NASA to Take Photos of the Lunar Landing Sites to End Conspiracy Theories

let us never forget the photo MikeSingh brought to our attention !



this picture in my opinion shows structures that cannot be explained as natural features. there are old ruins on the Moon and NASA knows about it. as Zorgon said : they don't lie , they just aren't telling you everything !












Mikes cool video




Mike if your reading this, we all miss you here and hope you return no matter what

NASA Holds Briefing to Release Restored Apollo 11 Moonwalk Video

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by easynow
let us never forget the photo MikeSingh brought to our attention !

this picture in my opinion shows structures that cannot be explained as natural features. there are old ruins on the Moon and NASA knows about it. as Zorgon said : they don't lie , they just aren't telling you everything !

Mikes cool video

I thought the face on mars looked pretty compelling until I saw it illuminated from different angles. I have to wonder if seeing these photographs from different angles would give us a different perspective on them. Maybe we'll get some new perspectives with the new photographs?

I can't say I can explain every line in the pictures and the video but the fact that I can't doesn't lead me to think "ruins", but it's interesting to me that some people see "ruins" in these images. I think our brains are wired to see patterns just like we saw the face on Mars.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Some of the images may be a trick of the light or a furtive imagination however, there are some images that cannot be passed off as shadows and faces in clouds. The images mike has presented are very interesting and need further investigation.

Will we ever find the truth? probabley not but its fun trying.

Regards
Steve

reply to post by Arbitrageur


do you have any pictures of Moon anomaly's that you would like to post and add to the collection here ?

here's another strange one...

reply to post by easynow


That is clearly CGI!!
Let me fire up After FX.

That one was a new image for me to see. Never seen that before. Wonder what that is.

reply to post by Akezzon


lol, thanks Akezzon !

actually your probably correct, it could be cgi or airbrushed

here is the link to the original

www.lpi.usra.edu...

history.nasa.gov...







this is a real, cool picture















[edit on 14-7-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


Keep up the good work mate..

And how long have NASA had to put a few props up there? Sorry, but photos now only make me more suspicious.

Showing a few trinkets strategically positioned to make it look like they landed there does not explain how they got through killer radiation in a tin can not much thicker than a tin can! Not to mention why said tin can was not cut to ribbons by high velocity micro meteors?

Then there is the so-called technology – less computing power than a modern day washing machine!

I will only believe it when they re-do it from scratch – ie. Build another LEM using exact blueprints of original including the materials. Then strap it to a Saturn five rocket and send 3 guys up there to plant a flag! So who wants to volunteer for this death trip?

Honestly, anyone with only a general knowledge of engineering knows this ridiculous craft would never make it out of low earth orbit.

And that my friends is the only place this silly tin can went to – Low Earth Orbit!

reply to post by WatchNLearn



so i take it you dont believe the gemini missions went into orbit pre apollo. They used barrel drum computers lol!

the astronauts trained day & night doing the calculations manually using pencil & paper incase the computers broke down so they could fly back manually if needed. (apollo & gemini missions)

Why do you think u need collosal computing power to land on the moon? we have had newtons laws of motion since 1687!

reply to post by yeti101

Originally posted by yeti101
the astronauts trained day & night doing the calculations manually using pencil & paper incase the computers broke down so they could fly back manually if needed.

Yes of course, so they could find there way home from LOW EARTH ORBIT. They still had to train, and practise etc. Even though they only went LEO, it was still very dangerous and needed a lot of planning and skill.

reply to post by WatchNLearn


youve still not explained why it needs massive computing power to land on the moon. what calculations was the computer doing? i doubt you know. Although 1 computer did get overloaded on the first attempt to land.

everything could be done manually by the astronauts in the event of the guidance computer failing. Why do you think they even gave them any controls at all? The astronauts had to land the module on the moon.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by easynow


Yeah, eventhough I was joking with the CGI, when you see it enlarged as you can see it from one of the links you provided, it looks different.

It doesn't seem to be anything ON the moon first of all.
You have some light smudge and some dark smudge and then a few lensflares ontop.

