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

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by ajay59

 

Who would you like to research the chlorine counts in lunar regolith? You? Do you have a laboratory with all the accoutrements?

My guess is, that short of going to the moon yourself, you will never come up with the samples because everyone with a free mind knows there are none here on Earth!

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Sorry I derailed the thread with facts to disprove some obviously incorrect statements made by another member...back to the thread:

How cool are these pictures of the Apollo sites? Waaayyy cool!*




*post brought to you by NASA and the Consortium of Interplanetary Illuminati in conjunction with Barbara Bush Inc.

reply to post by paradox


Quote:www.nasa.gov...

So you are telling us all here that you were there for the moon landings? Or are just implying that I'm ignorant? If you were not present for the moon landings then you know nothing more than the rest of us!

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Sorry I derailed the thread with facts to disprove some obviously incorrect statements made by another member...back to the thread:

How cool are these pictures of the Apollo sites? Waaayyy cool!*




*post brought to you by NASA and the Consortium of Interplanetary Illuminati in conjunction with Barbara Bush Inc.

LOL, you are too funny my friend!

reply to post by ajay59


Hilarious!!!

NASA is an evil organization perpetuating a 40+ year old hoax. They hide aliens and moon bases, and they lie about everything. But yet you link to NASA when you are trying to prove something

It is only a lie when you say it is, right?!

What is the point of that link, anyway? That has nothing to do with the moon photos.


By your logic, we can be skeptical about World War 2 happening as well, right?

reply to post by ajay59



I would be delighted to add you as a friend if that is acceptable to you?

Calling anyone who questions the Apollo moon landing demeaning names is absolutely ridiculous, and is definitely beneath common decency, as well as argument. Saying you disagree is one thing, calling others' beliefs delusional without any accompanying evidence is what is delusional. This is addressed to whoever knows who they are by the way.

I personally do not subscribe the moon landing being a hoax or it being real, but with that said, the proponents of the theory bring up very interesting, and very VALID points. Some of these questions have NEVER been adequately explained to any conclusive degree. IF the landing was in fact a hoax, hoaxing this picture would be a piece of cake.

From my point of view, those who call believers "delusional" without any shred of doubt, have never fully investigated the subject from every angle. There is even good visual evidence of a hoax. But if it was not a hoax, the explanations to account for these anomalies would have to be pretty far out there. I think it has been proven, as in a certainty, that some of the images from that mission show definite signs of manipulation. I know of two experts who have validated this, and that evidence and varying presentations are available online if one wishes to find them.

That doesn't prove this a hoax, but it is another one of those "questionable" occurrences that need to be explained. There are at least a handful of other extremely odd things in those photos, which tells me that no one should believe we went to the moon without looking into the available evidence. The evidence we received from NASA.

We very well could have went to the moon, but as someone said, no one, from any country, has yet to go back. Is this because it is impossible? I don't know, but I will entertain that and similar ideas. NONE of us know with any certainty, so calling others names and "thinking" you are right does NOT make it so. I don't care how much you feel you are correct, you CANNOT "KNOW" it as fact.

This thread is not even supposed to be about the above. This new evidence is neat in my opinion. I only saw one picture, and was wondering if I should go back to see if there are more. I doubt they would be any closer than the one I saw, if it was the right one to begin with, but I guess I will try. I will also say that since it is proven NASA manipulates photos, we will probably never know what is real and what is not.

reply to post by ajay59


If you were referring to me, I will be friends with anyone who doesn't hold hate in their hearts...but you know I made that footnote out of sarcasm, not shared beliefs.

I stand by an earlier statement that NASA is either lying about being on the moon or lying about the resolution of their imaging technology. That in it's self is a hurtle that can not be cleared. Therefore the fact that NASA has and does lie to this day is all the proof I will ever need. If you care to take them at their word, then more power to ya!

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by ajay59

 

If you were referring to me, I will be friends with anyone who doesn't hold hate in their hearts...but you know I made that footnote out of sarcasm, not shared beliefs.

It's a done deal my friend!

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Calling anyone who questions the Apollo moon landing demeaning names is absolutely ridiculous, and is definitely beneath common decency, as well as argument. Saying you disagree is one thing, calling others' beliefs delusional without any accompanying evidence is what is delusional. This is addressed to whoever knows who they are by the way.

