Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Ove38
Why was the LM ascent always filmed from the same side of the LM ?

Maybe it has to do with the direction that the ascent engine's thrust was being diverted by the descent stage's base. Or may it has to do with an operational issue concerning the Lunar Rover (on which the camera was mounted).

That sounds like something I should research to see if the procedures for the final parking spot of the LLRV is online somewhere, and if those procedures include a specific parking location relative to the LM.

Sun position maybe?

E2A: In fact I'd say almost certainly. Landings took place in the lunar morning so the sun would be rising in the lunar east - behind where the rovers were finally parked.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Ove38
Why was the LM ascent always filmed from the same side of the LM ?

Maybe it has to do with the direction that the ascent engine's thrust was being diverted by the descent stage's base. Or may it has to do with an operational issue concerning the Lunar Rover (on which the camera was mounted).

That sounds like something I should research to see if the procedures for the final parking spot of the LLRV is online somewhere, and if those procedures include a specific parking location relative to the LM.

Maybe film director knows ?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Sun position maybe?

E2A: In fact I'd say almost certainly. Landings took place in the lunar morning so the sun would be rising in the lunar east - behind where the rovers were finally parked.

Did they try to land the LM with the "front" facing west -- so the LM shadow could be seen by the astronauts through the window, to act as a visual aid for landing?

I suppose landing facing west would also reduce the possibility of the Sun being in the astronauts' eyes at landing.

a reply to: Box of Rain

I guess it depends on what you call the front!

As they always landed coming from more or less east to west, they would always have landed with the LMP & CDR windows facing the direction of travel, give or take a bit of rotation on landing.

They had radar to tell them how close they were, as well as the contact probes for when they were almost there.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Ha! By "front", I mean the side with the windows.

But, OK. What you say makes sense. If the LM "front" was facing generally towards the west at landing, and the LLRV (rover) was parked to the east of the LM, with the Sun behind the camera (camera facing west, away from the Sun), then it stands to reason that the camera view of the ascent from the LLRV would always be looking towards the "rear" of the LM (the side opposite the windows).

I just realize I made a mistake with my acronym for the Lunar Rover in my posts above.

The Lunar Roving vehicle is the LRV, not the LLRV. The LLRV was something else (one of the testing/training vehicles for the Lunar Module).

Sorry.

originally posted by: Ove38
Maybe film director knows ?

Walt Disney television collaborations with Wernher von Braun, 1950's, "Man in Space" and "Man and the Moon".
Stanley Kubrick's "2001:A Space Odyssey" consultation with NASA officials, September 1965.
Howard Hughes 'Surveyor program, June 1966-Jan. 1968. Hughes directed "Hell's Angels" 1930 which Kubrick listed in his top ten films he admired.
Tom Hanks revisionist history film "Apollo 13".
James Cameron, director of "Alien" and "Avatar" sits on the NASA Advisory Council.

NASA had a lot of help from Hollywood. And the assistance continues... Hollywood special effects firm Lowry Digital have "digitally restored" the Apollo 11 footage.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Feel free to cite any evidence you like that the points in your post prove no-one has landed on the moon. Nods and winks and sly asides are not data, they do not prove anything.

Even if any of your points were relevant, which they aren't, you'll find Hollywood got much more from NASA - I can cite you plenty of films (even the last couple of years) that use Apollo imagery. Why? Because if you want realism, you use something real.

originally posted by: choos

that exploration (Apollo) was funded by the US.. people do want to explore, that you are correct, but people are not as willing to let go of their money..

People don't have a say in the matter, first of all. Their money is taken away, by the government, who decide where to spend it however they choose. Willing to let go of money, or not willing, is irrelevant.

originally posted by: choos
the shuttles were not meant for genuine space exploration.. the shuttle was meant for putting payloads in LEO cheaply and efficiently.. it cannot leave LEO..

Yes, but the main problem is that we still can't go beyond LEO.

originally posted by: choos
there is more to science than landing men on the moon..

Except when it's 'science', and nothing else but 'science'.

originally posted by: choos
no that is not why.. we dont have the political will to return to the moon.. NASA wants to continue to send men or any mission beyond LEO but their financiers are simply not funding them with enough money..

Wrong.

NASA alone is to blame, from start to finish.

You say NASA didn't get? "enough money"?

Yes, all the Apollo-ites know NASA is not at fault. NASA just didn't get "enough money" from the government!

