NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos

Originally posted by Wolfenz
ohh it is true humans were on the moon !! but its not what people think how the Astronauts got there ! the Astronauts got there by other means just imagine how ( beyond our technology )

What's wrong with the CSM and LM that makes them incapable of bringing the astronauts to the Moon?

LOLA moon model at Langley near Hampton (Virginia), foto of 1.8.1965, foto no. L-65-5579. With this model you can make many beautiful "moon fotos", even with a little railway with camera to simulate moon orbits...

They needed to have something to train with since they needed to become rather familiar with the Moon. Can you think of a better way with 1960's technology? And even though this Moon simulator is huge, there is no way it can produce detail this good.

Compare that to this photo. It doesn't have near enough detail to be used to fake photos with.

is this on the stage >? they taking publicity shots for the elite before the big show LOL i dont know as im just guessing here it i really do not have the real info of this picture notice the gray like moon dust like ground ? and everything is sort of darken out except them the rover THE Lunar!

Yes those are publicity shots, but for the general public, not the "elite"...

And again, they needed to train on Earth, so of course they are going to do things like have a grey surface to practice on. There are many photos like the one you linked to, showing them training like this. Here's another.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by jra]

Originally posted by aik4on

Originally posted by MrAnnunaki


hi

tinfoilhat, crackpots peeps xD lmfao øD but hey u didnt debunk the "waving flag" the "experts" did always them.

And if some suggest a hoax it automatically turn into sh1t and after a while even more sh1te we are the tinfoilhat, crackheads drug fcked for life people yey ^^ not fair.

deal with it we are being screwed over and over until we accept it lol for that.

peace

Yes, experts have debunked these claims conclusively, that's my point.

As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid I don't understand you. But I guess it's typical of the level of debate we've come to expect from the hoax believers.

Guys, you have been thoroughly duped and conned by a bunch of shysters trying to make a fast buck with their vids, books and adsense goldmine websites. If you are angry then direct your ire at these con artists, not NASA.

fast buck ?? con artist ? i think u should take a frying pan and hit your self in the head untill u wake the bloddy up and realise that u should direct your so called "intelligent" at NASA and stop using your time in here and talk old.

peace

Originally posted by MrAnnunaki

fast buck ?? con artist ? i think u should take a frying pan and hit your self in the head untill u wake the bloddy up and realise that u should direct your so called "intelligent" at NASA and stop using your time in here and talk old.

peace

Peace to you bro, too, but I still don't understand what you are saying (well I get the pan bit but the rest is virtually gibberish).

I don't need to direct anything at NASA because the evidence that we went to the moon is overwhelming. The burden of proof is on the hoax believers to provide solid evidence that we didn't. That's never happened and it never will.

I am completely ambivalent about NASA as an organisation/corporate body/governmental body. What I do object to, though, is the denigration of a very great achievement by a small band of self-publicising con merchants who peddle this nonsense, mostly to shill their absurd books and videos.

And it's a sad indictment of the state of society that a significant minority of people believe this dross, most of them without making any attempt to research or verify any of the facts for themselves. It's a victory for stupidity and gullibility against sanity, logic and reason.

wow! What can I say, I'm getting increasingly more disillusioned with this place by the day.

You're SERIOUSLY trying to compare a photo from the moon taken with optics from years and years ago in an area where a ton of dust has been kicked up, with the latest high tech digital optic systems used in space, in orbit around earth?!

Oh dear



And to the person who stated there was no sign up disturbance under the rocket of the lunar lander... erm, you might want to adjust your monitors brightness (or open your eyes) as that massive section covering most of your shot UNDERNEATH the craft that is quite clearly lighter than all the other earth, just might be what you're looking for


I could swear some of these posts are written deliberately to put people off coming back as the place is filling up with more and more absolute rubbish.

And of course Nasa edit nearly every shot they publish to clean it up and give more impact, as myself and everyone else does in the media world on any film/image/sound file that is likely ever worked on. And in the time these were made, do you really expect them to have spot on clipping paths and masking on every shot? As far as I was aware Photoshop and Wacom's weren't quite around then. I do digital image editing for a living and I'm afraid to say you're way off the mark! MS paint didn't even exist then

reply to post by bochen181




If you think they have not gone to the Moon look at the picture at the bottom of this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The post was by jra and is a great piece of proof!! against people like you.