I personally do not subscribe the moon landing being a hoax or it being real, but with that said, the proponents of the theory bring up very interesting, and very VALID points. Some of these questions have NEVER been adequately explained to any conclusive degree. IF the landing was in fact a hoax, hoaxing this picture would be a piece of cake.

From my point of view, those who call believers "delusional" without any shred of doubt, have never fully investigated the subject from every angle. There is even good visual evidence of a hoax. But if it was not a hoax, the explanations to account for these anomalies would have to be pretty far out there. I think it has been proven, as in a certainty, that some of the images from that mission show definite signs of manipulation. I know of two experts who have validated this, and that evidence and varying presentations are available online if one wishes to find them.

That doesn't prove this a hoax, but it is another one of those "questionable" occurrences that need to be explained. There are at least a handful of other extremely odd things in those photos, which tells me that no one should believe we went to the moon without looking into the available evidence. The evidence we received from NASA.

We very well could have went to the moon, but as someone said, no one, from any country, has yet to go back. Is this because it is impossible? I don't know, but I will entertain that and similar ideas. NONE of us know with any certainty, so calling others names and "thinking" you are right does NOT make it so. I don't care how much you feel you are correct, you CANNOT "KNOW" it as fact.

This thread is not even supposed to be about the above. This new evidence is neat in my opinion. I only saw one picture, and was wondering if I should go back to see if there are more. I doubt they would be any closer than the one I saw, if it was the right one to begin with, but I guess I will try. I will also say that since it is proven NASA manipulates photos, we will probably never know what is real and what is not.

Hi jiggy,
Well rounded statement. You won't get a big head if I call you a gentelman after reading your post? Hope not.
One question. If you liked the photo, WHY?
Also you did notice that a part of the title of the authors work is UNPRESIDENTED.
So if you think you can find a better one, knock your self out.
I try to look at them all. But the advocates here of the best, the one, and the only good recent photo is defended and defined by the best NASA can send here to the site. And if they don't send nobody the other posters are the just blowing thier own smoke without credentials.
again, good post brother

Originally posted by ajay59
I stand by an earlier statement that NASA is either lying about being on the moon or lying about the resolution of their imaging technology. That in it's self is a hurtle that can not be cleared. Therefore the fact that NASA has and does lie to this day is all the proof I will ever need. If you care to take them at their word, then more power to ya!

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you never bothered researching the LRO or anything about the LROC, right?

Just because HiRISE is in use for an unexplored planet doesn't mean they are going to use one just like it for the moon...a place which we have already been and have numerous surface photos of. But you ignore those because of course "they're fake," just like everything else in the world. Yet you will show no proof of that either.

Why are you ignoring the photographs taken by the astronauts on the moon?

en.wikipedia.org...

www.lroc.asu.edu...

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) is designed to address two of the prime LRO measurement requirements: 1) Assess meter scale features to facilitate selection of future landing sites on the Moon. 2) Acquire images of the poles every orbit to characterize the polar illumination environment (100 meter scale), identifying regions of permanent shadow and permanent or near-permanent illumination over a full lunar year. In addition to these two main objectives, the LROC team is conducting meter-scale mapping of polar regions, stereo images that provide meter-scale topographic measurements, global multi-spectral imaging, and has produced a global landform map. We have imaged over 20% of the Moon at high resolution using the Narrow Angle Cameras; if the LRO mission continues for several more years, we will eventually image the whole moon at 1/2 m/pixel. LROC images will also be used to map and determine current impact hazards by imaging areas photographed by Apollo astronauts. Comparing the new and old images reveals impact craters that formed over the past 40 years.

LROC consists of two Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs) to provide 0.5 meter-scale panchromatic images over a 5 km swath, a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) to provide images at a scale of 100 meters/pixel in seven color bands over a 60 km swath, and a Sequence and Compressor System (SCS) supporting data acquisition for both cameras. LROC is a modified version of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiters ConTeXt Camera (CTX) and MARs Color Imager (MARCI) provided by Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS) in San Diego, CA.

Do you also have any idea of the expense to build and operate an imaging system such as the Mars HiRISE? it was $720 million just to build it. Pretty damn expensive with the minimal budget they are running on....

Why would NASA waste money and stunt human progress and discoveries, just to please a tiny fringe group stuck in the distant past who still believe the landing on the moon can not/did not happen?

