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

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
you could take a hoaxer to the moon, push his nose onto the apollo artifacts, and he would say

"fake"

just a huge waste of time


I would like to pay for their flights to see them on the condition it's one way
edit on 15-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by asciikewl
 


There were no "hollywood basement shoots."
The original footage of the moon landing was recorded by the Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera and was aired live on TV. It was erased during a time when NASA was erasing old magnetic tapes and reusing them to record satellite data. It was a stupid mistake which they have admitted. NASA consulted with a digital restoration firm to enhance the televised footage for the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission.

It's sad that the original footage is gone because it was recorded in a format that had to be converted in order to be compatible with the televised broadcast back then, which lost a lot of the original quality.
edit on 3-15-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Baaaa!
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Smaller image instead

ETA Unprecedented detail still means blurry blob, no matter what you might claim.
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Images (animated ones, at that) depicting the increase in artificial objects in Earth orbit? And, the increase in the numbers over the decades?

You did realize that is what is being shown there.....right?

SO, this has to do with the Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site how, exactly??



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 

NASA, Russia, now India, China and ESA. All space polluters who will later charge "The Earth" both physically and metaphorically speaking to clean up all that junk. Thought it woulda been kinda obvious.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


You're aware that "junk" includes thousands and thousands of satellites, right?



Again, what does this have to do with the apollo 11 landing site?
edit on 3-15-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


That the images were obvious is not the point.

That the images have nothing to do with Apollo is the point.

Oh, and one more thing.....the representation of the objects in the various orbits? The sizes of each one are exaggerated, in order to be able to see them, at that scale (the size of the Earth, by comparison.....that scale).

It doesn't really "look" like that!! If you traveled out in a space ship, and turned back to view the Earth.....you wouldn't see any of that stuff. Maybe, the ISS ( it's the largest thing up there, right now.....)....

(.....unless you count the Klingon Battlecruiser that's poised to attack....oh, wait....that was from that other thread, the ridiculous "Aliens will attack next month", or whatever.
).



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bicnarok
 


the chinese should have better detail in there pics ???



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
You only need ONE element of NASA's version of events to not add up to discredit their story. There are many, and I do not mean any of the straw men repeatedly invoked by the debunkers like Mythbusters.

One of the big ones is how NASA and others, now and in the intervening years since Apollo, keep coming up with all these amazing discoveries, as if they are seeing this for the first time. Things that were (or should have been) settled if we actually put men on the surface of the moon, orbited the moon, and conducted extensive manned experiments. Things like radiation studies, water on the moon or not, photography and mapping, etc. Many of these things have come up from NASA, European, Chinese, and Indian moon missions.

The pesky issue of the lunar lander technology being completely incapable of doing what they said it did. Inexplicable absences of delays in radio transmissions, and zero accommodation for micro-metreroids and radiation while on the moon's surface (for days! LOL).

You don't need the straw men arguments of waving flags, shadows, and stars.

Few people today are aware that all transmissions and telemetry allegedly coming from the moon was relayed through Naval ships at sea and was entirely manipulated and controlled easily because of this. These were called the Apollo Instrumentation Ships and there were a lot of them. The Vandenberg, the Arnold, as well as the Mercury, the Redstone, and the Watertown as well as others. This answers the critics on how telemetry was "cooked" so those in Houston and Cape Kennedy were misled.

It isn't rocket science.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sprtpilot
Few people today are aware that all transmissions and telemetry allegedly coming from the moon was relayed through Naval ships at sea and was entirely manipulated and controlled easily because of this.


Straight up lies. Google Soviet Apollo Tracking and learn all about how the Soviets listened in to Apollos LIVE telemetry. They sure as hell didn't ask permission---but it was never secret anyway.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 


I will even do research for you:

www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru... in Russian



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sprtpilot

One of the big ones is how NASA and others, now and in the intervening years since Apollo, keep coming up with all these amazing discoveries, as if they are seeing this for the first time. Things that were (or should have been) settled if we actually put men on the surface of the moon, orbited the moon, and conducted extensive manned experiments. Things like radiation studies, water on the moon or not, photography and mapping, etc. Many of these things have come up from NASA, European, Chinese, and Indian moon missions.

The pesky issue of the lunar lander technology being completely incapable of doing what they said it did. Inexplicable absences of delays in radio transmissions, and zero accommodation for micro-metreroids and radiation while on the moon's surface (for days! LOL).


You are suggesting what would be an astronomical mission(s) to get all of that information in a few several hour long trips, probably not so equipped, That is ridiculous. Detection devises and methods have grown leaps and bounds since Apollo. Discoveries don't mean you have things wrong, it means discoveries, and they continue and will continue.

One of the ISS primary missions is to continue the study of radiation in orbit and beyond.

Citation needed for no radio delay in communications, from the moon, not in route.

Micrometeorites were a concern, a question, a calculated risk, you see this is all took place before the PC police and lawyers changed things. The suits were pretty tough with lots of redundancies. You think they didn't think of this? You think you found an impossibility, or is it just on the list of a moon hoax site.

Of all the hundreds of EVA's there has not been one casualty from a micrometeor impact or for that matter even a space junk impact, there is a lot of space out there. As soon as you leave the surface of the earth your space expands exponentially, have you ever been impact by a meteorite on the much smaller space as the surface of earth? Now you have a little more understanding of probabilities. Yes I know the little stuff doesn't get through but the available space is smaller than, well, space.


You don't need the straw men arguments of waving flags, shadows, and stars.


Then why bring them up?