A still from the 16mm DAC film as the Astronauts left the Moon compared with the location pictured by the LRO.

Now the craters here and the lander CANNOT be resolved by any telescope on EARTH or even the Hubble!!

Compare the craters on both images lets us all know what you say about that!! I am sure all here will be really really interested.

reply to post by Phage




BTW, that mysterious "third party"? That's Goldstone, the station which was receiving the live TV transmissions from the spacecraft.

there was another do you know what that other station was ? and its not Australia this station received better than Gloldstone better in the audio and video transmissions

Originally posted by wmd_2008
If you think they have not gone to the Moon look at the picture at the bottom of this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The post was by jra and is a great piece of proof!! against people like you. A still from the 16mm DAC film as the Astronauts left the Moon compared with the location pictured by the LRO. Now the craters here and the lander CANNOT be resolved by any telescope on EARTH or even the Hubble!!

Compare the craters on both images lets us all know what you say about that!! I am sure all here will be really really interested.

Wow, I though I'd seen all the cool stuff from LRO.. well, I had, but I'd never seen that comparison frame from the DAC - that's just amazing!!! Talk about *snap*....

The wonderful thing about these LRO images, is that they will gradually be verified by other countries lunar mapping probes...

There are many nails in the hoax believer's coffins now, but of course there is still the chance that they can sell a few books/videos, or just still feel 'superior' for knowing about the secret that is so well kept, that it doesn't even exist..

For me, the killers are:
- The entire historical record
- The 382 kilograms of verified lunar samples
- LRO imaging matches, down to incredible detail
- Jaxa/Selene/Kaguya 3d mapping that matches the backgrounds perfectly for several missions
- Video footage of dust thrown up from rover wheels, showing perfect ballistic trajectories, impossible to duplicate on earth

..there are many others, of course.

There are some worthy conspiracies being discussed on this site.

Just not this one..

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Wolfenz
ohh it is true humans were on the moon !! but its not what people think how the Astronauts got there ! the Astronauts got there by other means just imagine how ( beyond our technology )

What's wrong with the CSM and LM that makes them incapable of bringing the astronauts to the Moon?

wz= could that csm and lm bake in a 400 degree oven and cool off in a instant ? history.nasa.gov... Radiation ?

LOLA moon model at Langley near Hampton (Virginia), foto of 1.8.1965, foto no. L-65-5579. With this model you can make many beautiful "moon fotos", even with a little railway with camera to simulate moon orbits...

They needed to have something to train with since they needed to become rather familiar with the Moon. Can you think of a better way with 1960's technology? And even though this Moon simulator is huge, there is no way it can produce detail this good.

sure for the case of the csm our own earth Apollo 7 8 9 10 im talking detail landing here ! not the orbiting around the moon that had that already with the luna i would think ohh by the way that moon model picture was taken in 1965 maybe just maybe they made a more detail one >?

what i love to see is a longer duration of a orbit of earth and the moon
i haven't found one i wonder why that is ? in great detail not still shots either where are those ? if you know direct me to them and i will show you some way better detail Movie Camera shots of Apollo 11 that Members here may have not seen and they are Authentic and maybe ill make a new thread but ill have to see if anyone posted it on ATS before

vidbunker.com...

Compare that to this photo. It doesn't have near enough detail to be used to fake photos with.

is this on the stage >? they taking publicity shots for the elite before the big show LOL i dont know as im just guessing here it i really do not have the real info of this picture notice the gray like moon dust like ground ? and everything is sort of darken out except them the rover THE Lunar!

Yes those are publicity shots, but for the general public, not the "elite"...

And again, they needed to train on Earth, so of course they are going to do things like have a grey surface to practice on. There are many photos like the one you linked to, showing them training like this. Here's another.


i am aware of this ! im talking about the background of this photo! why darken it ? could the rover last with no fail ? they did loose a back fender i read somewhere and used something to make a quick patch another question about the rover what did it cost so much ! ? my old vocational school could of made one for 50 grand minus the gold(thermal) anyways i do believe we went to the moon and some missions events had to be staged because of things were in the film that were not suppose be there in all 6 Apollo landing missions (minus Apollo 13 ) or something like the
movie Capricorn One for a reason who knows
I have seen the Apollo 8 9 10 videos the orbit around the moon and the back to earth shots are terrible

[edit on 19-3-2010 by jra]

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

here is my biggest question of all Moon Landing or not !!

could a picture last! (Charlie Duke Family Photo) ? On the Moon Surface in direct Sunlight ? Exposed with in Transparent foil err like a sandwich bag ?


from NASA

history.nasa.gov...

the authentic photo in direct sunlight baking on the moon surface ?