It's 2012 my friend. Time to grow up a little!

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by ajay59
I stand by an earlier statement that NASA is either lying about being on the moon or lying about the resolution of their imaging technology. That in it's self is a hurtle that can not be cleared. Therefore the fact that NASA has and does lie to this day is all the proof I will ever need. If you care to take them at their word, then more power to ya!

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you never bothered researching the LRO or anything about the LROC, right?

Just because HiRISE is in use for an unexplored planet doesn't mean they are going to use one just like it for the moon...a place which we have already been and have numerous surface photos of. But you ignore those because of course "they're fake," just like everything else in the world. Yet you will show no proof of that either.

Why are you ignoring the photographs taken by the astronauts on the moon?

en.wikipedia.org...

www.lroc.asu.edu...

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) is designed to address two of the prime LRO measurement requirements: 1) Assess meter scale features to facilitate selection of future landing sites on the Moon. 2) Acquire images of the poles every orbit to characterize the polar illumination environment (100 meter scale), identifying regions of permanent shadow and permanent or near-permanent illumination over a full lunar year. In addition to these two main objectives, the LROC team is conducting meter-scale mapping of polar regions, stereo images that provide meter-scale topographic measurements, global multi-spectral imaging, and has produced a global landform map. We have imaged over 20% of the Moon at high resolution using the Narrow Angle Cameras; if the LRO mission continues for several more years, we will eventually image the whole moon at 1/2 m/pixel. LROC images will also be used to map and determine current impact hazards by imaging areas photographed by Apollo astronauts. Comparing the new and old images reveals impact craters that formed over the past 40 years.

LROC consists of two Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs) to provide 0.5 meter-scale panchromatic images over a 5 km swath, a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) to provide images at a scale of 100 meters/pixel in seven color bands over a 60 km swath, and a Sequence and Compressor System (SCS) supporting data acquisition for both cameras. LROC is a modified version of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiters ConTeXt Camera (CTX) and MARs Color Imager (MARCI) provided by Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS) in San Diego, CA.

Do you also have any idea of the expense to build and operate an imaging system such as the Mars HiRISE? it was $720 million just to build it. Pretty damn expensive with the minimal budget they are running on....

Why would NASA waste money and stunt human progress and discoveries, just to please a tiny fringe group stuck in the distant past who still believe the landing on the moon can not/did not happen?

It's 2012 my friend. Time to grow up a little!

edit on 3-16-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

Hi paradox. Looks like aj has you by the short ones.
How do I know?
Heck just look at your lengthy mish mash reply.
Not a damn thing about the reality of the photos being reconizible as the author boasts.
just gaspin for air.
please do stop wasting precious file space.
I hate to go to sleep and leave honest people to your devices.

What's a little strange for me is the apparent lack of exploring they seem to have done despite having the rover.

I know they said it was a shorter visit but compared to the footage from other missions it seem like they did very little in the way of going places, they more or less seemed to have walked to the end of the garden and come home. Considering the time, money and effort I kind of expected to see a hell of a lot more exploration with the buggy.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


Any of the EVA excursions using the LRV were such that, in a "worst case scenario" (such as a total failure of the LRV), there was still ample life support in the suits that the Astronauts could get back to the LM on foot. Just as a very emergency contingency back-up......

If there is a way to access the actual NASA "mission rules", it would be nice.....I've searched, and maybe haven't used the right key words to find it.

Originally posted by chr0naut

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.

Yes a fisheye lens would cause the shadows to change position BUT they used Hasselblads and I don't think they had a wide angle lens with them.

Standard lens and a telephoto lens iirc.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Calling anyone who questions the Apollo moon landing demeaning names is absolutely ridiculous, and is definitely beneath common decency, as well as argument. Saying you disagree is one thing, calling others' beliefs delusional without any accompanying evidence is what is delusional. This is addressed to whoever knows who they are by the way.

Well I look at it this way many of the hoax believers use photographic anomalies to put their case forward such as " no stars" "shadow direction" "well exposed pictures" "pictures look to good ie well framed" etc etc.

Now many on here are amatuer (myself 30+ yrs), semi pro or even pro photographers we go out our way to explain why these happen by explaining or providing links and are told we are wrong by people who obviously don't have a clue, I think calling them DELUSIONAL is fairly tame because if we said what we really think we would be banned.

