http://www.france-property-and-information.com/new_pa8.jpg


Your first pic only covers a very short distance so the effect of perspective is minimal. It still appears the closer shadows are angled more, if only a wee bit.

I am a Planetary Scientist at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory where I work on the Spacewatch Project to survey for small objects in the solar system, especially Near-Earth Objects and comets. I watched the Apollo Moonlandings on TV as a young boy, following every crew as they traveled to the moon and back and explored the lunar surface. It seemed like magic to an 8 or 9 year old, but as I grew, the Apollo program spurred my interest in science and I ate up everything I could about Apollo. My present interest in Apollo is historical. I love the details of how and why the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn V launch vehicle worked as well as the details of the lunar exploration. I watched astronauts setting out experiments, picking up moonrocks, taking pictures and so forth, especially during the last few flights to the moon, but it wasn't until later that I really understood how and why they would pick a particular rock to sample or crater to visit. Understanding Apollo has lead to a great appreciation of it as well as a firm belief in the genuineness of the moonlandings. Everything fits together far too well to be a fake as some of the hoax proponents such as Mr. Overstreet in his website imply. Flying to the moon was not faked. It was not magic. It was engineering and applied science. And it was a spectacular achievment!
-----------------------------------
Before reading this web page, please take a moment to vote on whether you believe we went to the moon during Apollo, then be sure to vote again in the exit poll after reading this page to see if your opinion has changed.
-----------------------------------

lpl.arizona.edu

ImOne, if you could look at a side-on view of the same fence it'll surely look a lot different,
but it's an interesting pic nonetheless. Just look at the below pic which is an aerial view showing shadows of trees side-on. Even though the trees are on an inclined surface at different heights(though at the same angle), their shadows still appear parallel.

Yes, it is possible for the shadows from a natural source to appear non parallel, but the objects have to be at significantly different inclinations, something that the Apollo pic does not suggest. Also, observe how the lighting fades away near the region much beyond the shuttle, suggesting that an artificial source of light was used to focus on the shuttle-photographer region.

Nice to hear that zandore. My intent is not to take away the effort of so many people
who were behind the moon project. What NASA achieved over the years is truly remarkable. I do not believe the moon landings were fake, only that parts of spoilt evidence due to technical failures was faked by NASA to avoid embarrassment. And, NASA has a reputation of changing evidence, I can give several examples of that.

Shadow angles on moon
More < a good one

I truly wish I had more time to reply (Work, unfortunately. Maybe tonight...), But I have to say that I am utterly amazed that no one has addressed Bone Collecter's claim, made twice now:


"According to science, any theory is assumed to be correct until proven false."

Oh My! This is in concept, spirit, and letter, very near the exact opposite of how science works! I'll expand more when I get home from work.

Aquatus, I have already explained the "Scientific Method" in this thread and several others. I have even provided linx. I refuse to do it again because it just doesn't sink in with BC.

I stopped posting on this thread for the simple reason that I refuse to engage in pointless, circular arguments. It is amazing (and telling) that this thread has so many posts.

[attachmentid=24272]

* special thanks to Saxon for the 'guardian' dem *

LOL , watch out for P.E.T.A.

Well, yes, that is indeed true. I said it before, and I will say it again, Bone Collector needs repetition, because he tends to miss things the first time around in his eagerness to put forth his argument (considering how many time he has talked about faking the C photo, and never addressed the negative). If he decided that this statement was identical to saying that the frustration of others amuses him, well, that is up to him.

Bone, my offer still stands. I am willing to explain to you exactly how your arguments are falling apart in structure (I don't really care about the particulars of your beliefs, simply about the structure of it). If you don't response, I'll simply consider your interest in the matter to have ebbed, much like the rest of us.

^^^
Hear, Hear.

Indeed!!!

Aye! Aquatus, Rykster, and Pax Unum are all right...

I gave up on this thread...There are just some people that don't get it!

