Apollo 17 Photography Stations Located To Within 50 cm On LROC Map

Boy! there sure seems to be alot of "Deny"ing going on here.

"Ignorance" is also brought into the equation but not the way it was intended in this site's slogan!

But seriously............

Does anyone ever consider that the moon landings actually DID happen and are not faked?
That what are fake, and /or doctored, are the public consumption and press release photos? Due to the propaganda importance of these events?

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

The link leads me directly to a login page with nothing else visible. No worries, it was more an observation than a criticism. I doubt I'll understand much of it at all but I'm sure others might be interested.

Sorry. This is more readable anyway:

www.wired.com...

I think that what is more likely is that there is better technology than we are led to believe and this technology was available earlier than the Apollo/Russian missions. IF this is correct (which obviously I dont know), then there would be high resolution or good detailed photographs available at the time to plan the Apollo/Russian Moon landings.

One of the biggest challenges for me to believe is that there was the necessary technology available at the time to allow the US to (relatively) suddenly get a man on the Moon, although I do think that they got there (somehow). There is so much detail which is not available to us, that I have to wonder why this is and what has stopped us from making more use of the Moon than we have. Going to Mars is sexy but not as practical.

Originally posted by grubblesnert
Boy! there sure seems to be alot of "Deny"ing going on here.

"Ignorance" is also brought into the equation but not the way it was intended in this site's slogan!

But seriously............

Does anyone ever consider that the moon landings actually DID happen and are not faked?
That what are fake, and /or doctored, are the public consumption and press release photos? Due to the propaganda importance of these events?

edit on 26-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: spellin'

This is another theory out there, but please, show us evidence of 'fake, and /or doctored' photos, if you have any, I've never seen one, and I would wager neither have you.

This is another theory out there, but please, show us evidence of 'fake, and /or doctored' photos, if you have any, I've never seen one, and I would wager neither have you.

I love it when people say this. Where have you been living??? under a stone or on some far-out planet? People who say this must really believe what NASA say and swallow their speil hook,line, and sinker.

There are many doctored images - for a start all the ones from the Mars Rovers are downgraded and even the ones on the PDS are very poor quality. Comparing the detail in the MER pancam taken on earth and the detail in the pancam images taken on Mars, there is absolutely no way the images we get in the PDS are as good as the ones NASA get to see.

We get images of asteroids which are cropped so that only the asteroid itself is shown and not the background. Now, I ask you.. why would that be? The images are "supposed" to be taken by the spacecraft on fly-bys but if they were, we would get the whole thing, not some manipulated cropped fuzzy image.

Some images even have duplicated stars in them from one section of the photo to another.

Given that we can photograph a gnats whatsit from space these days the detail we are still getting from out space images is totally abysmal.

No, there are plenty of examples of fake or doctored images.

reply to post by qmantoo


Then post some

and.... the 843 pounds of moon rocks... so some think that unmanned landers scooped them up and brought them back here? Or ET decided we needed a present, and dumped them on the White House lawn...

reply to post by qmantoo

There are many doctored images - for a start all the ones from the Mars Rovers are downgraded and even the ones on the PDS are very poor quality. Comparing the detail in the MER pancam taken on earth and the detail in the pancam images taken on Mars, there is absolutely no way the images we get in the PDS are as good as the ones NASA get to see.

Do you suppose being sent 400 million kilometers by radio might have something to do with the loss of detail?

We get images of asteroids which are cropped so that only the asteroid itself is shown and not the background. Now, I ask you.. why would that be? The images are "supposed" to be taken by the spacecraft on fly-bys but if they were, we would get the whole thing, not some manipulated cropped fuzzy image.

So how would a huge amount of black pixels surrounding the image enhance your aesthetic or scientific appreciation?

Some images even have duplicated stars in them from one section of the photo to another.

Examples, please.

Given that we can photograph a gnats whatsit from space these days the detail we are still getting from out space images is totally abysmal.

Cool! I'd love to see a picture of a gnat taken from space. Please post one here.

It does not astonish me that people have so much trouble believing men landed on the moon.

All the necessary technology was available. The rockets were there. The life-support technologies, the computers, the telescopes and telemetry were there too. You don't need to look at the history of the Apollo programme to see it; a few copies of Popular Mechanics, not even of the day, but anything up to twenty years previous, are all one needs to follow its development. Anyway, it was obvious to those of us who lived through the period.

As for the money, it was the era of the Cold War. To the USA and its Western allies, beating the Soviets at anything scientific and technological was top priority.

So it is no surprise that the moon landings happened when and how they did. But it is no surprise, either, that people today find trouble believing their fathers ever attained such greatness.

We are pygmies now: helpless, flabby and fuddled by television and consumerism. Our forebears were far braver, and better used to hardship and discomfort. We couldn't go the the Moon today; a generation of consumers fed on television and secondhand antibiotic growth supplements is too cowardly, fat and clueless to go anywhere, or even conceive that others could.

The moon landing deniers and the society that produced them could never make it to the moon. That the degenerate members of a once-noble kind cannot conceive of their forefathers' achievements is no surprise; all the runts of civilization have ever been good for is daubing excrement on its monuments.

reply to post by DJW001


There was an Apollo Hoax, to act as cover for what was really going on up there.

Isn't that obvious? Sheesh! With all the deconstructed, fake Apollo photographs, and John Glenn saying we were warned off, put it together! Tab A... meet Slot B!

Originally posted by seamus
With all the deconstructed, fake Apollo photographs...

Do you have a link to some "deconstructed" Apollo photos?

...and John Glenn saying we were warned off...

Citation please?

Originally posted by qmantoo


No, there are plenty of examples of fake or doctored images.

edit on 26 Jun 2012 by qmantoo because: yes

Well be my guest and post some.