Many of these people post with the belief that anything posted by NASA has been photoshopped and if we try to show the reason its not we are disinfo agents,shills etc some deserve a visit from Buzz Aldrin, I like what he does when people call him a liar

Many of the things they claim they can see here on this pale blue dot, stand on some uneven ground near or on top of a hill or near a wall and see what happens with your shadow, take a picture of the moon with the correct exposure and no stars show, change the exposure for the stars and the moon becomes an over exposed white blob,use depth of field to have an area a few in front of you to infinity in focus so you can just point and shoot, that's how the astronauts didn't need to worry about focus. The moon and earth have the same light source again you can use this to pre set exposure for various conditions.

These things have been explained a thousand times on here and other sites but you get new members and another thread pops up with the same BS and although its been explained before the same old hoax believers will appear at some point.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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)

This is classic comedy.
First and formost. Even if some person did go to the moon, then nobody I mean nobody has been back since what, 1973 or so. How the hell would ya get those Hoaxers up dare.
I understand nasa has even lost the recipe for the Saturn 5 and the lunar landers. And with all the time and money NASA only got a dozen or so folks up there,if it's true.
So how the heck you gonna get millions of hoaxers up there to see those FAMOUS
foot prints anyhow??????? These photos don't hack it.
Oh BTW x pres DUBYA said the USA would have new boot prints up there in 2015.
Looks like he beat you guys to the comedy.
later dudes

You wouldn't need to get millions there just a few of the most idiotic of them a few people on here might qualify

Once you have been on here a bit longer you will see some members on here think its so easy to get there that they talk about their own mission that's because they think they can to better and want to find the alien bases

The pictures may not seem impressive to you but its obvious that you don't have a clue about the subject of photography/digital imaging which is NO great loss!!!

If you are young enough to realistically be alive in 20-30 years time then it is possible man will get to the moon.

The footage brought back and the the technical problems will reveal we could not have made it back in 1969.

There has been an attempt to add new information to the astronauts experience of walking on the moon, but it will get harder to resolve the obvious shortfalls in technology that existed back then, it is already and awkward assimilation.. like trying to bolt new parts on to an old plane.

Conspiracy theories by their nature are seen as fodder for the weak minded so we all edge away from the crazies because we don't want to be associated with them.

My own experience of coming to accept that the moon landing could not have happened was quite distressing as I am sure like many of you out there I had dreamed of being an astronaut as a child, to look back and see that as somehow corrupted and false is unsettling, but in the end enlightening.

During University I did some medical research trials and was stuck in a unit for 32 days with a mix of random characters, one of these people just happened to be full of conspiracy theories.. I remember being angry with him and slowly as the study went on this individual became more isolated from the rest of the group, so I thought what the hell! Not much else to do in here, I will hear him out fully and try and prove one of his conspiracies wrong to help him end his delusion!.. So a moon landing hoax we went a hunting..

One of the key points that really started to make me doubt the landings, was the missing original high quality footage, America is the United States of Marketing so to lose this footage simply does not fit, especially when you consider the cost of getting that footage. Whilst reading up on this, another point was raised, why did they miss such an incredible opportunity to prove to the world that astronauts were on the surface of the moon? A simple magnesium flare would have been visible from the earth, so this would have been compelling evidence, they had so much time to compose all those photos, perhaps they could have taken a few less and lit 3 of these magnesium flares at regular intervals so virtually the whole planet could have viewed them.

There is nothing left on the moon that could not have been put there at a later date by unmanned craft. There are samples of moon rock found here on Earth, so this could have been used to synthesize moon rock. So what are we left with other than the grainy footage?.. the testimony of the astronauts. If anyone can tell me what Neil Armstrong meant by "breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers" I would be interested to hear it, to me it is very clear that until we reveal the hoax true space exploration is being strangled.

www.youtube.com...


This was around 10 years ago and it has taken that long to really accept and fully understand how it was faked and why.. But more so the implications of it to wider society and the potential dangers of it being revealed. Expect a gradual revelation, but this will only happen when there is money to be made from the moon.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Maybe if you would read his post, you would see he linked to NASAs Mars HiRISE. He's the one gasping for air...

Why are you still commenting? You have contributed the least in this thread out of everyone here. Absolutely nothing, actually.

What you are doing is called "trolling"