Well the moon landing did happen under Nixon...so it does sound kind of fishy...

i dont think that we ever did land on the moon, for some main reasons that i think people should know, i have seen several programs on the matter and it has realy opened my eyes to what the american goverment can pull off. for one the flag that neil armstrong planted there blew in wind. yea...wind....on the moon....i dnt think so. and some of the machines that they sent up when they went on one of there drives the camera caught an image of the suposed place where he landed, and guess what....no flag....no footprints...or prints of where the craft had landed.
i think that this sums up that the american goverment can easily fool the entire world into believeing we have landed on the moon. this is why i easily believe area51 stories and theories and why i hav a few of my own.

Did you read any of this thread?

I don't think so...everything he said has already been rebutted before in this thread.

yes i did read the thread, but i like to stand for what i believe is truth, whether people have already made the same points as me or not, i like to point out what i believe.

And those points have been debunked

Okay, well, kudos to your faith-based beliefs. In the event that you actually have something in the way of logical arguments or evidence supporting your claims, feel free to post. Until then, you keep believing and don't let things like facts and logic get in your way.

were you making a sarcastic remark or did you mean that?

because it soundd quite saracastic.

That's his point

No, were just saying make some points that haven't been disporved already...

but thats the thing. like your just tryin to say that, im just trying to say that i like makin points for myself,iv been brought up my whole life on pure instinct, and iv learnt that its good to make points even if someone else has made that point before you, im sorry for causing so much trouble.
should we just let matters lie?

Well, your points have all be disproved...read the thread.

Brought up on pure instinct, were you?

Tell you what, think about this: Somebody come up and tells you that the moon is made of green cheese. They present their points and they present why they believe this. You listen to their arguments, you pick out the salient points, you present counter arguments, and you also present the evidence that supports your position. You go back and forth this way for three pages until finally, you have been able to present a clear and logical argument showing that the moon is most certainly not made of green cheese. It wasn't easy, and it involved a fair amount of work, particularly becaue most of the cheese moon argument have more to do with faith than evidence.

But you do, you work it, and in the end, you are done. But now comes a new guy, who makes the exact same claims, makes the exact same points, does not present evidence supporting his position, and does not make the slightest attempt to counter the arguments that you have already presented. When you ask them if they have read the arguments, and by extension, if they can counter them, the only claim you get in return is that this person is making the points regardless of anything that has been presented in the previous pages, essentially telling you that you will have to present everything again simply because they will not put in the work it takes to read three pages..

If you are a person who takes a certain level of pride in their ability to present a good argument, a response such as this tends to chafe.

I recommend you start overcoming your instinctual upbringing and start bringing in a little diplomacy. Civility goes a long way, and ours is not a society in which "instinct" is an excuse for much. In regards to the debate concerning the landing on the moon, your points have been previously presented and refuted. If you have a question concerning the counter-arguments, I am sure anyone here will be happy to clarify it.

But, in the future, do not be surprised to find people not reacting positively to one who presents their opinions as absolutes, particularly when no supporting evidence is provided.

well said In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images.

Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.

What does a half-meter resolution picture look like? This image of an airport on Earth has the same resolution as an LROC image. Moon buggy-sized objects (automobiles and luggage carts) are clear:

[attachmentid=24744]

Abandoned Spaceships

frog, do you believe we landed on the moon or not....your answer will relfect on how smart you really are

Sermons, sermons & more sermons. Most posters in this thread seem to be pretty good at giving them. I won't give sermons...nope, just facts, have a look...

Below are the images taken directly from the NASA Mars rover exploration site ...




Check the NASA site showing the Mars rover images here...
Mars Images

Now, just look at this pic and look at the NASA images again.


Need I say more? But since many in this thread are rather slow in grasping things, I'll explain...

Observe the color calibration on this picture(not showing the sky). This pic is of the same sun dial.


Notice the colors; blue is still blue here. Then why the difference? It's because the blue has been changed to red in the pic showing the martian surface. Green is a combination of blue and yellow. This also explains why the green has turned into orange. If the blue component is changed into red, then yellow+red will give you orange. All the green components of the picture have been changed to orange and the blue ones to red. Notice that NASA has later cut the green tab out of the picture.

It can't be any more clear; the pics have been manipulated and the original colors have been altered. There are several more examples of NASA tampering images and footage. Why is it so difficult for you people to understand what is sooo obvious?