Originally posted by seamus... put it together! Tab A... meet Slot B!

Well THERE'S your problem!

Anyone who has ever actually put together a paper model knows that Tab A goes in Slot A and Tab B goes in Slot B.

That just perfectly sums up - symbolically, metaphorically and literally - the conspiracy theorist mindset!

Originally posted by grubblesnert
Boy! there sure seems to be alot of "Deny"ing going on here.

"Ignorance" is also brought into the equation but not the way it was intended in this site's slogan!

But seriously............

Does anyone ever consider that the moon landings actually DID happen and are not faked?
That what are fake, and /or doctored, are the public consumption and press release photos? Due to the propaganda importance of these events?

edit on 26-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: spellin'

The subject of doctored/faked enhanced/staged/ retouched/ whatever photos pertaining to the moon landings seem to be a touchy subject around here.
Does the term "knee jerk" ring a bell to anyone else besides me?
One respondered even challeged me to a "wager" to produce fake and/or doctored photos.
(I wonder what the criteria would be? A link to another site perhaps? meet at a neutral location with me producing the disputed photos from a brown envelope? What type of payment would be exacted? Paypal, money order, personal check? And who would be the impartial third party?
So many loose ends!
I'm going to take a big chance and divulge my source right here and now. Please keep in mind this source has taken me time (seconds) and effort ( pushing certain keys in an orgainized pattern and then pushing "Enter") to cultivate.

it's Google. this place will take you to many, many sites, blogs, forums, etc. showing a lot of photos, videos and explainations of the anomolies, defects and signs of manipulation found on some of the most well know NASA produced moon photos.
It is enough information, a lot of it well thoughtout and presented, to make an openminded person (such as myself ) think and wonder.
Now keep this in mind. Why would'nt NASA and the United States Goverment enhance, retouch or maniplate, and perhaps even stage, photos of such an important political cold war event?
Why not take photos that might have been very poor in quality or completely illegible of such an import event and make them look good?
Heck it's done every day by photo studios for such mundane things as family portraits, produce advertising, and "dramatic re-enactments" and has been since the beginning photography
What would lead a rational person to feel that the moon landing photos are so special that they would be considered immune to manipuation and enbellishment?

reply to post by grubblesnert


Suggesting for us to look up stuff doesn't really cut it IMO, it's not a valid argument and proves nothing.

Post some pictures and tell us what you think is faked and or doctored.

I have seen orbiter pictures with supposed airbrushing and I find these interesting, however this topic is the actual landings, so I think we should stick with pictures relevant to that.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by grubblesnert

 

Suggesting for us to look up stuff doesn't really cut it IMO, it's not a valid argument and proves nothing.

Post some pictures and tell us what you think is faked and or doctored.

I have seen orbiter pictures with supposed airbrushing and I find these interesting, however this topic is the actual landings, so I think we should stick with pictures relevant to that.

I do not know why you find this subject, and you proving "who's right" so important. I feel my "jist" has been ignored or perhaps just plain misunderstood by you.
I found your "wager" silly or funny at best
Bottom line I don't really care and am content with my position.
find the info yourself it's out there all over the place

Originally posted by grubblesnert

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by grubblesnert

 

Suggesting for us to look up stuff doesn't really cut it IMO, it's not a valid argument and proves nothing.

Post some pictures and tell us what you think is faked and or doctored.

I have seen orbiter pictures with supposed airbrushing and I find these interesting, however this topic is the actual landings, so I think we should stick with pictures relevant to that.

I do not know why you find this subject, and you proving "who's right" so important. I feel my "jist" has been ignored or perhaps just plain misunderstood by you.
I found your "wager" silly or funny at best

Bottom line I don't really care and am content with my position.
find the info yourself it's out there all over the place

edit on 27-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: (no reason given)

My "wager" was hardly a serious one, it was more a term of speech, do you take everything literally?

Anyway I'm not trying to prove you wrong, and I have never said you were, I actually want to see what has you convinced, you say it's all over place, that's no revelation, I want to see what you believe are faked/doctored images relating to the Apollo landings.

It's a simple case of put up or shut up.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by grubblesnert

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by grubblesnert

 

Suggesting for us to look up stuff doesn't really cut it IMO, it's not a valid argument and proves nothing.

Post some pictures and tell us what you think is faked and or doctored.

I have seen orbiter pictures with supposed airbrushing and I find these interesting, however this topic is the actual landings, so I think we should stick with pictures relevant to that.

I do not know why you find this subject, and you proving "who's right" so important. I feel my "jist" has been ignored or perhaps just plain misunderstood by you.
I found your "wager" silly or funny at best

Bottom line I don't really care and am content with my position.
find the info yourself it's out there all over the place

edit on 27-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: (no reason given)

................."It's a simple case of put up or shut up."

edit on 27-6-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

I got news for you, that ain't happenin' anytime soon

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
The studio set was of course modelled after a real photograph of the lunar surface, most likely taken by an unmanned probe. So it does not really come as a surprise that you find "real lunar features" in the studio set.

Kubrick isn't a moron but one of the best film makers of this period.

Present a harder challenge next time, please.

Is that why there's completely retarded mistakes in his 2001 Space Odyssey?

Originally posted by grubblesnert
...it's Google. this place will take you to many, many sites, blogs, forums, etc. showing a lot of photos, videos and explainations of the anomolies, defects and signs of manipulation found on some of the most well know NASA produced moon photos.
It is enough information, a lot of it well thoughtout and presented...

Yeah -- there are a LOT of websites, blogs, and forums dedicated to this subject, but they range greatly in levels of accuracy, knowledge, and critical thinking.

Could you please tell us which ones you think are "well thought out" so we can separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?