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

reply to post by paradox


I suppose you have point....but I did see that mega camera that came out in the news last year, and its is NASA, if the can see galaxies millions of light years away, surely they've got something that can see 13 miles??

As I say I dunno, Im just throwing it out there

the article states that they accidentally erased the original footage of the moon landing because they ran out of tapes.

is fox news running nasa.

you run out of tape, so the first thing that crosses your mind is to erase the most historic footage of man's technical achievement ever recorded in the history of space flight and exploration.

it's like erasing Christ's crucifixion, so you can tape Peter eating a salad.

and now 40+ years after the fact, nasa "proves" they went to the moon at a time when when cgi is nearly perfected and you need sophisticated and expensive equipment to even remotely have a chance of debunking an expertly doctored forgery.

very convenient. nasa fuels conspiracy theories more than they do the space shuttle.

reply to post by Lord Jules


The Lunokhod 2 was about 6 feet long and 5 feet wide. That's why it's able to be seen. You're not going to see a foot print.

If you think that's the size of a foot print compare it to the numerous craters around it.

That's one big foot print.

Im not an expert in photography or the moon or anything to do with this subject but wouldn't this picture from the OP's link confirm that there were multiple light sources when the photo was taken. Wouldn't the shadows go in the same direction if the Sun was the only light source? Again not sure, I am just pointing out something obvious that caught my eye.

reply to post by Sinny


Of course they have things that can see 13 miles that's why we have these pictures of the landing site.

But why would they waste good equipment for the MOON when we already have numerous lunar surface images from all of the Apollo missions that people seem to ignore?

There is nothing of interest on the moon. That's why there have been no more manned missions. There's no point. We know the geology, what it's made of, seismic activity, etc. The next time the moon will be used will be as a stepping stone for a manned mission to Mars.

reply to post by JustBreathe11


It's taken on a slope so that will affect lighting

imageshack.us...

No idea how to post with a picture in reply, but the flag is pointed out here... Anybody still yappin about "Moon Bases" probably thinks the boogy man still lives under their bed, and needs to be evaluated.....

Originally posted by paradox
It was proven in 1969 when they recorded footage of them on the moon.

Yeah and the flag waving to? in those photos there is to much lighting like in a studio and in such photos i haven't seen any stars explain that.

Originally posted by dayve
imageshack.us...

No idea how to post with a picture in reply, but the flag is pointed out here... Anybody still yappin about "Moon Bases" probably thinks the boogy man still lives under their bed, and needs to be evaluated.....

You do know with modern technology any images can be edited easily? oh that image looks edited

Anybody still yappin about "Moon Bases"

And what makes you think there arent any moon bases?

Originally posted by Sinny
Actually I've been meaning to ask this:

(I did actually already ask one of ATS best posters about this, its a subject he talks about it 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)

Personally I believe they did go to the moon, but MOST (not all) of what the masses saw was hollywood. I think they used a combination of "Safe" legitimate footage taken of the real mission and ""safe faked" footage.

I say this because I don't for one second believe the us government or nasa would leave something like alien contact etc up to LIVE TV...Are we to expect that us gov and nasa would just send a crew into space to our moon on live television without any control of what the masses might witness? I don't think so...

The above theory would explain why some of the footage seems highly orchestrated and faked, while they can also show legitimate and real footage or pictures of the LM on the moons surface. Its both real and fake.

The "people" got to see the safe stuff and the real stuff was cencored all together or pre-screened for release. This would explain why much of the evidence seems legitimate and some of it seems faked...

The Brookings assessment stated that information regarding the existence of alien anything should be kept secret or censored...because it would shatter world views and or our fabric of civilization etc...

as far as LIVE TV goes...after that rocket left the earths surface and entered space...there is no way to validate whether or not it was LIVE or synchronized prerecorded footage. Not to mention the closer to the moon they got the more lag in comm there was, tie this in with the communications black out when they went on the backside of the moon and there is plenty of time to censor/screen what people will get to see.

reply to post by JustBreathe11


The shadows are going to the same direction. The view and perspective make it appear like they are not. If you look at the same scene from directly above you see how they are. Common misconception amongs the lunar hoax theorist. If there were more than 1 light source there would be more than 1 shadow, more than 1 highlights etc.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by paradox
It was proven in 1969 when they recorded footage of them on the moon.

Yeah and the flag waving to? in those photos there is to much lighting like in a studio and in such photos i haven't seen any stars explain that.

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

Like in a studio, or like the sun with no atmosphere?

I also assume you know absolutely nothing about photography. If camera exposure settings were set to capture stars (a dim background light source) by letting in more light, the moon surface would be completely overexposed. By setting camera exposure to adjust to surface lighting, it doesn't let in dim background lighting. Therefore "no stars."

Come on, if they went through all the freaking trouble to hoax a moon landing do you think it would be that much trouble to add in a few specks to the background?

