the films of the moon buggy the dust is thrown up a lot and then settles down very fast.

The moon is 1/4 the size of Earth, so the moon's gravity is much less than the earth's gravity, 83.3% (or 5/6) less to be exact. Finally, "weight" is a measure of the gravitational pull between two objects. So of course you would weigh much less on the moon. Imagine how far you could jump on the moon! The Apollo astronauts apparently had fun :-)

If the astronauts are affected when they jump, will the dust not be effected in a similar manner and return to the surface at a slower rate than hear on earth.


Dan Dare

How do you know the dust falls back to earth too fast? Do you have any examples, calculations, observations?

The negligible atmosphere on the Moon has virtually no effect on the dust as it falls. Therefore, it follows a ballistic trajectory based upon the amount of energy imparted on it as it falls back to the surface



Objects of different masses in a vacuum and in a given gravity field will fall at the same rate. This was theorized by Galileo centuries ago and proven during Apollo 15. Here's the video of the "Hammer and Feather" experiment performed by Dave Scott:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PE81zGhnb0w

Obviously the Hammer has much more mass than that of the feather, but since they are in a near perfect vacuum, they fall at the same speed and reach the surface at the same time. The same principle holds true for astronauts and Moon dust.


Cz

The effect is lens flare, which is a common occurrance in Apollo photos...especially one's with the Sun just outside of the field of view of the camera, like this one....

Turbs

I'm having trouble believing that someone who's spent as much time as you have looking at Apollo images doesn't know that this is lens flare.

Look at the next two images in the pan sequence, shown below. Even if the photos were staged, it would be lens flare. Not even open to speculation.



I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this one unless there are newcomers or lurkers who aren't sure what lens flare is.

OK, Dan, I think I can understand what you're asking.


What you have to do is compare apples to apples first of all.
You've asked if a given quantity of dust, being tossed up to some level...let's say 4 feet...for the sake of argument, on the Earth would fall back to the surface at a faster rate than it would on the Moon, being that the gravity on the Earth is 6 times that of the Moon.

Let's take away the variable that makes the two environments radically different--that being the atmosphere of the Earth.

Now, both the Moon, with its 1/6 g (~5.33 FPS/S), and the Earth, with its 1 g (~32 FPS/S) are apples to apples.

In that case, the answer to your question is yes, the dust (or any object for that matter) will fall back to the Earth faster than it would on the Moon.

A 4 foot drop on the Moon would take about 1.2 seconds. The same 4 foot drop on Earth would only take about 1/2 second.



However, on the Earth, the atmosphere is present, and when you're talking about microfine, very light particles of pulverized dirt, like dust, those particules are going to naturally interact with the particles of air, and be profoundly effected by them.

What you see on Earth definitely resembles a slower rate of fall to the surface, which is seemingly contradictory to the gravity involved, but very much in conformance with aerodynamic effects on very light objects.

What you actually see on Earth are varying rates of fall in a given bunch of dust. Larger clumped together parts of the dust that don't completely diffuse in the atmosphere fall faster, and the diffuse material will fall at slower and slower rates, some of it actually being suspended in the air for some time (clouds). Eventually, it all settles down, but as you may have observed, a dust cloud, which can only occur in an atmosphere, can linger for some time.

The overall impression would tend to be that dust on Earth, kicked up to a given height, would fall slower than on the Moon, despite the gravity difference.
This is entirely because of the atmosphere, and the fine particles of dust interacting and mixing with molecules of air.

No such thing happens on the Moon, so everything up there falls uniformly...slower than it would on Earth if the Earth were a vacuum, but the Earth isn't a vacuum, so you can't really compare the two with diffuse objects that are subject to atmospheric drag.

You can try a little experiment to show this to yourself.

Take a pinch of some very fine substance...a tiny pinch of flour, corn strach, a piece of cigarrette ash...anything like that.
Hold it at head level in front of you, and rub your fingers together, releasing the mashed up dust you create, and watch how long it takes those fine particles to fall to the ground.

Alot longer than a half second or so--which is what they should fall at, if there was no atmosphere.
I once did this with a cigar ash, to illustrate this very thing. From about 4 feet up, particles were still descending to the ground 6 seconds after release.

