Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1


It doesn't matter what kind of technology you have, the closer you are the better your picture will be, it's a simple law of physics. An airplane at 5000' will always take a better picture than a satellite at 30km.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by captainpudding
Weren't those tapes confirmed as having been erased and reused?

yes they were....

hey meanwhile had concluded that the reels of tape with the SSTV signal were shipped from Australia to Goddard and then routinely erased and reused a few years later. Moreover, a backup copy of the tapes which had been made in Australia was also erased after Goddard received the reels.

www.nxtbook.com...#/10

But some people think it is better to rant on about missing tapes as if it was all a silly conspiracy!

Are you quoting Richard Nafzger? Richard Nafzger, the team lead and engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. How can Nafzger say what happened to the tapes if he can't prove that he received them at Goddard? DUH!

The loss of the Apollo telemetry tapes (700+ boxes) is probably the biggest loss of scientific data ever achieved. No wonder you guys are quoting him.


caption: Actress June Lockhart, left, presents NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Engineer Richard Nafzger, and NASA Apollo 11 Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, right, with the 2009 Philo T. Farnsworth Primetime Emmy Award at the 61st Primetime Emmy Engineering Awards held at the Renaissance Hotel in Los Angeles, CA., Saturday, August 22, 2009. Nafzger and Aldrin received the award on behalf of NASA. The 2009 Philo T. Farnsworth Primetime Emmy Award was given to NASA Television in recognition for engineering excellence and technological innovations that made possible the first live TV broadcast from the moon by the Apollo 11. Source archive.org...

If NASA still had the Apollo telemetry tapes it might be possible to get some real scientific clues to the location of Fake Eagle and Fake Orion. Instead.... the principal tricksters are getting accolades for losing those same tapes.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

If NASA still had the Apollo telemetry tapes it might be possible to get some real scientific clues to the location of Fake Eagle and Fake Orion.

Please explain. Once the crew transferred, the LM was jettisoned and sent back no further telemetry.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Not any for the moon?

Apollo 11:

Apollo 12:

Apollo 14:

Apollo 15:

Let me guess: they're not good enough, they look fake, and they're from NASA. Since you knew I would post these, why did you claim that they didn't exist?

They are NOT good enough. High-res close-up images of the (supposed) landing sites don't 'exist', or they're not shown to the public.

Let's compare your images to this one....



Serum and Vaccine Institute in Al-A'amiriya, Iraq, as imaged by a US reconnaissance satellite in November 2002.

Link to image source page..

www.answers.com...

And there are several privately-owned satellites, such as WorldView-1...


WorldView-1, launched September 2007, is the first of our next-generation satellites—the most agile satellites ever
flown commercially. The high-capacity, panchromatic imaging system features half-meter resolution imagery. Operating at an altitude of 496 km, WorldView-1 has an average revisit time of 1.7 days and is capable of collecting over one million km2 per day of half-meter imagery. The satellite is also equipped with state-of-the-art geolocation accuracy capabilities and exhibits stunning agility with rapid targeting and efficient in-track stereo collection.

www.digitalglobe.com...


The moon images were taken (by the LRO) at 50 km altitude, while WorldView-1 was at 496 km altitude above Earth, or about 10 times higher than LRO.

In Earth orbit, the satellites have to take images through our atmosphere, while LRO has no atmosphere to deal with.

Do you see where I'm going with this yet? You should.


I've shown you proof of far superior images from satellites at (much) higher altitude than LRO, not to mention an atmosphere to deal with!

The landing site images are totally ridiculous on any level.

reply to post by turbonium1

I've shown you proof of far superior images from satellites at (much) higher altitude than LRO, not to mention an atmosphere to deal with!

No, you've shown a picture that shows LM sized cars looking just as tiny and difficult to make out as the LM in the LRO photos. It is easier to make sense of photographs of nice, large buildings than it is to make sense of mottled lunar terrain. With a resolution of 0.5 meters, the LM would be about four pixels across, just as it is in the LRO images.

Originally posted by turbonium1
The high-capacity, panchromatic imaging system features half-meter resolution imagery.

This is literally the exact same resolution of the LRO. Also, comparing a purpose built spy satellite with a scientific research satellite is kind of pointless, apples and oranges. If someone wanted to put a spy satellite in lunar orbit, they could, but it would be nothing more than a pointless waste of money since it wouldn't provide any new data.

reply to post by turbonium1


The truck-sized trucks in your example image look to have the same amount of detail as the truck-sized LM descent stage on the LROC moon images.

There's a few interesting articles on the moon landing hoax on this website here:[gratuitous links removed] It's designed for people who don't really know a lot about the hoax, but at the same time provides and interesting insight. I'll ad links to the articles directly as well:

[gratuitous links removed]


[gratuitous links removed]

Originally posted by DJW001

Please explain. Once the crew transferred, the LM was jettisoned and sent back no further telemetry.

This is just another example of how the telemetry data could have been useful to science but NASA has made damned sure that science would never see the telemetry tapes. Isn't that so?

NASA expects us to believe in precision landings (Apollo 12/Surveyor 3) and scientific exactitudes (LRRR) but when it comes to accounting for the Eagle and Orion ascent modules...... oh well...... NASA lost them.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55

 

We can clearly view a car from a satellite orbiting earth. Here is a satellite photograph over Area 51.

That's not a satellite photo, it's an aerial photo.

