I was wrong, if this is right. apollo did land on the moon.

I just have one stupid -- nagging qustion.... what do you see in the photo... look close...

www.nasa.gov...


now - what is odd is... well we went there to see what we can see from home all those times... not one outside our line of sight... whats on the back side..?

and well it appears there is stuff on the moon that appears to be apollo sites... so, ah I'm speechless unless these are offical fakes which I doubt.

www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 20-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

Not quite sure what it is you are asking us to look at, long day at work, hint? Also the fact that you did your own research to come to the conclusion, to me, shows intellectual honesty S&F There are quite a few digital maps of the far side of the moon although many claim they have been altered to hide structures or other such things. I dunno. On the fence with that ( just don't have enough info but tending towards my naturally skeptical side.)

[edit on 20-10-2009 by djvexd]

[edit on 20-10-2009 by djvexd]

The moon landings were real. We know that because independent scientist have been using the laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts for years to study the moon's orbit and rotation.

Scientists who analyze data from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment have reported some watershed results from these long-term experiments, begun 25 years ago when the Apollo 11 astronauts deployed a reflector array in the Sea of Tranquillity. "Using the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, we have been able to improve, by orders of magnitude, measurements of the Moon's rotation," said Jet Propulsion Laboratory team investigator Dr. Jean Dickey. "We also have strong evidence that the Moon has a liquid core, and laser ranging has allowed us to determine with great accuracy the rate at which the Moon is gradually receding from the Earth."

geophysics.ou.edu...

Originally posted by finemanm
The moon landings were real. We know that because independent scientist have been using the laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts for years to study the moon's orbit and rotation.

Scientists who analyze data from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment have reported some watershed results from these long-term experiments, begun 25 years ago when the Apollo 11 astronauts deployed a reflector array in the Sea of Tranquillity. "Using the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, we have been able to improve, by orders of magnitude, measurements of the Moon's rotation," said Jet Propulsion Laboratory team investigator Dr. Jean Dickey. "We also have strong evidence that the Moon has a liquid core, and laser ranging has allowed us to determine with great accuracy the rate at which the Moon is gradually receding from the Earth."

geophysics.ou.edu...

blah, blah, blah....yet we still get )#*& black & white pictures and Hubble can't look at the moon to really see the landing craft that s/b still there..


try again plz.....

reply to post by Komodo


In case this wasn't a joke:


Hubble looking to the moon is like you using binoculars to read a book.

iits all bukllocks especially with apollo 14. when did the astronauts get large enough to have foot paths and foot prints visible from space. The apollo mission wasnt there long enough to create such tracks.. so where are we stuffing the gargantuan astronauts?

Originally posted by djvexd
Not quite sure what it is you are asking us to look at, long day at work, hint? Also the fact that you did your own research to come to the conclusion, to me, shows intellectual honesty S&F

There are quite a few digital maps of the far side of the moon although many claim they have been altered to hide structures or other such things. I dunno. On the fence with that ( just don't have enough info but tending towards my naturally skeptical side.)

djvexd - what the OP was referring to is the fact that all the lunar landing sites were in full view of the earth and viewable FROM the earth.

further, I believe what the OP is attempting to point out is the front side of the moon is used for NASA PR BS while the backside is the play ground of the 'NASA Elite' or whomever else is doing God knows what with whomever from where ever.

I think that about sums it up

Originally posted by stanlee
iits all bukllocks especially with apollo 14. when did the astronauts get large enough to have foot paths and foot prints visible from space. The apollo mission wasnt there long enough to create such tracks.. so where are we stuffing the gargantuan astronauts?

Stanlee, first of all one of the most awesome names ever, Excelsior!

Second, if you save the image and enlarge it you'll see that 'foot path' is a small ditch approx. 4-5 inches wide with large foot prints on either side.

No one said the Annunaki only packed ray guns.....

IMHO we did actually go to the moon, but what we saw on TV was just a big act

The Apollo 14 LM and footprint image from NASA don't look right to me.

Here's the one from that site:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d71337b8a5a.jpg[/atsimg]

In this one I've marked what looks a little off to me:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2a20e5f0168.jpg[/atsimg]

The LM looks perfectly squared and it's pixels don't match the surrounding pixels. As if it's been added in. I can also make out a very faint line that looks like it might be a seam line. Like you usually see in shots of the Moon where the images are seamed together to make the whole image.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I can't make out any footprints around the LM. Shouldn't there be a path to the other footprints? Does it look like there's a blur line where there should be footprints to anyone else?

I'm not saying this image has in fact been messed with, but IMHO it seems a little off.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by nightmare_david]

[edit on 20-10-2009 by nightmare_david]

I was stationed at NORAD and was off shift with a 200 power telescope on the day they lifted off from the moon. Saw something leave the edge after blast off. Too coincidental to not have been our astronauts.

Additonally my view was from Red mountain where I lived which is adjacent to the town of Manitou Springs.

Originally posted by 2cents worth
I was stationed at NORAD and was off shift with a 200 power telescope on the day they lifted off from the moon. Saw something leave the edge after blast off. Too coincidental to not have been our astronauts.

