Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site --Now Seen in Unprecedented Detail

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

The Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site --Now Seen in Unprecedented Detail


www.dailygalaxy. com

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera snapped its best look yet of the Apollo 11 landing site on the moon. The image, which was released on March 7, 2012, even shows the remnants of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's historic first steps on the surface around the Lunar Module.This image of the Apollo 11 landing site captured from just 24 km (15 miles) above the surface provides LRO's best look yet at humanity’s first venture to another world.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
lroc.sese.asu.edu
edit on 3/14/2012 by tothetenthpower because: --Mod Edit--Use Exact Headline.




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
could this be the proof that we did go to the moon after all? Ive been a sceptic about the landings after seeing various videos and lots of reading, but this and the fact that there is a mirror on the moon prove that it did happen. I didn´t think we could go past the van allen belts yet. Maybe aliens helped us get there. opinions?

www.dailygalaxy. com
(visit the link for the full news article)


+26 more 
posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
It was proven in 1969 when they recorded footage of them on the moon.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Mythbusters did a great job of proving that NASA didn't fake the moon landings.




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
That's not what they say it is. That's obviously a moon base and they are trying to cover it up by saying it's part of the Apollo missions. Give your head a shake.

People believe anything these days....









edit on 14-3-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
What amazes me is that if they went to the moon in 1969, why has no one been back since. Surely the other countries arn´t that far behind the US of 1969, even with their Nazi helpers they couldn´t have made such a leap forward. I know China and Russia were going on about going to the moon, why not?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Actually I've been meaning to ask this:

(I did actually already ask one of ATSs best posters about this, its a subject he talks about an awfully lot, but I noticed some discrepancies in his views)

This person is convinced the moon landings were a hoax, however uses multiple quotes/facts from the mission transcripts to back up other theories he has.

So I asked him what the deal was....If the moon landings were fake, does that mean I should disregard the suspicious lines in the transcripts that mention, clouds, storms, UFO, alien craft, wind and mining on the moon?

Because if the mission was fake, then the transcripts have got to be fake to, yea??

But then again why would they include all of the above in fake transcripts?

So that means the moon landing did happen right?

I dunno, and I sure would appreciate some opinions on the matter. the guy I asked ignored my question to him.

(sorry if you read this, but I haven't mentioned you by name)
edit on 14-3-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Ah, the good ol' evidence is only valid if it suits my current hypothesis. That's awesome...




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Just more proof that the people who perpetuate the moon landing hoax theory do not know what they are talking about and twist reality to meet their delusional 'truths'



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Nice picture of the lunar module, yeah it's an alien base, what a nut, I guess NASA, ASU and the Japanese are all part of the conspiracy, the conspiracy that there is a tiny moon base the size of the lunar module? Funny stuff.

Btw the Van Allen belt is moderately dangerous for humans, it's not an unstoppable wall like you've been told.

In 1,000 years when there is a theme park built around the moon landing, will there still be people claiming it was fake?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Didnt Neal and Buzz leave a mirror on the lunar surface so that we could shine a laser up to it and get a absolutely perfect mearsurement of how far the moon is from Earth? That would be proof enough for me.

But I wouldnt expect this picture to convince anyone that doesnt want to believe.

"Pics or it didnt happen"
"OK ... here you go"
"Those were photoshopped. Video or it didnt happen."
"This was a pain in the ass to find but here you go."
"You can do anything with CGI nowadays"
"I hate you"
"DISINFO AGENT!!!!!!"

As a matter of fact here it is. The Lunar Laser Rangin Experiment.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit to add - Good find OP. Beautiful picture.
edit on 14-3-2012 by underduck because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-3-2012 by underduck because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-3-2012 by underduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 


On another thread someone said secret robots were sent up to recreate the rover tracks. I assume robots also put the mirrors there as well.



Disinfo agent.
I hate you.
edit on 3-14-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I don't see any picture of the flag. Did it blow away? Lol.

But seriously it looks like a tiny dark spot and I'm supposed to believe that is neil armstong's footprint? And there isn't even a flag!
If you want to prove the moon landing, GO to the moon. Oh thats right, our 21st century technology is nothing compared to 1960's technology. What does that say about society?

Newt 2012 Moon bases lol.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Lord Jules because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


Ill second that....can we get a recent picture of the flag left up there? That will prove or disprove it in all of 2 seconds lol.....anyone??



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


Put a 5' tall flag in your front yard and then take a picture from 13 miles up.

Tell me how that goes for you.

And no, those are rover tracks.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


Put a 5' tall flag in your front yard and then take a picture from 13 miles up.

Tell me how that goes for you.

And no, those are rover tracks.


but a 1' footprint can be seen clearly?

Really?

Actually its just a foot across, since it is buried in the ground it is about negative 2 inches or so. So a footprint buried two inches in the ground can be sen better than a five foot pole? Not quite believable.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Lord Jules because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Secret robots you say? Hmmmmm That does make a lot of sense and it would be pretty easy to pull off. Im convinced. Throw out all this other evidence.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


Put a 5' tall flag in your front yard and then take a picture from 13 miles up.

Tell me how that goes for you.

And no, those are rover tracks.


but a 1' footprint can be seen clearly?

Really?


Once again, those are not footprints they are rover tracks, and the reason they can be seen is the difference in color between the disturbed surface, and undisturbed surface.

Yes, really.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 


Yes secret robots. You wouldn't know about them though because they're secret.

Only me and the other guy know about them because we just know.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


lroc.sese.asu.edu...

this is the picture i'm talking about. It looks like a smudge, nothing near a rover. It looks more like a footprint actually than a rover. I dont see how this is any different from the countless threads saying how a smudge looks like a moon base. Looks like nasa just picked a smudge and called it a rover before the internet community could call it a base. Still looks like a smudge.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join