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

reply to post by bochen181


This IS a waste of our time......

Take a look, once again, at those three photos you claim as "proof"....

Not the antenna, and which way it is pointing, in the close picture compared to the way it's pointing longer shot. Note, also, the LM, especially the Ascent Module.

It is obvious that the photographs were not taken with the Sun behind the camera at the same angle.

In other words, the Astronauts walked around in an arc. The equipment didn't alter position, the camera did!!!

It is so perfectly obvious. Look, again, at the LM. Study other photos and diagrams of the Ascent Module. Each face of the Module is different and distinct, so that's your clue right there.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Thanks for that, I am trying to obtain the facts without all the backchat and trolling. Can anyone from NASA verify without prejudice that these images are factual and correct? if so we can then start from there.

What I see in the photo looks very fragile and amateurish and I would be interested to find out its function/purpose. For the record I have not seen this photo before.

I also wanted to add in regards to the undisturbed soil it is possible that the soil on the moon is not like our soil on earth ie it could be entirely plausible to suggest that the soil on the moon is compacted and that when the craft landed, instead of leaving an impression it may have scuffed away the dirt. That I believe is possible no? If not could you provide some form of evidence to suggest that if a heavy object was to land on the moon it would make an imprint in to the soil



[edit on 16-3-2010 by franspeakfree]

Not a speck of dust on the Lunar Module Landing Pads, and yet Astronaut Neil Armstrong was clearly about to imprint that deep footprint into the lunar surface right next to the LEM ladders with ease (and being only 1/6 what he would weight on Earth..)

Ironically, it also appears that even in these low res videos we can obviously see astronaughts kicking up dust as they jump and walk around..

www.youtube.com...


And yet not a speck of dust! Really now NASA?


history.nasa.gov...





[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

reply to post by bochen181


OK...now that you've posted those YouTube junk videos, I can only assume you're punking us, and trolling....or else you actually believe this nonsense, and just won't bother to do any actual research and learning!

The "wires" crap has been explained to death.

Those are the antenna on the back of the PLSS.

Here, looky looky:

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bochen181

 

OK...now that you've posted those YouTube junk videos, I can only assume you're punking us, and trolling....or else you actually believe this nonsense, and just won't bother to do any actual research and learning!

The "wires" crap has been explained to death.

Those are the antenna on the back of the PLSS.

Here, looky looky:

You want to explain-away the waving flag? I wonder which is it this time, static discharge, parallax, residue motion, thin atmosphere on moon, shaky camera, pykick ESP powers, UFO? I'm not "punking" anyone..

And you want to explain-away to me the ten foot antennas? Kinda like the giant "sun"/spotlight..

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bochen181

 

You say that the DEM you used is high resolution data from the LRO but the file name is Apollo_15_Hadley_Jan_2007. LRO got to the Moon last year.

You are using a low resolution dataset. Probably the data derived from the Clementine mission.
www.christian-woehler.de...

It is not surprising it does not match the images taken at the site.

I used absolutely 100% the correct dataset. The Clementine data is so low resolution as to render it effectively useless for my demonstration purposes, I used the most up to date newest available LRO data.

I do not appreciate you once again deliberately misinforming..

www.pictureshack.net...
click to see 7 MB jpeg file.. warning large size..



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Originally posted by bochen181
The "sunlight" / "spotlight" has swapped sides in these 3 apollo 12 photos..

These three photos were taken mere hours apart on three consecutive rolls of film (Apollo 11&12 EVA's were not anywhere as long or extended as the later Apollo 14+ missions)

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

Apollo 12 LEM sits on edge of crater.

In top 2 photos the sunlight is coming from the left. In the bottom photo,
taken from down in the crater, the LEM, the dish and the flag are in the same positions, but the sunlight is now from the right and the LEM has turned 90 degrees from the top position. This is impossible!

I believe the same "LEM and Dish" were actually either scale models or 2d sprites that were convinently reused in other photos that needed the backdrop.. Hence the discrepancies... It is not like I haven't proven NASA didn't edit/crop/doctor OTHER photos before!

The sun is hitting the LEM more or less from the same direction in all the pictures. Another thing that bothers me from you own imageing post is that, on the one hand NASA did a pretty good job of their "papier Mache" backdrop of the mountains at GROUND level, and then mess up as to where to stick the lander, it doesn't make any sense at all. Now, you didn't prove that NASA altered or cropped images, because they have already stated that they did crop images and alter for presentation. If you think it should not have been done, why not ask them why. Why were the Ruskies not bothered enough to ask questions at the time, and since.

