I am pretty sure we went to the moon, more than once in fact. What i am interested in is what they said they found up there. I have heard crazy stories.When armstrong got back he said "their up there, and they sure arent making cheese". there are more stories like this.

Originally posted by CGBSpender
I am pretty sure we went to the moon, more than once in fact. What i am interested in is what they said they found up there. I have heard crazy stories.When armstrong got back he said "their up there, and they sure arent making cheese". there are more stories like this.

I'm with ya, man. I've never believed the moon landing hoax theory. I've said many times that I'd believe that we warned off the moon before I'd believe we never went.

well, physics does tell that van allen radiation belts are not themselves a radiator of cosmic rays but the belts have been formed by the earth's powerful magnetic field which traps most or all the solar deadly ionized radiation from striking the earth's atmos. that's point one.

point two: why does nasa repeatedly stress that the radiation levels outside the van allen belts are unpredictable than within the belts themselves? and why are they undertaking a study and launch a unmanned rad-det probe sometime in 2010 or 11 to measure radiation levels at the vicinity and on the surface of the moon? haven't we been there already? didn't apollo15-17 crew perform a whole day of activity? do we get x-rays tests done on our teeth or chest or any other body portion for a whole day? if geo-synchronus satellites (for our communication, weather or tv) are covered and protected with thick lead sheets to prevent their electronics from being annihilated by the solar radiation, then how come the astronauts survived their moon walk with only 25 layers of nothing more than bullet-proof suits? remember, kevlar is, REPEAT IS, solidly BULLET-PROOF, but hold it against even a portable x-ray machine, and it becomes useless!

the x-ray technicians who take snaps of your body wear protective lead covered flexible nylon layered cloths. i guess, even if nasa had been mindful of this fact, they would have succeeded in convincing the hoax believers! and i'm not one of them. but i don't believe nasa either, for the simple reason that they give Never A Straight Answer!

I can prove there are stars in the moon landing photographs. First, I have to go rip up some tile that the previous idiots NAILED AND STAPLED DOWN, and I will be back in a few hours. Gonna leave the thread up, and as soon as my hands stop aching, I will come back here and prove to you the moon pics have stars in them. Righty K? Okie day then?




GOOD.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by wylekat]

Here we go. First up is the famous first moon landing shot, untouched.


And now, the reprocessed image, using nothing more than brightness, contrast, and unsharp mask in Photoshop Elements:


Now, aside from the fact there's some dust on the lens- the bright specks in the back are stars. The pic even shows the tiny bit of lunar atmosphere- the blue.

Funny- no scaffolding, no lights, no rafters......

[edit on 1-11-2008 by wylekat]

Originally posted by wylekat
Now, aside from the fact there's some dust on the lens- the bright specks in the back are stars. The pic even shows the tiny bit of lunar atmosphere- the blue.

How can you be sure those are stars? Did you compare with other photos to be sure that it isn't dust that was on the scanner? I see lots of specks in the LM shadow. So that tells me that there was a lot of dust specks in this scanned image. The odd speck might actually be a star, but it's impossible to say.

As for the blue. That is not the atmosphere. When you crank the brightness in an image to extremes, it's going to do all sorts of crazy things to it. Note that the blue is also appearing in the shadowed areas of the LM as well. Not just in the black lunar sky.

wht about this european SMART-1 mission, did it shot some pictures of the Apollo landing zone? All pictures i have seen are worthless cause you cant see anything. The hubble telescope cant see the landers, the resolution can barely see objects of 50 meters in size, hte landers are only 5 meters. To see the landers with your home telescope is laughable indeed when even hubble cant see it. The picture above is also laughable because those "stars" are everywhere, even on the shoe of the astronaut, in every dark area on the picture.