Neil Armstrong - pic of him showing his face on the moon

hmm just the fact that the visor is up and u can see his face makes me suspicious of where this was taken. He is at 90 degrees angle to the sun. How is that possible coz wouldnt he have been blinded by the sun if he was on the moon? So this photo makes me believe it might have been taken during test runs in which they did at night riding the buggys in their suits. If this was taken on the moon then i am puzzled

nevermind..

[edit on 2-11-2009 by reasonable]

Originally posted by loner007
How is that possible coz wouldnt he have been blinded by the sun if he was on the moon?

No not really. Had they kept the gold visor up for the entire mission, it could have caused some eye damage, but it certainly won't blind you instantly that's for sure. Although they kept the gold visor down most of the time. There were a number of instances where the astronauts from the Apollo missions had the gold visor raised up.

Originally posted by Mojorizzin
Ok, looking at the pic in the the link which is clearer than the two pics in the links above.....now it looks like he still has some sort of protection on his face.

Could it be that there are two different layers of shielding ?

Yes. The astronauts wore the lexan pressure dome attached to their suit collar. The LEVA (I forget what the acronym stands for) slid-on over that. It had the semi-solid sunshade that gave it the appearance of a globe-like helmet. It was equipped with two transparent lexan raisable visors. The outer one was the familiar gold reflective visor that cut-down the sunlight, and the inner one was clear and provided another layer of scratch & impact protection for the pressure dome. The LEVA also had three retractable opaque sun visors that could be pulled down from the top and in from either side.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Just out of curiousity. You take their word for it without any evidence against a ton of scientific and independent evidence? Why would you just trust them like that?

No I didn't take their word for it, what I have done is to suspend judgement on the issue all together. Once enough things don't add up on a two sided argument, I reserve/suspend judgement until satisfactory proof comes from one side or the other. So far no satisfactory proof has come from either side of the argument just a strong suspicion of doubt from each side. I don't grant winners by default. I suspend judgement and await further conclusive evidence.

Originally posted by berenike
I found this photo of Neil Armstrong on Listverse.
Here is a link to the relevant list:
listverse.com...

Thanks for posting both the Armstrong pic and the link to the others. It's a real treat to see these lost or old images rediscovered. They help to remind us that history is made up of people like you and I going about their business, and mostly unaware that they were any kind of milestone in the human adventure.

Well...ok, I'm guessing Armstrong had a hunch.

As an aside? I'm sure the Russian had experts examining every frame of footage from the moon...as well as intercepting the communications both audia and visual. They would have called shenanigans in a heartbeat if they had had any doubts as to their veracity.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Can you afford to call foul in a game both sides are cheating and fabricating events in? I don't know.

What I do know is Russia has never attempted to land on the moon and we haven't been back to further explore either.

Either the real space programs are keeping us in the dark about what they are up too, or something very real is keeping us basically just in orbit of the globe and not trying to venture with man aboard any further, even to the moon.

Whether that's because the technology really doesn't exist, or the technology has moved ahead by leaps and bounds and is being kept secret and is being secretly used as well as the results of what it does, or if it's because some other technology employed by some off world race prohibits us from moving beyond our own earth is hard to say.

There is something odd about the 'big picture' in my opinion.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

It's a real treat to see these lost or old images rediscovered. They help to remind us that history is made up of people like you and I going about their business, and mostly unaware that they were any kind of milestone in the human adventure.

If you like old photos I've got this thread on BTS. It's a bit shameless of me to mention it here, but the pictures are so beautiful I'd love more people to see them. An Edwardian photographer took photos of his family in the early 1900's and they've recently surfaced.

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
There is something odd about the 'big picture' in my opinion.

I'm not going to argue that particular point, but neither am I going to buy into the faked landing mythology. The photo remain, in my opinion, a testament to the human spirits on tenacity, ingenuity and courage.

Originally posted by berenike
If you like old photos I've got this thread on BTS. It's a bit shameless of me to mention it here, but the pictures are so beautiful I'd love more people to see them. An Edwardian photographer took photos of his family in the early 1900's and they've recently surfaced.

There is also a film called "The Electric Edwardians" that should be looked up. I have not seen it, but I've been waiting for a friendly price on ebay. In this era of photoshop and cynicism, it really is good for the spirit to see these historical images, created with the most basic equipment, and with certainly no inkling that they would be appreciated by total strangers in a world-wide network, a century hence.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Either the real space programs are keeping us in the dark about what they are up too, or something very real is keeping us basically just in orbit of the globe and not trying to venture with man aboard any further, even to the moon.

The latter. That "very real something" is called politics. Ignore it at your peril. The sorts of people who make successful (not necessarily "good") politicians are not the sort that make long-term plans. They are looking for whatever stunt, or grandstanding gesture or publically-expressed opinion will improve or support their popularity today/this news cycle/before the next election.

Kennedy was of this mold. He made great and inspiring speeches about "The New Frontier", but when the budgets for Apollo kept rising, he started looking for other options. Had he lived, the landings might not have happened "before the decade was out" - if ever.

Nixon was also a successful politician. After the Apollo 11 landing, he saw the rising tide of "been there, done that" public apathy towards space exploration. He made savage cuts to the NASA budget which, in terms of the overall US budget, were loose change - but in the public eye seemed to be a practical belt-tightening. At the same time, Nixon was concious of wanting to preserve aerospace jobs in his home state of California; so he threw his support behind a "bold, new" technology - a reusable shuttle. From an engineering standpoint, we should have developed a small, reusable craft and worked the kinks out. Instead, Nixon asked, "which will make more jobs, a small shuttle or a big one?" The answer was "a big one", so that's what he pushed for, even though it was trying too much, too soon. Naturally, he knew that if the program ran into trouble and/or cost overruns, these would only manifest themselves after he left office, so it wasn't his problem.

Since the dawn of the Space Age, manned space travel has been more about political maneuvers and national prestige (this is true for all nations that have tried it) than advancing technology or building a future for mankind. The latter concerns simply do not matter to people who are consumed with looking good in the short-term.

Wow, awsome pic!
Thanks for sharing!