Can you plz elaborate on what you mean by 'the edge' ..

2nd line

Originally posted by stanlee
iits all bukllocks especially with apollo 14. when did the astronauts get large enough to have foot paths and foot prints visible from space.

Well anything can be visible from orbit, it just depends on the magnification one has. In the case of the LRO it took the images of the Apollo sites at roughly 1m/pixel, which were the highest resolution photos ever taken of the Moon. And now that the LRO is in it's mission orbit, it's already putting out images at roughly 50cm/pixel. They will take new images of the sites again a number of times.

And you don't need to be a giant to make a noticeable disturbance on the Lunar soil. If you pay close attention to the astronauts feet while they move around, you'll notice them kick up a lot of the Lunar dust, so it's not just the foot prints that we see, but the disturbed soil around them as well. Also, on Apollo 14, they were dragging this thing along with them. AS14-68-9404 It's the Modularized Equipment Transporter or MET for short.

The apollo mission wasnt there long enough to create such tracks.. so where are we stuffing the gargantuan astronauts?

Each of the Apollo missions (note plural) stayed for different lengths of time. Apollo 14 stayed on the surface for 33.5 hours, a bit over 9 of those hours were spent doing two EVA's. EVA 2 lasted about 4.5 hours. That's more than enough to to walk 1.3km to Cone crater and back.

The later missions spent even longer amounts of time. The longest being the last mission, Apollo 17 with a Lunar surface stay time of 75 hours.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
The LM looks perfectly squared and it's pixels don't match the surrounding pixels. As if it's been added in.

Well when you're looking at an object that's only a few pixels in size, of course it will look square. Since the pixels themselves are square.

I can also make out a very faint line that looks like it might be a seam line. Like you usually see in shots of the Moon where the images are seamed together to make the whole image.

I don't believe the images from the LRO's main camera are stitched together. They do however have vertical interlacing, perhaps that's what you're seeing.

I forgot to mention that I can't make out any footprints around the LM.

The soil in the area just above the LM in your image looks a bit darker to me. Also, have you seen the second image of the Apollo 14 site? The Sun angle is higher, so some details pop out more. link

Wow, I can not believe that people are still trotting out the tired old "Hubble blah blah blah" as if it hasn't been gone over at least a thousand times.

To the OP, S&F for use of logic. As far as why we landed on the "side we could already see" instead of the other side of the moon, well actually thats quite simple. In order to maintain communications between mission control and the brave men who had the honor of going where very few could claim to have been, they needed to maintain a line of site between earth and the moon. I am not sure if they have overcome the limitations they faced back then yet, but back then it was basically radio transmissions. If you have ever driven in the mountains while listening to the radio you know what large masses of rock does to radio transmissions.

reply to post by finemanm

The moon landings were real. We know that because independent scientist have been using the laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts for years to study the moon's orbit and rotation.

right like this one.. ?







[edit on 21-10-2009 by Komodo]

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Komodo]

reply to post by nightmare_david


The one thing I find interesting about these two pics at first glance is that the shadow of the lunar module you point out as being square is cast to the right of the lm, yet all the moon rocks csst shadows to the left.

Am I observing this wrong?

I'm glad I read this thread. I thought the 'footpath' was created by the lunar Rover. Guess I need to refresh myself on what each mission was all about.

And to the OP, your willingness to admit you may have been wrong in your title was what convinced me to take a look. It always great to find someone who's open enough to admit they might be wrong.

I'm not saying this image has in fact been messed with, but IMHO it seems a little off.

Fine I will say it. the closer you see the image the more you can see the so called foot path was penciled in with a burn tool, or smudge tool set to EXTREMELY thin

Originally posted by jra
Well when you're looking at an object that's only a few pixels in size, of course it will look square. Since the pixels themselves are square.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Look at the LM then look at the area just around it. The pixels that make-up the LM don't blend with the pixels that make-up the area around it.

EDIT: Try to explain this again using another image



I added two thick black lines around the LM. If you look just to the right of the one on the left and just beneath the one on the top, you can see where the pixels don't blend in with the surrounding area.

As for the part I outlined. That's what I was referring to as the blurred area. It looks like someone went over that area with a blur tool pixel-by-pixel. You can just make out what would be more footprints under the blurred area that lead directly to the where the Footpath arrow points to and down to the LM.

Why would that be blurred and the others be seen very clearly?

[edit on 21-10-2009 by nightmare_david]

[edit on 21-10-2009 by nightmare_david]

reply to post by nightmare_david


I have a little problem with your enlargement. What method did you use for upsampling it? because you should be careful when doing such things. When you resample an image and use something like a bilinear or bicubic method, it interpolates the image. Adding new pixels with new values between the existing pixels. You're basically adding data that wasn't there to begin with.

I upsampled the image myself from the original .tif file using the "nearest neighbor" resampling method. It just copies the existing pixels that are already there and makes them look larger. 600% larger in this case.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d10ac2aa46b.gif[/atsimg]

This is how the original image looks when you zoom in really close to it. It looks rather different then your version. Plus I don't see any blending or blurring issues in it either.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by jra]