If the Earth were a vacuum, these particles would've taken around a half second to drop to the ground, no matter what their size. On the Moon, they'd take about 1 1/4 seconds.

Thus--as you can prove to yourself by simple experiment--the reason dust appears to fall slower here on Earth, when logic tells you it should fall faster, is strictly because of atmospheric resistance involving very low mass tiny particles.

I hope maybe that answered your question???

I can sure understand that position Posty.
Didn't we go though this about a year ago or something?

Directly up sun...Sun maybe 10-15 degrees above the field of view....how can you not have lens flare?
It's typical...on all such shots.

AS12-46-6806


AS14-64-9060


AS16-107-17430


AS17-134-20413

Thank you MID

That is my point, the dust that is being thrown up from the moon buggy is not falling back slow enough.
Why is this?

Dan Dare

Hi Dan Dare

Are you saying that your impression from watching the video is that it's not falling down slowly enough? Or have you measured the time it takes for dust to fall from a certain height? How fast do you expect the dust to take o fall from a certain height?

If it's your impression rather than empirical evidence that leads you to think it's falling too slowly, I suspect it's because we're accustomed here on Earth to seeing dust/sand taking longer due to the amospheric effects described by MID. If you've analysed the video footage, can you supply the figures?

Cheers

Yes its my impression, also if you look at the buggy bouncing it dosent give the impression you would expect to see from the said gravity.

Dan Dare

MID (Government Agent)

Ministry for Information Debunking

Dan Dare

Interesting. Most HBs say that if you double the playback speed of the rover footage, it looks just like it should on Earth. I guess the moral of the tale is, we can't rely purely on our subjective opinion when it comes to analysing footage filmed in vacuum in 1/6th g!

Just had to get that in LOL

Really I want to believe that we went to the moon, but there is so many idiosyncrasies in the information it makes it hard.

First it was a race, and just about every race has its cheats.

Dan Dare

Well, I've made a photographs of one of my friends where it looked like his arm was chopped off. Or one where it looked like he was just about to fall over, while he was just walking.

Things might look wrong to you, but without actually checking whether it is, you don't know for sure. For example, have you tried to calculate the time it takes for the bit of dust to get up and down? d = .5gt² , it's really easy to use if you know how to do it. You might find numbers that don't match up at all. Or you might find numbers that do match up. Using this technique, it's the objective way to say "this is wrong". Having a "gut feeling" about stuff is okay. But even your gut feeling might be completely wrong. (Just like with optical illusions and stuff like that.)

Dan Dare,

Do you have access to a science or physics teacher you can talk to about the Apollo vids who can walk you through the math involved? I think that if you did so, it would clear up a lot of misgivings you have.

One of my points exactly (you can not believe all that you see)

Dan Dare

It was my teachers including the sience and math's teachers who at the time of the first Apollo mission to the moon, douted as to weather it could be done.

As for your teachers have they been there?

Dan Dare

You're welcome Dan...

But I thought your point involved the observation that dust on Earth seemed to fall slower than it does on the Moon...when your impression was that because of our higher gravity , dust here ought to fall faster.

I think I covered that one.
You are now stating that the dust doesn't fall slow enough, in your opinion, on the Moon.

Without some form of substantiation for your claim, I can't answer the "why is this?" part...because you're not stating how fast it should fall...in your opinion. You're merely stating that it ought to be slower than it is observed.

I can help you with the how fast part, however.

I'll round things off for simplicity's sake.
The acelleration of gravity on the Moon's surface is ~1/6 that of Earth, as we all acknowledge. The Earth's acelleration of gravity at sea level is what we call 1 g, or ~32 feet per second for second. That means that something falling on Earth will acellerate by 32 feet per second, every second that it falls (not accounting for any atmopheric drag, of course).
Thus, on the Moon, things will fall at a rate that increses by ~5.3 feet per second, every second. For simplicity's sake, let's just say 5 feet per second.

On the Moon, there is no atmosphere to speak of, so a uniform motion equation is usable to calculate how fast something should be falling at any given point in its fall. If you know the distance an object is falling, its initial velocity, and the acelleration of gravity, you can calculate the time required for something to fall a given distance.