I thought area 51 was a non fly zone.

from wikipedia re: area 51

Higher resolution (and more recent) images from other satellite imagery providers (including Russian providers and the IKONOS) are commercially available. These show, in considerable detail, the runway marking, base facilities, aircraft, and vehicles.

So we've all agreed it's possible to identify car sized objects from a satellite. So why can't we see larger than car sized objects on the moon? No atmosphere, lower orbit ... as I wrote, it just doesn't make sense.

reply to post by ppk55


There are several ways to get aerial photos. The USGS has them, as well as several commercial satellites that pass overhead that have them. The Russian KVR-1000 has taken 2 meter images, and IKONOS has taken 1 meter images of the area from satellites.

Originally posted by ppk55
....So we've all agreed it's possible to identify car sized objects from a satellite. So why can't we see larger than car sized objects on the moon? No atmosphere, lower orbit ... as I wrote, it just doesn't make sense.

edit on 10-4-2013 by ppk55 because: more info

But we can, as in this image of Apollo 17's landing site:



We can see the ALSEP, which is smaller than car-sized...and we can see the descent stage of the Lunar Lander, which is truck-sized. We can also see the paths made by the walking astronauts, and we can see the wheel tracks made by the lunar rover.

It the zoomed-in part of the image, we can even see the PLSS, which were the life support backpacks worn by the astronauts during their lunar EVAs (discarded to save weight before returning home), which are -- well -- "backpack size".

If (just like area 51) there were runways, hangers, and cars in this image, we would probably be able to see them, too. But as it is, the Moon (without the Apollo hardware) is basically dust and craters -- not much to make out. A satellite image of the desert around area 51 would probably look similar.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Those LRo images are so fake. I can't believe people still look at them as proof of Apollo manned lunar landings.
If the 'astronaut footprints' are real why did they forget to fake the tracks for the LRV at it's final resting place?
I don't see any tracks around the LRV. There should be tracks. Lots and lots of tracks. Where are they?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


thats wishful thinking, but sorry there are tracks, they are just faint and difficult to see.

but lets assume for a moment that there isnt any tracks, that somehow they forgot. these NASA conspirers, who have manage to keep one of the largest, most well known and documented historical events in history, secret for 50 years, forgot to put tracks on a photo that they spent alot of time on making. yet published on the internet, passing all their "internal screening" and even labelling the LRV, yet it takes a guy on the internet, who doesnt trust anything that is remotely linked, however small, to the CIA, to find this major oversight. the flawless organisation that could fake a moon landing, hours of footage and voice recordings done over a period of a few months, has been undone.

congrats you have blown the secret wide open.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter



Yes. As 'choos' said, the tracks leading to the LRV are there, but they are faint. Here is a cropped image with the contrast adjusted in which the tracks are easier to see.

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by turbonium1
The high-capacity, panchromatic imaging system features half-meter resolution imagery.

This is literally the exact same resolution of the LRO. Also, comparing a purpose built spy satellite with a scientific research satellite is kind of pointless, apples and oranges. If someone wanted to put a spy satellite in lunar orbit, they could, but it would be nothing more than a pointless waste of money since it wouldn't provide any new data.

First of all, we're just referring to the cameras used by those satellites.

Second, some of those satellites are built for commercial purposes - high-res cameras are not just used by spy satellites.

But to call it "a pointless waste of money" is the most ridiculous excuse of all! I mean, you're talking about NASA, perhaps the biggest money pit ever founded!

reply to post by turbonium1


Please feel free to show where in NASA's very small budget, is there room to waste millions of dollars for pictures that serve no real purpose other than to be called photoshopped by uneducated conspiracy theorists?

Originally posted by ppk55

So we've all agreed it's possible to identify car sized objects from a satellite. So why can't we see larger than car sized objects on the moon? No atmosphere, lower orbit ... as I wrote, it just doesn't make sense.

edit on 10-4-2013 by ppk55 because: more info

That's why they use lame excuses - because it makes no sense.

Trying to peace everything together here. My thoughts:

We have reflectors on the moon...how did they get there and how can we prove that we're really using them? I think we did land on the moon...I'm more interested in the odd transcripts of the Apollo missions where it sound like they're describing spacecraft and ancient artifacts. If we find that "that" moon landing was a hoax then why those strange transcripts? That actually makes what they said even more disturbing? I'm also confused about the van allen radiation belt. Is it really an issue or a non issue? I think that if there was a moon landing hoax that it was only one or two etc, but even that I'm not sure I buy it still. Thoughts?

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by ppk55

So we've all agreed it's possible to identify car sized objects from a satellite. So why can't we see larger than car sized objects on the moon? No atmosphere, lower orbit ... as I wrote, it just doesn't make sense.

edit on 10-4-2013 by ppk55 because: more info

That's why they use lame excuses - because it makes no sense.

This would be true if it were true.

Actually, they CAN see car-sized Apollo-hardware on the Moon using the LRO orbiter. In fact, they can see things smaller than car-sized (such as the backpacks worn by the astronauts) and have pictures of them.



As for using spy satellite technology for moon pictures? I'm not sure why they would need to spend money on expensive spy satellite technology (some of it is probably too classified for NASA engineers to know about, anyway) when all the LRO is supposed to do is map out future possible landing sites.

They don't need spy satellite technology for that. LRO's 30 to 50 cm resolution is good enough for that purpose.