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

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Ove38

 

Were did you get the info that the camera was a 100ft away

From Neil Armstrong

4:30 > www.youtube.com...

They had a 100ft of cable was the terrain perfectly FLAT

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Ove38

 

Hi Ove,
very interesting.
Do you think you could tell me why the craters seem to be upsidedown?
Is it just me?

Your eyes are failing posiible reason

Hello again wmd
Well of course that can happen to anybody.
I had mine checked about a year ago, how bout you?
What I am getting at is that most moon craters I have seen in the past are darker in the center and look to be concave. The ones ove's posted seem to look convex and brighter in the center.
I was actually asking the question to Ove. I hope your pre empt won't stop him from replying.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Ove38

 

Here is a link to the Apollo 11 traverse map

www.lpi.usra.edu...

That has a scale using GIMP photosoftware and its measurement tool you can measure the number of pixels to compare the traverse map with the picture photo matches the map!!!!

edit on 17-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

No, it's not even close to 100 feet (30 m) away from the LM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Ove38

 

Were did you get the info that the camera was a 100ft away

From Neil Armstrong

4:30 > www.youtube.com...

They had a 100ft of cable was the terrain perfectly FLAT

Hi
If your eyes are working well and those photos are as good as you claim in other posts. Then why wouldn't you know the answer to your own question?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Ove38

 

Hi Ove,
very interesting.
Do you think you could tell me why the craters seem to be upsidedown?
Is it just me?

Originally posted by Ove38

No, it's not even close to 100 feet (30 m) away from the LM

The LM and pads are 31 feet wide. I measured that out to .85 CM. From the LM to camera is 2.6 CM... I would say that is pretty damn close to 100 feet.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Ove38

 

Were did you get the info that the camera was a 100ft away

From Neil Armstrong

4:30 > www.youtube.com...

They had a 100ft of cable was the terrain perfectly FLAT

First Neil Armstrong says far things looked quite near.

Then he says they could not see a 100 feet high hill that was only 1200 feet away ?

Why didn't the hill seem 600 feet away ? like the camera semed 50 feet away, when in fact it was 100 feet away

5:15 > www.youtube.com...
]

reply to post by Ove38

This is obviously fake. The television camera should be 100 feet (30 m) away from the lunar module descent stage.

[Armstrong] removed the TV camera from the MESA and made a panoramic sweep, then mounted it on a tripod 68 feet (21 m) from the LM. The TV camera cable remained partly coiled and presented a tripping hazard throughout the EVA.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you actually look at the photos, you can readily see that the cable was not lying flat.




www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Ove38

First Neil Armstrong says far things looked quite near.

Correct, due to the lack of atmospheric shading and reference points for perspective.

Then he says they could not see a 100 feet high hill that was only 1200 feet away ?

Because the lunar horizon is quite close.

Why didn't the hill seem 600 feet away ? like the camera semed 50 feet away, when in fact it was 100 feet away

Because he couldn't see it, it was over the horizon. As pointed out above, the camera was not 100 feet away. The astronauts were prepared for the tricks that the lunar surface can play on perception. If they were so easily fooled, it is no wonder that some untrained observers cannot understand what they are looking at in the Apollo photographs.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Ove38

 

First Neil Armstrong says far things looked quite near.

Correct, due to the lack of atmospheric shading and reference points for perspective.

Then he says they could not see a 100 feet high hill that was only 1200 feet away ?

Because the lunar horizon is quite close.

Why didn't the hill seem 600 feet away ? like the camera semed 50 feet away, when in fact it was 100 feet away

Because he couldn't see it, it was over the horizon. As pointed out above, the camera was not 100 feet away. The astronauts were prepared for the tricks that the lunar surface can play on perception. If they were so easily fooled, it is no wonder that some untrained observers cannot understand what they are looking at in the Apollo photographs.

I think Mr. Armstrong is trying to explain why there is no hills in his photos. To me it sounds ridiculous.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Ove38

 

Hi Ove,
very interesting.
Do you think you could tell me why the craters seem to be upsidedown?
Is it just me?

Hello again wmd
Well of course that can happen to anybody.
I had mine checked about a year ago, how bout you?
What I am getting at is that most moon craters I have seen in the past are darker in the center and look to be concave. The ones ove's posted seem to look convex and brighter in the center.
I was actually asking the question to Ove. I hope your pre empt won't stop him from replying.

Your eyes are failing posiible reason

You undestand how shadows are formed it take it!!!