So obviously it is something closer to camera but if it really is tempered with or not is hard to say. If it isn't, what is it? If it is tampered, what does it hide?

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WatchNLearn

 

youve still not explained why it needs massive computing power to land on the moon. what calculations was the computer doing? i doubt you know. Although 1 computer did get overloaded on the first attempt to land.

everything could be done manually by the astronauts in the event of the guidance computer failing. Why do you think they even gave them any controls at all? The astronauts had to land the module on the moon.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by yeti101]

In the case of Apollo 11 they did go to manual control after the computer tried to bring them down in a boulder field! Once Armstrong took the controls and overflew the boulder field the computer kept sending out warning alarms, etc. If they had relied entirely on the computer they would more than likely still been up there. . .

reply to post by WatchNLearn

Showing a few trinkets strategically positioned to make it look like they landed there does not explain how they got through killer radiation in a tin can not much thicker than a tin can!

You could seriously learn if you took your head out of the muck that is the "Moon Hoax" conspiracy websites and learned real science and information regarding Apollo, Gemini and Mercury.

"Showing a few trinkets", eh??? The Lunar Module descent stages are about 14 feet across, 29 feet if you include landing gear. They weighed about 22,000 pounds (Earth gravity) but that includes propellant. Six of 'em, on the Moon. Three Rovers, each bigger than a golf cart. Dozens of other pieces of equipment, footprints, wheel tracks....the sheer scale of trying to "fake" all of that just for some photo ops is ridiculous!!! HOW did it get there? Your attempt at dismissing the Apollo Lunar equipment is fruitless.

"killer radiation" has also been thoroughly shown to be something completely made up by the unscientific, idiot fringe of the 'Hoax" theories, who rely on very bad, uneducated speculation with bno foundation in reality.

Not to mention why said tin can was not cut to ribbons by high velocity micro meteors?

That's right out of a very bad 1950s-era Science Fiction movie!

Then there is the so-called technology – less computing power than a modern day washing machine!

Oh, that old chestnut of "wisdom"... the onboard computers were supported by the giant room-sized monstrosities of the era, back on Earth!!!

AND, as mentioned above by someone else, the Astronauts, and the people on the ground were really smart!! WAY smarter than the "Hoax" conspiracists. You see, the Astronauts could do math!!! Sometimes, in their heads!



[edit on 14 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by yeti101

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WatchNLearn

 

youve still not explained why it needs massive computing power to land on the moon. what calculations was the computer doing?

Well, ask the Shuttle people why they use such beefy computers?? Ask the Shuttle people if they would be happy to go into space with the Apollo computer.

But that aside, I love the way you ignore my obvious suggestions as to why they did not go ie. Radiation, micro meteors.

This is a typical ploy by debunkers. Focus the debate on one area that is not as compelling, and completely ignore the other reasons.
Note to newbies to conspiracy – this is how to spot a debunker hehehehehehe

So yeti, why is it that they can’t put satellites above a certain altitude??

Ummm, because they would have their insides frazzled by radiation!

The Van Allen Belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and dangerous for human beings, difficult and expensive to shield against.

The thickness of outer wall of Apollo Spacecraft varies from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inch and phenolic coating is 0.5 inch all around except at the bottom where it is 2 inch.

So answer this Yeti, would you feel safe behind 2.5” (6.3cm) of aluminium?
Would you let me put an X-Ray machine against your head with only 2.5” of aluminium between us?

Buzz Aldrin is 79 years old!!! He should have died from cancer years ago if he went into deep space!

Oh, it's just plain silly to believe they went to the moon

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You could seriously learn if you took your head out of the muck that is the "Moon Hoax" conspiracy websites and learned real science and information regarding Apollo, Gemini and Mercury.

*note for newbie conspiracy watchers - Notice how Weedy starts off with the classic debunker attack – make rude, derogatory remarks about my intelligence, and that all people who believe in the hoax are “crazy”.