As pertains to dust kicked up by LRV wheels, you're looking at a complex variable problem, involving a million different particles, largely assuming different upward trajectories because the force imparted varies based upon how the particles were caught by the LRV tire treads. Some have a little more initial velocity...some a little less. The result is a diffuse mass of dust moving up in ballistic arcs and falling again in varying ballistic arcs. Each particle may be slightly different in the amount of time it stays aloft, but we can certainly visualize an average of the whole mass ascending and then descending. We really don't know the amount of impulse imparted to the dust from the wheels...but we can clearely see how high it goes...on average.

Despite the fact that the descent of the mass of dust is variable to a degree, we can time it from it's average maximum height to the point of its impact back on the surface. At maximum height, it begins its descent at velocity zero. Thus we can use the following relation to calculate how long it should take to fall.

Multiply the acelleration of gravity (5 FPS) by the height (in FT) by 2.
Take the square root of that product.
Divide that by the acelleration of gravity (5 FPS).

The answer is shown in the amount of seconds it will take for it to fall that distance.

For instance (again, rounded off), falls from zero initial velocity to the lunar surface will be approximately the following times for the following heights above the surface:

3 feet: ~1.1 seconds.
4 feet: ~1.25 seconds.
5 feet: ~1.4 seconds.
6 feet: ~ 1.55 seconds.
10 feet: ~2 seconds.

Etc, etc.


This is pretty slugggish compared to what the times would be for the same falls on Earth:

3 feet: ~ 0.4 seconds
4 feet: ~ 0.5 seconds.
5 feet: ~0.56 seconds.
6 feet: ~0.6 seconds.
10 feet: ~0.8 seconds.

In fact, it takes something on Earth about the same amount of time to fall 60 feet (+) as it does for something to fall 10 feet on the Moon.

At any rate, you can see above how long it should take for somthing to fall from a drop for various heights on the Moon.
Now what you do is take a close look at the films of that dust from LRV wheels. Measure how far it falls from it's peak height. You can certainly estimate the height close enough by scaling things to a known dimension (such as an LRV tire, which is 2.68 feet in diameter).

If you can carefully time the fall from the dust's peak...you will see that it is in very close conformance to the times I have listed above.

(This has been done before on Apollo films in some depth).

You will see that the dust falls exactly the way one would expect it to fall, and in the time expected in a 1/6 g gravity field in vacuum.

Sincerely:

MID (Government Agent)

Ministry for Information Debunking

This is interesting, and somewhat distressing Dan.

If I might ask:

Did your teachers indicate that at the time of Apollo, they doubted it could be done...and perhaps this was related to you later on?
Or, were you in secondary school at the time of Apollo and at that time they were saying they didn't think it could be done?

I think it makes a difference.

Most people, at the time of Apollo, had no doubts that we were moving in that direction. The average man of course (which would include elementary and secondary school science and math teachers...who generally were not specialists in aeronautics and astronautics) didn't understand the mechanics of the program, but if they'd followed U.S. space exploration activities for the past 8 years, they'd certainly understand what was about to be attempted.

And certainly, there were those in the general populous who had their doubts. When it was accomplished, even those intimately familiar or involved stood back with a look of, "My God, it's unbelievable!" on their faces.

I'm getting the impression that perhaps you were in school in the post-Apollo era, and that maybe your science and math teachers were just kids at the time of the program, and grew up to be educated in the years following the program's end.

It's a little hard for me to accept that a science or math teacher would've filled your mind with notions of a hoax...if you were in school at the time of Apollo. In years subsequent, it wouldn't entirely surprize me.

Perhaps you could clarify this for me??







These two quotes of yours point out something that I've addressed many times before. Of course, you're relatively new to this thread, so I'll re-state it:


There is no need for anyone to believe we went to the Moon.
It is possible to know we did.
Believing is what is done regarding a hoax.

When you speak of idiosyncracies, you are speaking of things which seem strange to you because you don't understand the sciences involved in the process of doing this program.
This is not said to demean your position, but it is a fact that HBs, as we are inclined to call them, all, uniformly, and without exception, advance positions in support of a lunar landing hoax which reflect a decided lack of scientific and technical knowledge.