That's quite amazing, since NASA itself has admitted to having no idea how much money would be 'enough money' to achieve their goal (ie: a 'return' to the moon)....

Apollo-ites keep saying NASA didn't get "enough money", while NASA has no clue about what would be "enough money"!

It is obviously an excuse. Apollo-ites are still spinning it, like you've done here.


If you've read their own documents, you should know that NASA has no idea what would be "enough money" to reach their goal(s).

Suppose NASA was allowed an unlimited amount of money...

Unlimited money doesn't solve their problem(s)..

They didn't know how much money would be "enough" - they've admitted it.

They also admitted they didn't know when they would be able to achieve their goal(s)!

It confirms what I said - it isn't about NASA getting "enough money".



And the program didn't fail because of a so-called lack of political will, either. NASA failed, and NASA alone is responsible for its failure.


This program was doomed to fail from the very start...

Look at these comments, from the same document...

When it completed the ESAS study, NASA indicated it would maximize the use of heritage hardware and established technology in order to reduce cost and minimize risk.


By emphasizing heritage technology, the Constellation program was designed to avoid problems associated with the prior shuttle replacement efforts, which were largely rooted in the desire to introduce vehicles that significantly advanced technologies. Thus far, however, the Constellation program has encountered daunting challenges in terms of design, testing, manufacturing, and poorly phased funding that have led the program to slip its target for a first crewed flight to no later than March 2015.

www.gao.gov...


The Apollo-ites have claimed Constellation failed because of money, and lack of political will. Both claims were also proven to be wrong .

Another claim of Apollo-ites is that Constellation was.. "largely rooted in the desire to introduce vehicles that significantly advanced technologies".

Not a chance. In fact, they meant it to be the complete opposite...

"By emphasizing heritage technology, the Constellation program was designed to avoid problems associated with" such programs!

Apollo's technology would fit their description of a "heritage technology", yes?

As well, Apollo's technology fits as the only "heritage technology" (supposedly) capable of any manned moon landing, while similar lunar missions were being planned for in their Constellation program, right?


They assumed Apollo technology was genuine. That would explain why NASA could sell the Constellation program so easily to the government. NASA got all the money they originally asked for, wasted it all in no time, yet still managed to get even more money.

That explains why they are so baffled about NASA's farcical folly in their comments (noted above).


It also explains why they couldn't figure out Apollo's "heritage technology" , and called in old guys who worked on Apollo to explain just how it was all done!

They obviously got no answers from the old Apollo guys, tried to develop it from scratch, whereby it inevitably failed soon afterwards.

It all makes perfect sense, now.

a reply to: turbonium1

And when Orion does its victory lap around the Moon in a couple of years? I assume you will insist that will be faked.

originally posted by: turbonium1

People don't have a say in the matter, first of all. Their money is taken away, by the government, who decide where to spend it however they choose. Willing to let go of money, or not willing, is irrelevant.

what does the term waste of taxpayers funding mean to you??

Yes, but the main problem is that we still can't go beyond LEO.

are you claiming that the saturn V rocket was not capable of doing what it was designed to do?? if so let see your sources..

Except when it's 'science', and nothing else but 'science'.

you believe the ISS has done nothing in its entire service life apart from waste taxpayers funds??

the rest is a long winded rant..

also your source link doesnt support your argument at all:

In August 2008, when faced with cost increases and funding shortfalls, the Constellation program responded by reducing program reserves and deferring development effort and test activities. These changes resulted in a minimized flight test program that was so success oriented there was no room for test failures.

...

NASA recognized that the program faces challenges and in December 2008 reported that the current program was high risk and unachievable within current budget and schedule constraints.

...

Furthermore, as noted above, both the Ares I and Orion projects continue to face technical and design challenges that will require significant time, money, and effort to resolve irrespective of the decision to defer lunar requirements

...

Efforts to establish a sound business case for Constellation’s Ares I and Orion projects are complicated by (1) an aggressive schedule, (2) significant technical and design challenges, (3) funding issues and cost increases, and (4) an evolving acquisition strategy that continues to change Orion project requirements.
www.gao.gov...

why does your link directly contradict what you are saying??

It also explains why they couldn't figure out Apollo's "heritage technology" , and called in old guys who worked on Apollo to explain just how it was all done!