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...





or this close up of the picture

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

now please tell me is there any object paper or plastic like anywhere in the Apollo Mission's outside the Lunar Module that shows Paper/Film or Plastic ok let see golf ball ? Golf Club ! what materials are they made of ? ohh the Hammer and the Biological Feather demonstration of Neutons theory Would that ! Falcon Feather if it was a real feather Burn up to a Crisp ? no ! ?

the Hammer and Falcon Feather Test could it be faked ?
www.youtube.com...

here is a video on you tube One Giant Spotlight For Mankind

www.youtube.com...


here is a another moon model ! orbiting practice! could be ? a Simulation practice heck the need something to practice on
www.youtube.com...

can some one please explain to me i would like to know

I have that Feeling something here for the last 43+ years is not right
and we may never know as this Mystery is right with the JFK Assassination
my personal belief is 50/50 Some fake Some Real to cover the tracks mistakes and what is there on the surface of the moon that the public should not know about


[edit on 21-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by Wolfenz


Care to comment on this post then! Picture at the bottom of jra's post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your link above to the Apollo hoax site was all the usual BS thats been proved wrong many times.

Now dont forget the post above because i notice that bochen 181 has ignored the challenge. I WONDER WHY

reply to post by Wolfenz

Would that ! Falcon Feather if it was a real feather Burn up to a Crisp ? no ! ?

Short answer....NO.

Where do you get the notion that something like a feather, or the photograph in a plastic sleeve, or paper, would "Burn up to a Crisp"??

The Sunlight on the Moon is no stronger than it is on Earth. Sure, the surface of teh Moon heats up, every Lunar 'day', because there is all of that infrared radiation (same stuff that you feel on a sunny day) and no atmosphere to moderate it, which is also why the Lunar 'night' gets so cold.


But, anyway....ever heard of the book by Ray Bradbury, "Fahrenheit 451"?

It is sort of a George Orwell "1984"/NewWorldOrder-type cautionary tale of potential overt ruling of people by out-of-control governments intent on quashing free thinking....but the point I'm making is, Mr. Bradbury chose "451" because that's the temperature at which paper burns.

It does NOT get that hot on the Moon.

now please tell me is there any object paper or plastic like anywhere in the Apollo Mission's outside the Lunar Module that shows Paper/Film or Plastic ok let see golf ball ? Golf Club ! what materials are they made of ? ohh the Hammer and the Biological Feather demonstration of Neutons theory

Please, stay in school, is all the advice I can give you, here......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Would that ! Falcon Feather if it was a real feather Burn up to a Crisp ? no ! ?

Short answer....NO.

Where do you get the notion that something like a feather, or the photograph in a plastic sleeve, or paper, would "Burn up to a Crisp"??

The Sunlight on the Moon is no stronger than it is on Earth. Sure, the surface of teh Moon heats up, every Lunar 'day', because there is all of that infrared radiation (same stuff that you feel on a sunny day) and no atmosphere to moderate it, which is also why the Lunar 'night' gets so cold.



But, anyway....ever heard of the book by Ray Bradbury, "Fahrenheit 451"?

It is sort of a George Orwell "1984"/NewWorldOrder-type cautionary tale of potential overt ruling of people by out-of-control governments intent on quashing free thinking....but the point I'm making is, Mr. Bradbury chose "451" because that's the temperature at which paper burns.