When NASA doesn't get proper images, they tamper with them and pass them as original to make them look smart and technically perfect, and that's exactly what they did to some of the moon evidence.

NASA ALTERS EVIDENCE. Get over it people.

Nobody denies that. They are simply denying that certain things presented have been tampered with. Case in point, the "C" picture. Had NASA tampered with that, the proof would be in the negatives. As it turns out, the negative does not have a C. The only C that appears is the one on the single picture of this that was published. Reprints of this picture do not show the "C", however many other pictures from other photographers do show a similar "C", which is universally attributed to a processing issue (hair on the film) rather than to a government conspiracy.

In other words, the cause or ability is not the issue. The issue is the that the evidence simply does not support the claims.

Firstly, how do you know that you have been shown the actual negative? Secondly, to tamper with a picture, you needn't necessarily tamper with its negative, should you? Even negatives can be duplicated and altered easily; just make the necessary alterations to the pic and photograph it, then you get an altered negative. Simple. There are loads of ways one could doctor photographs, really. Also, could you please provide me with some "hair on film" sample pictures that you have come across, because the C in this pic harldly fits into that kind of an explanation?

Now why would they put a C on the pic? Maybe they are set and sequence markings on each photograph made with a pencil or such, which NASA might have erased from every other pic but missed to edit out from this picture as it crept in with the others. Especially when C stands for "Center" and is exactly placed AT the center of this pic (as in hollywood props), it's hard to believe it is genuine. Also, if you look at the length that NASA has gone to alter image detail in several other proven examples, it would hardly be unbelievable that they have done the same here.

Now, here comes the actual difference...while I go by NASA's reputation and refuse to give them the benefit of doubt here, you go by your belief and say it is genuine.

NASA has indeed altered the color in this picture, a charge which they do not deny. In fact, they have freely admitted it. The original picture was black and white. Neither Spirit nor Opportunity have the capability to take true color photographs.

Instead, what happens is the landers take grayscale photographs filtered to various colors - one image for red, one for blue, etc. These images are then recolored and compiled to create an approximation of a true-color image. The reality of the color may be quite different. In this particular image, the blue tab appears pink because it reflects infrared light, which we cannot see but the Mars landers can. Thus, the colors in the image are at best an approximation of what one would see if they were really standing on Mars.

For the record, the blue tab in the original picture is not a true color image, either. It is also only an approximation of the tab's true color.

More info on this can be found here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagl...ars_colors.html

Here is a page from NASA's Mars rover website, with a discussion of how color photography from the rovers is done:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/s...2_20040128.html

Further discussion of color photography in astronomy from one of the men responsible for the Hubble press pictures:

http://hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/behind_the_pictures/

-Pilgrim

The picture came from the NASA archives. The negative came from the NASA archive. If you are willing to accept one from this source, you must accept the other.



No really. A picture of a picture can quite easily be detected due to spacial distortions. Taking a picture of a 2D image is not going to result in a negative identical to a 3D picture. That's why, even today, taking piuctures with backdrops doesn't give you the feel that you are actually part of background. Negatives can be altered, but it isn't easy, and there are alway indicators left behind.



There are hundreds of ways to doctor photographs, but we aren't talking about altering photographs, we are talking about altering the negatives, which is an entirely different monster. You can't use the two things interchangeably, as you have been doing.

If you want another sample of hair on a film, I'll provide it at the bottom.



Therefore, if the rock is nowhere near the "Center" of the original picture, then it has nothing to do with being a movie prop. And no, the picture isn't anywhere near the center of the original pic. Just the pic that hoaxers like to pass off as the original. Again, the original is down below.

Incidentally, there are only two pictures with the "C" rock in them, and they were both taken consecutively and both posted on the NASA web site side by side. The picture didn't creep in; it was one of two.



The length? They colorized a few pictures. They adjusted the brightness in a few others. That's hardly going out of your way. You are claiming that they went in and modified the negative of one picture among the many hundreds taken for no discernable reason.



It's so easy to convince yourself that you are in the right, isn't it?

If you are not dealing with facts, but rather with opinion, you are going on your beliefs, ergo, judging NASA based only on your opinion that the colorization and brightening of a few pictures is evidence of intent to create an outright forgery based around a single picture for the purposes of...what, hiding a single C on a picture? That would be belief. You believe NASA created a forgery based solely on the possibility that they did, therefore you claim that you are justified in accusing them of a hoax.