You just have no idea how reality works do you?

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

Oh, nobody in 1,000 years will be in a position to worry about it. What will the Earth's population be then? Between 30 and 50 billion? Most people will be trying to avoid being eaten by other people.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
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.

What you're looking at there is Lunokhod 2, a small (approx. 5'-dia.) remote-controlled rover. The Soviets put that there in 1977. Nothing to do with the US Moon Landings. The picture you're looking at is from the "secondary" link--the "related" link.

In other news: Having been a grown man and in the Navy in 1969, I'm absolutely securely convinced in my own mind (which is what counts) that we put men on the moon. I've tried arguing it with the faked-Moon-landing theorists, but I'm tired of it now. Every question they've asked has been answered many times, but they've apparently succeeded in their goal--which was to scatter those questions like mustard seed all over the print and internet world. I still see people asking those same questions, as if they've only heard of the one side--the question side--and never attempted to find the answer side. There is nothing that would constitute enough proof, short of taking them there and showing it to them, and I refuse to argue about it anymore. But good luck to those who do....

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by paradox
It was proven in 1969 when they recorded footage of them on the moon.

Yeah and the flag waving to? in those photos there is to much lighting like in a studio and in such photos i haven't seen any stars explain that.

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

Go outside when the stars are the brightest. Set your camera to 1/250, any F-stop, and let's say any ISO under 1600. See if there's any stars in your pictures and then come online to argue about it. It's really that easy to gain knowledge.

reply to post by paradox

I also assume you know absolutely nothing about photography. If camera exposure settings were set to capture stars (a dim background light source) by letting in more light, the moon surface would be completely overexposed. By setting camera exposure to adjust to surface lighting, it doesn't let in dim background lighting. Therefore "no stars." Come on, if they went through all the freaking trouble to hoax a moon landing do you think it would be that much trouble to add in a few specks to the background? You just have no idea how reality works do you?

You just have no idea how reality works do you?

You mean the reality to accept the fact we landed on the moon? if that were easy, then i would believe the government story that terrorists hate us for our freedoms to.

I also assume you know absolutely nothing about photography.

Very funny but myself i have taken many years of videos,photos and yes i do know photography

If camera exposure settings were set to capture stars (a dim background light source) by letting in more light, the moon surface would be completely overexposed. By setting camera exposure to adjust to surface lighting, it doesn't let in dim background lighting. Therefore "no stars."

Is that the best explanation you got? because that isn't quite correct, i have been to a studio before so i have seen some of the tricks they have done, its pretty much easy to do it when you have a million dollar business with the government.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by paradox
It was proven in 1969 when they recorded footage of them on the moon.

Yeah and the flag waving to? in those photos there is to much lighting like in a studio and in such photos i haven't seen any stars explain that.

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

Go outside when the stars are the brightest. Set your camera to 1/250, any F-stop, and let's say any ISO under 1600. See if there's any stars in your pictures and then come online to argue about it. It's really that easy to gain knowledge.

edit on 14/3/2012 by PsykoOps because: it

Let me guess you believe the government story we landed? because i dont.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

If camera exposure settings were set to capture stars (a dim background light source) by letting in more light, the moon surface would be completely overexposed. By setting camera exposure to adjust to surface lighting, it doesn't let in dim background lighting. Therefore "no stars."

Is that the best explanation you got? because that isn't quite correct, i have been to a studio before so i have seen some of the tricks they have done, its pretty much easy to do it when you have a million dollar business with the government.

Now you're just making stuff up. It is a fact that you cannot capture stars when photographing in full daylight with proper exposure. You claim to have been in a studio and that you supposedly have years of experience but that statement alone proves beyond any doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Let me guess you believe the government story we landed? because i dont.

I didn't say anything about peoples beliefs. That is irrelvant. Do as you are told and then report back. You can even post the pictures here for all to see.

reply to post by JustBreathe11




If there was two light sources that would cause both objects to have dual shadows.

This object has two shadows because it is lit by two light sources:


Logic fail.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

If camera exposure settings were set to capture stars (a dim background light source) by letting in more light, the moon surface would be completely overexposed. By setting camera exposure to adjust to surface lighting, it doesn't let in dim background lighting. Therefore "no stars."

Is that the best explanation you got? because that isn't quite correct, i have been to a studio before so i have seen some of the tricks they have done, its pretty much easy to do it when you have a million dollar business with the government.

Now you're just making stuff up. It is a fact that you cannot capture stars when photographing in full daylight with proper exposure. You claim to have been in a studio and that you supposedly have years of experience but that statement alone proves beyond any doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ok then lets forget about the dangers of the moon and the radiation which would have destroyed the cameras and the camera equipment, not to mention melt the lunar buggy tires.

I guess in some people minds the radiation was not a threat right?