It does NOT get that hot on the Moon.

wz = correct i have read that book nice read have the 1966 movie too i should of said a better word as in concave folded bleached photo would it end up like the moon dust >? what would it look like now since it was placed there to now ! ? 38 years ago

now please tell me is there any object paper or plastic like anywhere in the Apollo Mission's outside the Lunar Module that shows Paper/Film or Plastic ok let see golf ball ? Golf Club ! what materials are they made of ? ohh the Hammer and the Biological Feather demonstration of Neutons theory

Please, stay in school, is all the advice I can give you, here......

wz= School! ? what BS are you a Expert of Space Exposure on materials solar flares effect on the moon

wz= ok please show me what website that tells about non metal non heat resistant or non cold resistant material in space or the effects of long exposure of organic cell material like a feather in space/moon or photo (polorid) material in a thin transparent plastic bag in almost 38 years ?
as the moon like you said has no atmosphere might as well be in total space


The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke

Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167).

Contradictions:
-- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst
-- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon
-- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven).

the source
www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

i been trying to find something about it and no luck so far

ohh i see my mistake i said newton instead of Galileo i stand corrected thanks teach !

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Care to comment on this post then! Picture at the bottom of jra's post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your link above to the Apollo hoax site was all the usual BS thats been proved wrong many times.

Now dont forget the post above because i notice that bochen 181 has ignored the challenge.

I WONDER WHY

from nasa ok why did they parked the rover away ran out of fuel/charge ?



from nasa ok why did they parked the rover away ran out of fuel/charge ?


files.abovetopsecret.com...



what is this ! Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17 : Objects Fall From The Fake Moon Bay Ceiling- Landing By The Astronauts something exploded ?

www.metacafe.com...

www.metacafe.com...

that lunar lander is either the real thing or was planted there by a Angel! Alien etc.. or was put there on a latter date! who knows

i said 50/50 i mostly belive there's a cover up in some of the still's and film after 1976 we stopped and why budget reasons ? there was a war (police Action ) going on from 1965 to 1975 Vietnam! Cold War in its prime and sightings of Ufos were everywhere on the planet and Possibly the Moon too like i said the government did not want to expose what happen in certain event's on the moon and redid them back on earth
very possible the missions were very lucky that nothing went wrong except for Apollo 13 which was a successful (the Famed jury rigged filterer canisters ) failure that just did not land on the moon all Missions survived the van allen belt , no failure of the LM Landing or Launching to the CSM or reentry to earth that is a Amazing feat ! all by it self



explain this one ! ? Gene Cernan face exposed ? that if this is true and on the moon surface ?

www.spike.com...

dog rock ok are those the authentic voices !
www.buzznet.com...


[edit on 22-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by Wolfenz


No the still is from the DAC films ,filmed as Apollo 17 left the Moon and the picture was from LRO.

Now as I explained when I posted this the Craters and Lander CANNOT be resolved by ANY telescope we have.

So a film taken as they left the Moon matches the LRO image so come on WHAT DO YOU THINK IT SHOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Wolfenz
Contradictions:
-- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst

On what information do you base this on?

-- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon

It would bleach eventually, yes. But not right away. The photo is probably long gone by now, as are the nylon flags they left. Other materials have probably degraded to various degrees over time as well.

-- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven).

Don't forget when you're reading about the temperature of the Moon. It's the surface temperature. Baking something in the oven at 100C is not even comparable. Plus the Moon only reaches 100C in the Lunar afternoon. All the Apollo missions happened during the Lunar morning, so the surface temperature was lower.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Wolfenz
Contradictions:
-- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst

On what information do you base this on?

wz=
watch the video and read the description
sciencestage.com...

or this website www.stevespanglerscience.com...

wz= i would say in time it would do this ! from the picture's i see of charlie dukes family photo on the lunar surface it does NOT look like it is vacuum Sealed!

-- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon

It would bleach eventually, yes. But not right away. The photo is probably long gone by now, as are the nylon flags they left. Other materials have probably degraded to various degrees over time as well.

-- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven).

Don't forget when you're reading about the temperature of the Moon. It's the surface temperature. Baking something in the oven at 100C is not even comparable. Plus the Moon only reaches 100C in the Lunar afternoon. All the Apollo missions happened during the Lunar morning, so the surface temperature was lower.

ok isn't the Charlie Duke's family photo on the surface of the moon
surface temperature well the flag is not it on the pole not on the surface

100c = 212f water boils at 212f on earth so with a moon with no atmosphere and closer to the sun !
in direct sunlight what would happen ? that picture and or nylon flag (plastic) with 13 days of sunlight

www.recipetips.com...

trying to keep away from wiki here

here a child/student can learn too
coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...
from nasa for kids
lunarscience.nasa.gov...

here is a thread about the flag or flags on the moon on ATS
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is from universe today Moon temperature hot 107c during the day and cold -153c at night ! are they lying i would not know www.universetoday.com...