When is a crater not a crater



Well that depnds on how you look at it.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Ove38

 

Hi Ove,
very interesting.
Do you think you could tell me why the craters seem to be upsidedown?
Is it just me?

Hello again wmd
Well of course that can happen to anybody.
I had mine checked about a year ago, how bout you?
What I am getting at is that most moon craters I have seen in the past are darker in the center and look to be concave. The ones ove's posted seem to look convex and brighter in the center.
I was actually asking the question to Ove. I hope your pre empt won't stop him from replying.

Your eyes are failing posiible reason

You undestand how shadows are formed it take it!!!

When is a crater not a crater

Well that depnds on how you look at it.

edit on 17-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

That's funny but alas it still shows dark centers.
I sure am glad Ove asnwered his was a good one.

reply to post by Ove38


Speechless!
Says it all right there.
thanks Ove

Originally posted by magmaiura
Does it not seem unlikely that NASA got to the moon 42 years ago when even with the vast advances in technology the best we can do today is crash a probe into the moon?

What does a probe, that was designed to crash into the Moon (LCROSS), have to do with technological development? That makes no sense. The LCROSS mission was a low budget mission, it does not represent the best NASA can do.

This is a funny story on moon rock that turned out to be fake.

First of all. The "rock" in question was never claimed to be a Moon rock by the US, NASA or anyone. It was likely the museum that misidentified it. The articles headline is also wrong. The rock was not given to the former Netherlands PM, by the Apollo 11 astronauts. The US ambassador gave it to the former PM as a private gift, during the time that the Apollo 11 astronauts were on their good will tour.

The real Moon rocks that were given to other Countries were encased in a clear plastic with a sample of Lunar rock weighing between 0.05g to 1.1g. This petrified wood was not encased in plastic and it was 98g! Plus, this goodwill tour happened in 1969, NASA didn't start giving out Lunar samples until after the Apollo missions in 1972, from what I understand.

So it seems pretty clear that this was simply a misunderstanding on some ones part, likely the museums.

The radiation belt issue is never dealt with,

Lets looks at a few quote from your article carefully

...humans might not survive thanks to the whopping dose of ionising radiation they would receive travelling through the core of the Van Allen radiation belts around Earth

"They would die on the way through the radiation belts if they were unshielded,"...

Emphasis mine.

Now, did the Apollo astronauts travel through the core of the radiation belts? No they did not. Their trajectory took them through the outer edges of it. Thus they experienced a lower amount of radiation. Here's a video that shows how they traveled through the belts.



Were the Apollo astronauts unshielded? Of course not. The aluminum hull, plus insulating material within the spacecraft helped to shield them and minimize the radiation exposure.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


I take it YOU walk about with your eyes closed and dont notice how shadows change during the day and would you believe it that happens on the moon what kind of education have you had any

Here is a little video notice how the terrain changes due to the change in position of the sun



That should be simple enough even for you

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

I take it YOU walk about with your eyes closed and dont notice how shadows change during the day and would you believe it that happens on the moon

what kind of education have you had

any

Here is a little video notice how the terrain changes due to the change in position of the sun

That should be simple enough even for you

edit on 17-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Hi wmd
I am educated enough to read a snotnosed reply.
And your video is as useless as the photos you posted.
None shows the center of the craters in total light.
nice try.
BTW I initally didn't ask you as your attitude is not one of an educated individual.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Go to 0:59 and open those tired old eyes!!! and stop talking BS!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Go to 0:59 and open those tired old eyes!!! and stop talking BS!!

wmd Dude

The film says that they are convoluted and enhanced photos.
Photoshoped. It's not my eyes.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
The film says that they are convoluted and enhanced photos.
Photoshoped. It's not my eyes.

It says deconvolved which has to do with reversing image distortion. You can read more about it in the link.

But what does that have to do with shadows in craters? You said:

"None shows the center of the craters in total light."

Like wmd said, go to 0:59 in the video. The image transitions to other images of the Apollo 11 landing site that were taken at different times of the day. Showing different lighting angles and fully lit craters.

Originally posted by bicnarok


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)

If we can savely lower a vihicel on Mars with an unmanned delivery system we can sure as heaven drop a mirror on the Moon without an astronaut present. Yeah, I know that we have more advanced tech today but it still would be less complicated than to drop astronauts on the Moon in '69.

IMHO there is definitely something fishy going on with manned or unmanned Moon missions. And today it is impossible to base conclusions with photographs as the only evidence.