Few people today are aware that all transmissions and telemetry allegedly coming from the moon was relayed through Naval ships at sea and was entirely manipulated and controlled easily because of this. These were called the Apollo Instrumentation Ships and there were a lot of them. The Vandenberg, the Arnold, as well as the Mercury, the Redstone, and the Watertown as well as others. This answers the critics on how telemetry was "cooked" so those in Houston and Cape Kennedy were misled.


Source, I'm not doing your homework. You made the claim.


You only need ONE element of NASA's version of events to not add up to discredit their story. There are many, and I do not mean any of the straw men repeatedly invoked by the debunkers like Mythbusters.


One element that may not add up to you may be due to ignorance in proper and extensive education in the field. One element doesn't discredit the program, that is shallow reasoning.
edit on 15-3-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos

Originally posted by sprtpilot
Few people today are aware that all transmissions and telemetry allegedly coming from the moon was relayed through Naval ships at sea and was entirely manipulated and controlled easily because of this.


Straight up lies. Google Soviet Apollo Tracking and learn all about how the Soviets listened in to Apollos LIVE telemetry. They sure as hell didn't ask permission---but it was never secret anyway.

I've always thought that made one of the strongest arguments for the Apollo landings having been 100% real and happened exactly as the world watched...or heard about for the ones the media didn't care to watch so much later on.

If this HAD been a hoax or any important part of it had been faked..the Soviet Union would have had a grin wider than a Cheshire Cat as they gleefully went back to the UN we made fools of them at more than once...and showed the world how we tried to pull one over on everyone. There is sure no way to argue the Soviets of the late 60's would have cooperated in a cover-up to help NASA.
They would have moved mountains to destroy NASA.

Thanks for the research too.... I found your link interesting!



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
so where is the massive alien ruins supposedly near the A11 landing site? i dont see em



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
Baaaa!
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Smaller image instead

ETA Unprecedented detail still means blurry blob, no matter what you might claim.
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



I see your from the Netherlands I take it you go to the coffee shops to often the signs are showing



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 


Your arguments from ignorance are simply stunning in their audacity? (and utter failure.....)...


The pesky issue of the lunar lander technology being completely incapable of doing what they said it did.


Oh? "completely incapable", eh? Wow, well with 'evidence' that solid, then there is no more room for discussion, is there?

....unless, the claim of "completely incapable" is utter hogwash? Which, it is.


Oh, but it gets better:


Inexplicable absences of delays in radio transmissions.....


Another failure of an assertion.

Listen starting about 0:25 seconds. Just so you understand, the recording is being made at Houston, here on Earth. When Charlie drops his hammer, (That's Charlie muttering "Ah, rats!", the Astronaut working CapCom (in Houston) sees it on the live TV video.....that signal, and the radio transmission from Charlie's voice-activated microphone of course come to Earth at the same speed of light.

So, CapCom says, "That's alright, uh, I do that all the time." (you can hear the beeps, those are the quindar tones). Then, CapCom adds: "Usually I have my thumb in the way." (More quindar tones, again).

But, listen carefully as Charlie exerts himself, while trying to pick up the hammer from the ground. When he breathes heavily, it triggers his voice-activated mic.....and, you can hear the end of what CapCom said (which you heard him say first, here on Earth) as it is only a second and one half later reaching Charlie, and playing in his helmet speakers.

You can hear the faint "....thumb in the way." @0:45 to 0:46 seconds.

Proof of the distance, all that way on the Moon, during that live broadcast. There are many, many more examples. Perhaps it was a ridiculous "conspiracy" site that gave you such bad information?? It is a good idea to validate their claims, with your own research.

Here, this animated GIF has the bean of yellow "light" moving at a scale speed, to fit the size of the image....it represents the true speed of light, for that Earth-Moon distance:



(It's wide, have to use the scroll feature)



... and zero accommodation for micro-metreroids and radiation while on the moon's surface (for days! LOL).


What "radiation"?? Is there a nuclear power plant accident up there, or something?? If you mean the Sun? Well, walk outside during the day time. There, now YOU are getting "radiation" too....about as much as they got.



Few people today are aware that all transmissions and telemetry allegedly coming from the moon was relayed through Naval ships at sea and was entirely manipulated and controlled easily because of this. These were called the Apollo Instrumentation Ships and there were a lot of them. The Vandenberg, the Arnold, as well as the Mercury, the Redstone, and the Watertown as well as others. This answers the critics on how telemetry was "cooked" so those in Houston and Cape Kennedy were misled.


And, already refuted in a post above....just repeated because it is so comically incorrect. Another 'zinger' of a lie from a "conspiracy" site, again??




It isn't rocket science.


LOL!! Oh, but it is! Man, the irony.....it IS science, and very advanced usually....little wonder that those without the proper education to understand it can't get off square one.


BTW....that video clip I chose was brief, just so it didn't take a lot of people's time to watch. But, is that something that YOU would "plan" if YOU were "hoaxing" a Lunar EVA video??

What would be the point of doing it like that, "if" it were "faked"?? Dropping the hammer, having trouble getting the core sample tube into the hard ground, etc....

Common sense seems to have left the building.......
edit on Thu 15 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

Your comment is off-topic and against T&C!
I am not from the Netherlands, I just live here. I am English and not proud of it, hence my exodus from that stinking, repressed, enforced pub-early closing, binge-drinking dump of a country. Clear enough?


ETA What I choose to put into my body is nobody's business but my own, as is the case with your body although you probably fail to realise that.
edit on 15/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
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)


Actually it does look a lot like that Putt-Putt Golf place, if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustBreathe11
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.



Single light source (dark shadows).

Fisheye lens to take in maximum scene then the photo processed to straighten out the distorted image.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

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


Nope, the opposite, perfectly preserved in a hard vacuum for billions of years.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join