[edit on 22-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by bochen181


I guess the best way I can put it is that the faked moon mission pictures are photo shop pictures, they get better each year, as new techniques have came about. the very old ones from apollo 11 some of them look like the background ground surface looked like it was shot right here on earth. Who knows where area 51 MAYBE. So its not possible to make the ground look like mars hmm ,,,over the ground hmm think again and thats just what they thought too when they took those phoney pictures.. they could of had trucks full of dirt and rocks spread over the ground simulating the moons surface but oh no thats impossible right.
well Im not hear to start a war over whos right but I aint buying it not today and not ever

[edit on 22-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by bochen181

 

I guess the best way I can put it is that the faked moon mission pictures are photo shop pictures

[edit on 22-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

I agree that a lot of the moon pictures are photo shopped but not because the moon landing was fake.It's a shame that not even the overwhelming evidence will convince you we went to the moon.


I have a hard time understanding why it's so hard to believe we went to the moon.I will say there are a few things that don't add up in my head but i'm not going to jump to the ridiculous conclusion that we never went.

Can we weak up this thread? There were few problems with Apollo: 1) Saturn V was not able to carry such a payload to even low earth orbit (physical limitations and some Russian investigations); 2) LM did not have a manageable steering system (today they desperately try to develop those with fast computers and moving rocket engines); 3) They did not have docking technology in LM/CM (their own statement); 4) Moonrocks are at least mostly from earth (several studies); 5) NASA has been caught from so many lies that something is wrong.

"bochen181" have you continued to analyse the 3D models and field pictures? Let me/us know your results. I was looking those pictures before seeing yours and found out that they have been produced as follows (remember, the pics were produced in 1990s and sophisticated software were available):

1) Pics were made using a simple GIS technology and 1st layer is vectorized topography data obtained by using Metric and Panoramic cameras operated in the moon orbit at the same time with the missions;

2) Second layer is the gray scale surface pattern obtained using the above camera systems in raster format. You will get shadows and small craters. In many pics they used vertical sunlight pictures and the shadows are wrong.

By combining these two you will get 3D base image and you can tilt it like in Google Earth (incl. ground perspective) - and you can make descent and ascent videos. All this material is B&W.

3) The 3rd layer is ground color pictures taken in a selected small staging field where some nearest craters have been made using explosions. All the astronaut activities will take place here. You fix (x,y & z) the area to your main GIS coordinate system and record the direction of those field photos. Also robotic camera data can be used in a separate layer.

Then you generate final pics by tilting the data to ground level and everything will fit. The border of the field data and 3D data will automatically disappear in the perspective view … if not you can smoothen the line. You must add some color hue to the B&W material to give an impression on color data. You can have a new separate layer for some rover equipment and then you put the background to move - and you will get a video. That's it. I wonder why LM was in a wrong place in your test … did you solve it (camera lens?), because if the above is done, there should not be any errors.

The JAXA Selene pictures are good examples of the methodology - you just add the 3rd layer described above and get exactly Apollo pics. The 3D models made using new data are more detailed than the Apollo pics because now better topographic contour data can be used.
It would be easy to transfer the 3rd layer data to e.g. LRO pictures as they are in a same coordinate system.

Originally posted by Tsialkovsky
1) Saturn V was not able to carry such a payload to even low earth orbit (physical limitations and some Russian investigations);

I'd like to see some evidence for such claims.

2) LM did not have a manageable steering system (today they desperately try to develop those with fast computers and moving rocket engines);

Again, I'd like to see evidence to back up your claim. From what I've read, controlling the LM was quite manageable.

3) They did not have docking technology in LM/CM (their own statement);

Utter nonsense. Who made such a statement? NASA was doing orbital docking between spacecrafts since the Gemini program (The first one being Gemini 8).

4) Moonrocks are at least mostly from earth (several studies);

Again, evidence and links to studies, please.

5) NASA has been caught from so many lies that something is wrong.

Could you produce some evidence of NASA lying? I've yet to see any.