Apollo is the most documented and substantiated scientific and technical accomplishment in human history. The amount of information available to the general public about this program is utterly massive, and dwarfs anything available regarding any other human occurrance.

The answers to your doubts are all available, and this is the place where you can get them.

I advise people to phrase their doubts in the form of questions about them, so answers can be given by one of the many knowledgable people on this board.
Doing so makes it fun.

You seem to be doing that to date, which I commend you for.
I encourage you to elaborate on your doubts, and ask as many questions as you like. We'll do our best to fill you in on what's up, how it happened, what happened, and why it happened, so you may research for yourself, learn some new things, and have some fun in the process.

Thanks MID that answers it for me than you.

Dan Dare

I was in secondary school at the time of Apollo.

Dan Dare

Dan,

I realise that this was intended in a light-hearted manner and that MID took it as such, but please be careful with posts such as these.

Not every one has as good a sense of humour as MID, indeed some people can be sensitive, even over-sensitive to such posts, comments like this can be taken out of context and people will hit the report button.

Many previous threads on the moon hoax theories have had to be closed because of flaming, flame-baiting, name calling and general nastiness, Several members have ended up banned because of their behaviour. This often starts with an accusation that someone is a disinformation agent and ends in accusations of lying.

You are fairly new to this subject and as such are almost certainly unaware of what has gone on before. It would be a shame if problems were caused by what was intended as a good natured joke.

Please do not consider this as any kind of warning, I know that you intended no offence and that none was taken, instead please accept it as a piece of friendly advice.

Thanks Waspie, yes I will take your advice, and promise not to let my sence of huour get the better of me.

Dan Dare

No, though one of my teachers applied to the Shuttle program as a Mission Specialist (they didn't accept him.)

He uses Apollo vids and data as part of his classroom instruction to this very day. He has no problem with Apollo data.

He is also a professional photographer and has no problem with the Apollo photos, either.

Hi Dan,
I well remember the years and flights leading to Apollo, how many times during science class I presented articles that were about Gemini (while completely butchering the pronounciation of "rendezvous"!!).
I was a spaceflight afficianado, just immersed myself in it. I didn't know the science, the technical stuff...didn't have the instant information access of the internet back then, and pickings at the library were slim (books not yet written...).
I remember the talk of the first Soviet spacewalk being hoaxed, how terrible blurred and indistinct the images were. I wasn't so convinced of the fakery, the Russians had shown their technical prowess before. It didn't make sense to fake such a thing for public acclaim, while striving for the ultimate goal of the Moon...it would progress the technology not a whit.

My teachers...I have had three that are actively employed in spaceflight, and have had the pleasure of working with a great number who were involved in spacecraft tracking and control. My section taught those who controlled and tracked spacecraft...it was their job. Some are bakers, some are carpenters, these people drove and tracked satellites...what an incredible profession.

I still know but a fraction of their expertise, but it is a fascinating, exact science. Some of it is completely against reason...in orbit you need to speed up to slow down, and vice versa. Sometimes thin layers of plastic film is a better shiels than an inch of lead. And the surface of the Moon was actually kind of cool when the Apollo astronauts landed, despite being in the lunar dawn's sunshine.

It's east to look at Apollo footage and say it doesn't look right. What do we have in the human experience to compare it to? The engineers devised all manner of odd contraptions to attempt to simulate it, but it wasn't until they got up there that they could actually see how everything would work and behave in 1/6g. They found that the astronaut's 300+ lb mass requires some anticipation for stopping. They discovered the clinging and abrasive nature of the dust. They discovered the great difficulty in estimating distances, with no reference objects. And they discovered that dust acts funny as opposed to our Earthly experience.

Yes, things are strange and behave unexpectedly up there, compared to what we "know". In the case of the rover wheel spray, it's difficult at best to accurately measure it. But it certainly doesn't cloud and billow, as would fine dust in an atmosphere. As for the idea of speeding up footage, some works, but the vast majority just looks silly, rapid and jerky.

Just imagine being on the Moon, a alien world in every respect...

respectfully, Dave

Is the U.S flag still there? Guess that would PROVE it once and for all.

I have doubts about the moon landing. Why haven't they ever gone back ..knowing Americans I would think there would be a Mcdonalds there by now.