Hi ya Weedy! It’s been a while since we crossed swords – but I still love your style! lol

"Showing a few trinkets", eh??? The Lunar Module descent stages are about 14 feet across, 29 feet if you include landing gear. They weighed about 22,000 pounds (Earth gravity) but that includes propellant. Six of 'em, on the Moon. Three Rovers, each bigger than a golf cart. Dozens of other pieces of equipment, footprints, wheel tracks....the sheer scale of trying to "fake" all of that just for some photo ops is ridiculous!!! HOW did it get there? Your attempt at dismissing the Apollo Lunar equipment is fruitless.

They don’t need to put it all up there – just some bits and pieces then - Photoshop – Photoshop – Photoshop. And as I said, they have had a long time to send stuff up there…

"killer radiation" has also been thoroughly shown to be something completely made up by the unscientific, idiot fringe of the 'Hoax" theories, who rely on very bad, uneducated speculation with bno foundation in reality.

That's right out of a very bad 1950s-era Science Fiction movie!

*note for newbie conspiracy watchers - note how he makes wild general statements and belittles any theory that opposes his….then completes it with a convincing type of comment, even though they can never produce a reference…

Sorry Weedy, just a cursory google “micrometeorite shuttle impact” shows I am VERY correct, and your statement is, well – unfounded….

Oh, that old chestnut of "wisdom"... the onboard computers were supported by the giant room-sized monstrosities of the era, back on Earth!!!

No, I didn’t suggest that, but as I said to Yeti – why doesn’t the Shuttle use the same computers Apollo did? After all, those computers got them to the moon, and the Shuttle doesn’t even go halfway to the moon…so why would the Shuttle need such sophisticated computers now??

AND, as mentioned above by someone else, the Astronauts, and the people on the ground were really smart!! WAY smarter than the "Hoax" conspiracists. You see, the Astronauts could do math!!! Sometimes, in their heads!

Yes, and some "Hoax" conspiracists are really SMART

[edit on 14/7/09 by WatchNLearn]

reply to post by WatchNLearn



So yeti, why is it that they can’t put satellites above a certain altitude??

Ummm, because they would have their insides frazzled by radiation!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utter rubbish! If that was true how did they send Voyager off clear out of the solar system? How do they send probes to Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, etc?
Believe me, the radiation is not the hazzard you try and make it out to be. . .

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

do you have any pictures of Moon anomaly's that you would like to post and add to the collection here ?

here's another strange one...

I thought this thread was about photos of the lunar landing sites?
Anyway I was interested in moon anomalies and someone started a thread a couple of weeks ago with pictures of hundreds of moon anomalies in it.

Edit: Here is the thread- I found it :

370 Moon Anomalies Photos

Easynow I think the anomalies you posted are more interesting though.


[edit on 14-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by WatchNLearn

 

So yeti, why is it that they can’t put satellites above a certain altitude??

Ummm, because they would have their insides frazzled by radiation!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utter rubbish! If that was true how did they send Voyager off clear out of the solar system? How do they send probes to Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, etc?
Believe me, the radiation is not the hazzard you try and make it out to be. . .

Actually there is a radiation hazard. The exposure above the Van Allen belts gave the Apollo astronauts a radiation dosage roughly equivalent to perhaps one or two chest X-rays of the time. So is the radiation real? Yes. Do you die from one or two chest X-rays? Usually not. In fact 99.9999% of the time not.

And there is a potential for hazardous exposure to a coronal mass ejection (CME), this is the only "fact" I've ever seen on the moon landing hoax sites which has SOME truth to it. However in order for the CME to harm an astronaut, the CME has to happen. Since they are transitory events, it's not a constant exposure. So you could say there's a little bit of luck involved in not getting exposed to a CME on a lunar mission. But if a satellite were in constant orbit above the Van Allen belt, sooner or later it could get hit by a CME which certainly won't do it any good.

If you give a person or a satellite an X-ray, neither will die from the short exposure. If you park yourself in front of an X-ray machine and leave it on, could you die from that? most certainly. The cosmic radiation and possible CME exposure likewise could take its toll on satellites in orbit above the Van Allen belt. But Voyager like the astronauts had only a transitory exposure to the radiation at the level of the earth's orbit around the sun. The solar radiation reaching Voyager and the other probes you mentioned declined as they moved away from the sun.