Originally posted by aik4on

Originally posted by sotp


I'm as entitled to voice my opinion here as you are.

Yes but you should also be prepared to have that opinion mocked when it's based on no firm evidence than your own imagination.

I'm not, like a lot of hoax believers, saying that they faked it because they couldn't actually do it. I'm saying they might have faked it simply to make sure the public did not see something they didn't want them to see. That is all.

And there might be a shapeshifting invisible elf living in my potting shed but there's no actual evidence to suggest there is.

Your 'idea' is just as much tinfoil hat territory as the 'we never went to the moon' brigade.

Show me any credible, scientific evidence that supports your claim and I mean scientific, not some rambling conspiracy crapola website or YouTube homebrew video compilation.

thats just the proplem there i think x( scientific proof could only come from 'experts' right? nonbelievers have the goV 'experts' throwing old stuff in our face. and us who want to belive we dont have any experts? right?

peace

Originally posted by smurfy
Why were the Ruskies not bothered enough to ask questions at the time, and since.

The Soviet and US moon programmes were complementary - it was moon rock, ostensibly retrieved by Soviet Luna landers which is often cited as proof of the veracity of NASA obtained samples. This is regardless of the fact that moon rock is relatively easily found on earth and that Von Braun went on a little Antarctic expedition in 1967 - the perfect place to find moon rock. Why would he do that at such a crucial phase in his greatest project to go and get the real thing? It's worth noting that all lunar rock samples are severely contaminated:

www.space.com...

Back to US/Soviet deals. It's worth noting that the US accidentally gave away millions of tons of grain to the Soviets in 1972:

www.openi.co.uk...

Other deals concerning transfers of technology would be much easier to conceal. The Saturn series of rockets was a hugely reliable heavy lifter rocket that came out of no where. Gemini, based on converted Titan II ICBM missiles had a history of spectacular failures, but still lived on into the next century in an evolved form.

Meanwhile, the Russians had a track record of hugely reliable heavy lifter rockets. I would suggest to you that perhaps the Saturn V was built, in part, with Russian technology. Interesting that the Saturn V blueprints and schematics have been "lost", along with the all the rest of the Apollo technology, all the original photographs from the missions, and all the videotape... So basically everything, from NASA's most golden moment, was carelessly, lost... Maybe it fell down the back of the sofa, who knows? Both Atlas and Titan lived on for decades despite a chequered past, but Saturn simply got lost and disappeared. When looking for a replacement for the Space Shuttle, why aren't they building Saturn rockets? All the hard work has already been done. Perhaps their licensing agreement with the Russians has expired.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

Forgive me, but why are those GIGANTIC letters in the OP overlapping each other?

And secondly, why are people surprised when the NASA set stage is revealed?

Do you really think we went to the moon?

reply to post by kinda kurious

The camera could be removed from the chest mount.
Focus and exposure could be adjusted by the astronaut. They didn't always get it right
history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

The camera could be removed from the chest mount.
Focus and exposure could be adjusted by the astronaut. They didn't always get it right
history.nasa.gov...

do u think they could take a sony hd camera from the electric store to the moon?
all the way? "D

peace

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

The camera could be removed from the chest mount.
Focus and exposure could be adjusted by the astronaut. They didn't always get it right
history.nasa.gov...

www.youtube.com...

At 2:37 it clearly shows the astronaugt walk across the side from left to right and the flag waving as a result.. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "camera moving" or "shaky camera".. the flag moved on its own ..

I don't believe any reasonable person could say the flag movement at 2:37 was the result of 'chest mounted camera' moving..

reply to post by bochen181

Don't you understand?

The file you used was last modified on June 1, 2007. The the LRO was launched in 2009. The DEM you used is not from the LRO. The only other DEM I am aware of is from Clementine.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bochen181

 

Don't you understand?

The file you used was last modified on June 1, 2007. The the LRO was launched in 2009. The DEM you used is not from the LRO. The only other DEM I am aware of is from Clementine.

I'm not making this stuff up Phage, why don't you email thare at the USGS maybe he can explain to you why they misnamed or mispackaged their files.. Frankly if there were a higher resolution I would have downloaded it already, I'm still waiting for the ~1 meter resolution of select locations to be available sometime ~next year..