I know why waste money on a giant rock right? Its the mooooooon ! Who wouldn't go back? Strange.

That one still makes my head spin, but a lot of science is like that, not just in the field of spaceflight.

Often science is counter intuitive. Sometimes you need to look into the underlying science to grasp what you are seeing. Sometimes (and quantum mechanics comes to mind) even that is not enough and the concepts are so beyond are normal experience that they are almost impossible for the layman to grasp. Sometimes we need to trust the experts on a subject. The reason experts ARE experts is because they have studied a subject. Not all opinions are equal, those of the person educated in a subject are far more likely to be valid than those of someone who is not (although that doesn't mean the experts are always right, or even that the experts always agree with each other).

The fact is that when it comes to the authenticity of Apollo there are no dissenting voices amongst the experts. There are no astronomers, physicists, aerospace engineers or photographers (except those with the motive of selling their books) that disbelieve in Apollo.

To do what so many conspiracy theorists do, disregard the opinions of the experts and to state that "authority should not be trusted" is arrogant and intellectually lazy. This is not some authority wielded at the point of a gun, it is an authority earned by hard work and intellect. It arrogant is to use this argument because it supposes that an uneducated (in the specific field) opinion is superior to that of the people who are actually qualified to comment on a subject. It is intellectually lazy because in one fell swoop it removes the obligation to actually learn the underlying science. We see this again and again when the same people repeatedly make the same incorrect comments about subjects such as photography when a trip to the library and the reading of a basic book on the subject could easily remove the stigma of repeatedly making themselves like daft to an audience that does understand concepts such as exposure and film latitude.

To accept ones limitations in a field and yield to those with a superior knowledge is not the "sheepie" thing to do, it is the intellectually honest thing to do.

I continuously ask myself why there is this reluctance amongst so many of the hoax believers to educate themselves in a subject they often claim to have researched. Is it because the are scared that they may actually learn the truth and have their belief system come crashing around their ears (an accusation that they constantly make against those that have actually been educated or have educated themselves on the relevant subjects)? Or is it because it would be embarrassing to admit that the have been taken i by third rate conmen such as Percy and Sibrel? I guess only those who grasp on to a totally discredited belief system whilst refusing to look at the evidence that shows how wrong they really are can ever provide us with an answer, but that isn't going to happen whilst they continue to hold on to their delusions.

I was never sold on the moonlandings. After reading through this thread, and believe me that took a good while, I found a post that struck a chord with me. It asked why isnt there a holiday for the event? Look at all the holidays we got for like, mothers and fathers day, valentines day, memorial day, so on and so on.....but no day in honor of what is no doubt humankinds greatest accomplishment? Makes no sense if ya think about it. We built a spaceship and walked around on a planet other than earth- that is nothing short of amazing. But it seems like they just want us to sort of forget about it and not think about it. I just think it could have been hoaxed for a number of reasons- not just to say we beat the Russians- who never landed a man on the moon, right?

I also heard that Neil Armstrong had a picture taken on the moon where he was displaying a Freemason flag. Can anyone tell me if thats true?

The actual nylon flags have no doubt disintegrated in the decades in the harsh lunar environment. The rest of the hardware is still there and pretty well intact. Why haven't we been back? Why weren't folks interested in watching the coverage of the later missions? A genuine lack of interest. The later missions were cancelled not long after Apollo 11 landed. It was a very expensive program, and the decision was made to move in a different direction.

There are plans in works to go back for longer stays, but many technical obstacles that Apollo didn't have to deal with in their short out-and-backs.

Do you have evidence of the flag "hardware" being "still intact"? (links, pictures, articles etc.) If so, that will convince me! I'm sure the hubble telescope can pick up the flag pole


How do they know folks werent interested..they never asked me. Let's see if they go back. Should be interesting.Thanks for your response bus

Nope, it cannot pick it up.



The Vietnam war was a lot more pressing matter for the public at that time and after while, going back to the moon couldn't really catch the attention of others than mainly scientists.

Cheers,
Badeskov

The laser reflector arrays deployed on three of the Apollo missions are still in use. They can be "seen" as point light sources by any observatory that fires a laser beam at them. The remaining Apollo scientific instruments left on the moon were switched off in 1977.