They obviously got no answers from the old Apollo guys, tried to develop it from scratch, whereby it inevitably failed soon afterwards.

nice fairy tale you made up on the spot...

i guess thats why Orion looks NOTHING like the Apollo command module right?? and the parachute system has absolutely NO relation between the two crafts right?? and also why Orions first flight test ended in spectacular failure right??

a reply to: turbonium1

Nothing in what you typed proved Apollo did not go to the moon.

Nothing.

Where is your proof - because it isn't in that?

originally posted by: fenceSitter
Can someone please give me a feasible explanation as to why they would fake the moon landings? I just don't understand why they would go through that much trouble to fake it.

I will try. The challenge was laid out by JFK, who knew that we had secret technology, and we're already in space. He was trying to being the secret out, and thought that the tech would be discovered in the attempt. He didn't know what he would be up against. Remember his speech about secret societies?

The moon landing hoax is one I never thought I could agree with. Then I found that every picture from those missions is impossible. The depth of field is impossible. There is no way to have rocks in the foreground, the lunar lander in the middle, and the earth, thousands of miles away, all in perfect focus. Now NASA has lost all the origin all pics and videos. Wonder why. We know what camera and film they supposedly brought, and the pics were not possible with the equipment they had.
Stanley Kubrick did the work. He was working g on 2001 space oddity at the time. The largest budget for any movie by far at the time, and the first and possibly only film which no studio exec ever saw frame 1 of prior to its release. Originally, the credits thanked NASA and a list of about 20 other government agencies. Kubrick had to be killed before eyes wide shut spilled the beans. No one will ever see his original for that film, it no longer exists, and what we do have was heavily edited.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: fenceSitter
Can someone please give me a feasible explanation as to why they would fake the moon landings? I just don't understand why they would go through that much trouble to fake it.

I will try. The challenge was laid out by JFK,

So far so good.

who knew that we had secret technology, and we're already in space.

He was trying to being the secret out, and thought that the tech would be discovered in the attempt. He didn't know what he would be up against. Remember his speech about secret societies?

Ah, then we have made up stuff

The moon landing hoax is one I never thought I could agree with. Then I found that every picture from those missions is impossible. The depth of field is impossible. There is no way to have rocks in the foreground, the lunar lander in the middle, and the earth, thousands of miles away, all in perfect focus.

No. What you mean is that you read some garbage on a hoax site that you fell for. Here's the thing: if every picture is impossible, how did they take the pictures? They must be possible or they couldn't take them. Find us a photograph where everything is in absolute sharp focus as you describe.

Now NASA has lost all the origin all pics and videos. Wonder why.

This is not true. Even if it was true, hundreds of the photographs were publicly available in books, magazines and newspapers printed at the time. I own a lot of them.

We know what camera and film they supposedly brought, and the pics were not possible with the equipment they had.

Then how did they take the pictures? Especially how did they take the pictures of Earth that are an exact match for what should be visible in terms of the weather patterns visible? And how did they take pictures of the lunar surface showing details that were not known until decades later?

Stanley Kubrick did the work. He was working g on 2001 space oddity at the time. The largest budget for any movie by far at the time, and the first and possibly only film which no studio exec ever saw frame 1 of prior to its release. Originally, the credits thanked NASA and a list of about 20 other government agencies. Kubrick had to be killed before eyes wide shut spilled the beans. No one will ever see his original for that film, it no longer exists, and what we do have was heavily edited.

Kubrick was working on 2001 in 1968. He was not working on 2001 between 1969 and 1972. He did not work on Apollo. At all.

Stop swallowing conspiracy garbage whole without questioning it, and provide some support for the claims you make.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

regards photography - you clearly dont have a clue what " hyperfocal distance " means

regards the rest - please explain why the appollo program was not possible - hint a prior space program should make apollo easier to execute - not require fakery

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: fenceSitter
Can someone please give me a feasible explanation as to why they would fake the moon landings? I just don't understand why they would go through that much trouble to fake it.

I will try. The challenge was laid out by JFK,

So far so good.

who knew that we had secret technology, and we're already in space.

He was trying to being the secret out, and thought that the tech would be discovered in the attempt. He didn't know what he would be up against. Remember his speech about secret societies?

Ah, then we have made up stuff

The moon landing hoax is one I never thought I could agree with. Then I found that every picture from those missions is impossible. The depth of field is impossible. There is no way to have rocks in the foreground, the lunar lander in the middle, and the earth, thousands of miles away, all in perfect focus.

No. What you mean is that you read some garbage on a hoax site that you fell for. Here's the thing: if every picture is impossible, how did they take the pictures? They must be possible or they couldn't take them. Find us a photograph where everything is in absolute sharp focus as you describe.