Me, on the hand, I go by facts. Could NASA have created a hoax? Possibily, but the evidence doesn't point towards it. Let's take a look (I apologize in advance for putting all the pictures as attachments. They are on my hard drive, and I'm too lazy to put them on the net):

Look at the first pic, the Cshad pic. This is the most popular one among hoaxers. It quite clearly has a "C" on the rock. But wait, what's this? There is another "C" on the floor beside it! And it's identical! If a "C" on the rock is meant to indicate that it's supposed to be in the "Center", what does the C on the ground mean?

But then, If the rock was meant to be in the center, now we have a bit of a problem. Look at the original pic. As usual, when one looks at the originals, what seems remarkable in close-up suddenly descends into banality. The original picture is C-Rock2. Our "C" rock is now suddenly one among many, and the C is suddenly simple an insignificant mark.

But, in the spirit of research, let's look at the negative, here shown as C-rock4:

Nothing. Not a C, not a mark, nothing.

But, let's look at a high-res close-up of the C: It should be failry clear whether it was artificial in close-up. C-rock7.

Nope. Despite the rock's craggy surface, what we have is a clean, relatively smooth, line, wider at one end than at the other, and not even in the same colors as the rest of the photo. What does this mean? It means that it was not drawn on the rock, for starters. A C drawn on a craggy surface is not going to look smooth on a picture; it is going to follow the contours of the craggy surface. Similarly, there is no reason why the prop C would either be wider at the top than at the bottom. No, there is really only one explanation for a smooth C on a craggy surface: It wasn't on the surface to begin with. It wasn't on the #D plane of the rock, but rather on the 2d plane of the picture that was developing.

This is what I had assumed.


I was thinking, Why would someone smart enough to edit the pictures to remove the green tab leave the other colors different? The answer... They wouldn't. Why would NASA go to the trouble of faking these things if they aren't going to do it right. If I was faking a NASA mission, I'd do it in a sealed class 100,000 cleanroom environment with lots of computer simulations run first to get everything right. I wouldn't allow people to just wander about the set or mess with the lighting. You guys make it sound like the whole thing was staged by a high school drama club, not a multi-million dollar agency full of PhDs.

In one sentence, the entire problem of the hoax argument is revealed. Well said.

They had a cammera on the ladder

IT's called RECOIL it happens in space too

To back this post's claim, ask your high school physics teacher, and he'll explain. I did. He told me that since there is no friction on the moon because of the lack of air, the flag can continue waving like that for hundreds of years.

As one end of the flag is planted in the lunar surface the vibrations will be dampened by the ground, causing the recoil to stop in minutes rather than centuries.

Something I had forgotten.....


At the end of the last Apollo 15 moon walk, Commander David Scott (pictured above) performed a live demonstration for the television cameras. He held out a geologic hammer and a feather and dropped them at the same time. Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass. Mission Controller Joe Allen described the demonstration in the "Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report":

During the final minutes of the third extravehicular activity, a short demonstration experiment was conducted. A heavy object (a 1.32-kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from approximately the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously, which was a result predicted by well-established theory, but a result nonetheless reassuring considering both the number of viewers that witnessed the experiment and the fact that the homeward journey was based critically on the validity of the particular theory being tested.
Joe Allen, NASA SP-289, Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, Summary of Scientific Results, p. 2-11

Source

im not sure if this was asked yet, cause i only read the last page, but if we can go to the moon 50 years ago and we cant go now why cant we? Is our tech too advanced? so the safty features are dangerous?
just wondering

The rockets capable of taking a man to the Moon were discontinued because of the funding of the space shuttle. NASA is designing new rockets to return men to the Moon by 2018.

Well you Americans do have very good javelin throwers in the olympics

I don't even watch the Olympics, but I do know that we didn't fake the moon landing, its just a conspiracy ! Half the astronauts they talked to got pissed off when people asked if it was faked, and I'm sure those guys had pride in their jobs. I know if someone was talking crap about my job, I would defend it, regardless of it being a boring job lol.