Glad to be of assistance!

That would lead me to ask...out of curiosity, what did they say to you?
I'm postulating that perhaps they expressed their doubts that what was about to happen could be successfully carried out?

Or maybe they told you the whole thing was faked?

Kinda like this representation of the ATV's maneuvers relative to the ISS...




Which is like a relative position diagram of a Shuttle's terminal approach maneuvers to the ISS... or like any other rendezvous on orbit.

Looking at that, one might wonder..."How in hell does a ship fly loop-the-loops in space?" or, "Why do they fly loops?"


It's rather counter-intuitive! However, understanding orbital mechanics, that's the only way it can possibly look! In fact, the entire catch up process of a Shuttle to the ISS, for instance, is a series of relative loop-the-loops like those seen above.

The orbit of the Shuttle is lower and eliptical at first. The ISS is relatively circular. Circular means a constant velocity, and elliptical means that you're faster when low, and slower when higher. When you're lower, you catch up, and when you get higher, your velocity slows and you don't catch up as fast. During terminal maneuvers, as shown in the graphic above (which you posted on the ATV thread), you see a retrograde loops backwards from the ISS and longer loping arcs below the ISS. They represent little maneuvers which raise the altitude to that of the ISS and produce the retrograde loop, and the forward dips are drops in altitude relative to the ISS and which result in an increase in relative speed. These loops and dips also represent relative positions that are simply functions of an unaltered ellipse.


It's kind of wacky to see, but completely natural! Wanna catch up? Slow down a little and drop lower. Wanna back off? Speed up and get higher! It sounds nuts...but that's pretty much what you do until you're in close proximity to your intended target. Only then can you dampen everything out and stationkeep...followed by direct inputs toward the target.

It's a very delicate, precise, and complicated space ballet which looks nuts...but couldn't actually be any other way!

No, Sun, we don't have any evidence of the flagpoles still being intact. We have plenty of evidence that they were put there, and don't really need any evidence that they're still there. The metal wouldn't have deteriorated. The nylon, sure, but the metal, no.

Unfortunately, we have absolutely no telescope, on Earth, or in space which has the capability of resolving something so tiny as a flag pole. The Hubble couldn't possibly get close to doing that.

Besides, we already have lots of pictures of the flags on the lunar surface, taken while we were there, like this one (July, 1971...):

AS15-88-11866



One of many taken of flags on the lunar surface. You'll never get anything close to that with anything but a camera on scene...




Looks to me like you were born a few years too late to ask!



I'll pass your sentiments onto the powers that be at NASA....!

I think it's a valid question...and I've wondered about that myself.
Alot of times, Federal holidays are put forth for political expediency, and many times, one wonders why we have one for a certain thing, but not one for another.
I think the lunar landing would certainly be a candidate, but as to why it's not?

Well, you'd probably have to figure Congress out to get an answer to that question, and figuring that body out would in my opinion be more complex than landing a man on the Moon!




It is not true.
In fact, there is only one photograph in existence of Neil Armstrong's entire figure on the lunar surface, and his back was to the camera as he worked at the MESA.
No Freemasonry involved there....




You're right, they never did.

For as many reasons as you might think of to support a hoaxed lunar landing, I think you might find alot more reasons right here that would show you it wasn't, and couldn't have been.

If you're inclined, feel free to ask about your doubts!

What do they use the reflector arrrays for exactly and what did they switch off and why? Thanks for all your responses and info everyone.

I'm surprised that there isn't a powerful enough telescope out there to see the surface of the moon though...they should get on that

the problem is my belief in the legitimacy of the photos..very cool pictures but..are they real..

Can ya let them know-that would be great ! Thanks

The reflectors were designed to reflect the light back at the Earth based laser transmitter, they are completely passive, no switching off or on. And they are still in use today, measuring the distance from several observatories here on Earth.
There is no telescope, including Hubble, that show the landing site. It's a question of resolution of the optics. There are orbital photos showing indirect evidence...disturbed light areas around the landing sites, LM shadows, but even they are not very distinct. Maybe the Lunar Reconnisance Observatory will do better. But I don't expect the resolution of a GoogleEarth shot of my neighborhood (taken from an aircraft). And LROs main mission is hi res surface imagry, not looking for old landing sites.