Now NASA has lost all the origin all pics and videos. Wonder why.

This is not true. Even if it was true, hundreds of the photographs were publicly available in books, magazines and newspapers printed at the time. I own a lot of them.

We know what camera and film they supposedly brought, and the pics were not possible with the equipment they had.

Then how did they take the pictures? Especially how did they take the pictures of Earth that are an exact match for what should be visible in terms of the weather patterns visible? And how did they take pictures of the lunar surface showing details that were not known until decades later?

Stanley Kubrick did the work. He was working g on 2001 space oddity at the time. The largest budget for any movie by far at the time, and the first and possibly only film which no studio exec ever saw frame 1 of prior to its release. Originally, the credits thanked NASA and a list of about 20 other government agencies. Kubrick had to be killed before eyes wide shut spilled the beans. No one will ever see his original for that film, it no longer exists, and what we do have was heavily edited.

Kubrick was working on 2001 in 1968. He was not working on 2001 between 1969 and 1972. He did not work on Apollo. At all.

Stop swallowing conspiracy garbage whole without questioning it, and provide some support for the claims you make.

That may all be true. I am just offering options. All the originals were lost. In 1996 IIRC. There was a press release on it. Maybe the pictures were put together from satellite photos, maybe they were pictured from people who have been there before. Either way, I have been convinced that those cameras could not take the pictures we are meant to believe they did. Show me any picture where you can see something as clearly 2 feet from the camera as well as 1000 feet from the camera, let alone thousands of miles. It is called depth of field, the range in which objects appear in focus. The pictures do not seem to have any issues with this everyday camera constraint.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: ISawItFirst

regards photography - you clearly dont have a clue what " hyperfocal distance " means

regards the rest - please explain why the appollo program was not possible - hint a prior space program should make apollo easier to execute - not require fakery

My understanding of hyperfocal distance is the focal point that extends the depth of field to infinity. So if they wanted a clear picture of earth, they would use the hyperfocal distance, but the lander would be fuzzy and the immediate for ground fuzzier. Perhaps not terribly so. Which astronaut was a professional photographer? The cameras they had at the time had very limited depth of field. They were not intended for taking pictures of the earth from the moon. Yet they have it perfectly sharp from the immediate foreground to the vast distance of earth.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
... They were not intended for taking pictures of the earth from the moon. Yet they have it perfectly sharp from the immediate foreground to the vast distance of earth.

The cameras had three focus settings -- close, medium, and far. For most panorama shots, they probably wanted the far focus setting, but objects immediately in front of the camera (a couple feat away) could be out of focus. If they were taking a picture of something close up, the "close" setting would be used, but the background could be out of focus.

RCS thruster in foreground out of focus, objects beyond in focus:
history.nasa.gov...

and conversely, RCs thruster in focus, background out of focus:
history.nasa.gov...

Foreground sharp focus, moon in background blurry:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

Here is one where the astronaut had the focus setting on 15 foot focus rather than the 74-foot focus setting, so the foreground is sharp, but the flag and background are slightly out of focus. Pete Conrad took several panoramic shots with this incorrect setting before he realized.
history.nasa.gov...


Others:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

Out-of-focus in general:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

That may all be true. I am just offering options. All the originals were lost. In 1996 IIRC. There was a press release on it.

Then it would help your case to provide a link to that press release. The reality is that the original films are held in cold storage. They are not lost.

Maybe the pictures were put together from satellite photos,

No, they weren't, because they had no satellite capable of producing colour images, and only two producing images of the entire Earth. Those latter two were geostationary and therefore could only take images of one spot above the Earth, not the many different views that were taken by Apollo. They also could not have produced live colour images of Earth that were broadcast on TV and that appeared on the next day's newspaper front pages.

maybe they were pictured from people who have been there before.

Which people? I thought they didn't go? And how did they take the pictures of Earth's weather before the weather happened?

Either way, I have been convinced that those cameras could not take the pictures we are meant to believe they did. Show me any picture where you can see something as clearly 2 feet from the camera as well as 1000 feet from the camera, let alone thousands of miles. It is called depth of field, the range in which objects appear in focus. The pictures do not seem to have any issues with this everyday camera constraint.

You have been convinced by people who are either lying to further their own agenda of making money or by people who don't know anything about photography or the Apollo missions.

Provide us with an Apollo image that matches exactly the features you describe.