[email protected]

webgis.wr.usgs.gov...



[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

reply to post by bochen181


I wasn't talking to you but you're right. The camera doesn't move, it's attached to the rover. But since you are so fond of 3D models have a look at this:

reply to post by bochen181

.....it was moon rock, ostensibly retrieved by Soviet Luna landers which is often cited as proof of the veracity of NASA obtained samples.

I would stop now, if I were you. You're embarrassing yourself.

In these six Apollo spaceflights twelve men walked on the Moon. These missions returned a wealth of scientific data and 381.7 kilograms (842 lb) of lunar samples.

en.wikipedia.org...

Compared to:

Luna 16 101 g 1970
Luna 20 55 g 1972
Luna 24 170 g 1976

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's see...that's 381.7 kg, from Apollo....and 326 GRAMS from the Soviet missions! One-third of a kilogram.

I think the World's scientists would have noticed this slight discrepancy.

Oh, and von Braun??? Yeah, you really think he found 842 pounds of Lunar meteorites in Antarctica? AND, anything that had entered the earth's atmosphere and been heated by the event would be INSTANTLY recognizable as such, not the pristine Lunar samples returned!


Really, stop reading those stupid conspiracy sites, they are written by fools...

Originally posted by bochen181

Originally posted by smurfy
Why were the Ruskies not bothered enough to ask questions at the time, and since.

The Soviet and US moon programmes were complementary - it was moon rock, ostensibly retrieved by Soviet Luna landers which is often cited as proof of the veracity of NASA obtained samples. This is regardless of the fact that moon rock is relatively easily found on earth and that Von Braun went on a little Antarctic expedition in 1967 - the perfect place to find moon rock. Why would he do that at such a crucial phase in his greatest project to go and get the real thing? It's worth noting that all lunar rock samples are severely contaminated:

www.space.com...

Back to US/Soviet deals. It's worth noting that the US accidentally gave away millions of tons of grain to the Soviets in 1972:

www.openi.co.uk...

Other deals concerning transfers of technology would be much easier to conceal. The Saturn series of rockets was a hugely reliable heavy lifter rocket that came out of no where. Gemini, based on converted Titan II ICBM missiles had a history of spectacular failures, but still lived on into the next century in an evolved form.

Meanwhile, the Russians had a track record of hugely reliable heavy lifter rockets. I would suggest to you that perhaps the Saturn V was built, in part, with Russian technology. Interesting that the Saturn V blueprints and schematics have been "lost", along with the all the rest of the Apollo technology, all the original photographs from the missions, and all the videotape... So basically everything, from NASA's most golden moment, was carelessly, lost... Maybe it fell down the back of the sofa, who knows? Both Atlas and Titan lived on for decades despite a chequered past, but Saturn simply got lost and disappeared. When looking for a replacement for the Space Shuttle, why aren't they building Saturn rockets? All the hard work has already been done. Perhaps their licensing agreement with the Russians has expired.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

The Russians were and are big exporters of grain, as your link says 1972 was a bad year for them, so they bought grain, even though they are big players in the international market..crafty! but nothing to do with 1969 For instance. Saturn V's blueprints are held on microfilm at the Marshall space flight centre, and in any case who needs them now? as for Moonrock, how far does 100 Russian grams of Moonrock go? You are obviously enthusiastic about your subject, but therein you argue with yourself, as in the Saturn V rocket that will help you to the Moon, except that that it was never used to go to the Moon, according to you, so why reminise??

[edit on 16-3-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by bochen181

Maybe you should ask the USGS what data you are using.

Timeframe: The new Lunar Mapping and Modeling Project (LMMP) Web site, available in late fall 2010, will build integrated data sets from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), and other lunar missions over the next two years. The USGS generated maps will be available on that Web site.

www.nasa.gov...



[edit on 3/16/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by bochen181



Um, no. The Saturn V didn't just come out of nowhere. It was designed by Von Braun, who had honed his skills building the Nazi V series rockets to bomb London.

The Russian technology was not shared in that regard. It was all Nazi science, 100%. As a matter of fact, when US rocket builders continuously failed, it was a Nazi team (headed by Von Braun) that was called in and put a rocket into space within 2 weeks.

To fully understand, you need to dig deeply into Project Paperclip.

this may have been a double post, which i may have removed. Since you didn't see it, you will never know. .


[edit on 16-3-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]