I guess those reflectors can be considered PROOF then..how else would they have gotten there. Thanks bus

Using this logic, there are no pictures I am aware of taken of Sir Edmund Hillary atop Everest, just one of his Sherpa companion. Was this ascent a fact of history, or a fraud?
Apollo was tracked internationally, the samples returned were (and are) inspected and studied internationally, the findings have evolved into new understandings of the Moon's origin by the world's scientists and astronomers. The photos of samples and terrain there have contributed to understanding the geology...they are seen as authentic by the scientific community.
Why do you think these photos may not be accurate representations of what happened?

There are claims that they were places by unmanned missions, but there are questions about such claims.

1) When, and from where, were these unmanned missions launched? The US has two launch sites capable of orbital launches, one for high inclination/polar orbits (Vandenberg, CA) and one for lower inclination/equatorial orbits/planetary missions (Kennedy). Each has populated areas in the vicinity, and launches never happen unnoticed. What rockets were used?

2) The reflectors had levelling devices to assure the astronauts had it pointed accurately in the right direction. No unmanned lander had this capability. The Soviets placed two with unmanned landers, one did not function due to inaccurate positioning, the other was of marginal value for the same reason.

Other experiments were placed during the Apollo landings...solar particle collectors, gamma ray detectors, seismic sensors, and UV cameras. Deep core samples were taken. The data from all these has been studied by the world's science community, and seen as valid. The data remains valid today.

The ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package) entry at Wikipedia has a very comprehensive listing of what experiments were deployed on each mission.

Wikipedia - Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package

As to why they were shut off, the main reason - as cited on the above linked page - was budgetary concerns - it was simply costing too much to continue to run them and with NASA's budget in a constant state of steady decline and other upcoming projects demanding more of the limited funding, the decision was made to terminate all the active experiments.

The LRRR (Laser Ranging Retroreflector) packages are passive and require no power to operate. They are still in use today as a very accurate means of determining the exact distance (to within an inch or possibly as little as a few millimeters) from the Earth to the Moon. However, while they are indicative of Apollo's presence on the Moon, they cannot be cited as absolute proof that Man has been on the Moon since the Soviets also placed two LRRR's on the surface of the Moon with their Lunokhod robotic lunar rovers. One of the two is still operational and returns signals to Earth, while the of the other rover is currently unknown. That said, it is possible to determine through observation that the LRRR's are precisely where they are reported to have been deployed by the crews of Apollo 11, 14 and 15.

The last of the running ALSEP's were shut off on September 30, 1977. By that time, some of the experiments had been in operation for over 8 years and their power supplies had degraded to the point that they could only run the experiment or the transmitter to send results back to Earth, but not both. One other reason was that the control room used for the experiments was required by NASA for their efforts to reactivate Skylab.



A telescope with sufficient resolving power to see even the most basic of details at the Apollo landing site from the surface of the Earth (or in Low Earth Orbit as with Hubble) would need a mirror with a diameter of roughly of 200 meters - just a little over 2 football fields end to end. Suffice it to say that such a device, while it would be a fantastic scientific instrument, is probably not on anyone's drawing boards - or within any government's or institution's budget - at this time, nor any time in the near future.


Cz

I'll do it!
I'll tell them, Sunshine, that you want them to get on the stick and get back to the Moon!

(They're doing it as we speak...but they'll appreciate the support!)






Yea, they sure are real, Sunshine.
They were taken with perhaps the finest camera on the planet at the time. We took about 6000 of them on the surface of the Moon between 1969 and 1972, and remarkably, most of them are pretty good shots. Some are just crap...mistakes, over and under-exposures, but most of them turned out pretty darn good.

Mr. B. asked about your doubts:



As you have seen, there are quite a few folks here who are more than happy to step in and give answers. I can vouch for the fact that them folks are correct too!

If you're serious about learning about Apollo, and you have doubts about those photos, feel free to bring those doubts here, and we'll all be happy to give you some info on what you're lookin' at!

Despite the fact that these photos actually show nothing but accurate photographic representations, there are several features visible in them that make them decidedly lunar!

Wow. . . 300 pages and MIB is still at it. . . give him a bloody medal!

~Thanato