I am not crazy about any conspiracy theory

[solomarineris]

But I want to see evidence.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/phx-20090102.html
It shows Phoenix landing site, heatshield, parachute, lander identified.
Do we have any moon pictures which will show us any tacks/rovers/landers?
Any help would be appreciated.
Solo

[Peter B]

Yes we do. More precisely, there are a small number of photos taken during the Apollo missions themselves which show the Lunar Module on the surface of the Moon. However, in these photos, the LM appears as little more than a point of light in the right location. The rovers are too small and the tracks are way too narrow to be seen in photos. There have been no more images of the objects since Apollo.

The Phoenix image you linked to was taken by a device developed about 30 years after the Apollo missions. I believe a similar device will be on board the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter, which will be launched to the Moon in a couple of months. It should be able to generate images of the Lunar Module Descent Stages and the rovers. The tracks will still be too narrow to spot, although the churned up soil around the Landing Sites may be noticeable.

[Van Rijn]

But I want to see evidence.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/phx-20090102.html
It shows Phoenix landing site, heatshield, parachute, lander identified.
Do we have any moon pictures which will show us any tacks/rovers/landers?
Any help would be appreciated.
Solo

There's a huge library of photos that show the rovers and landers (not sure about "tacks" - what are you referring to? Rover tracks?). Lot's of evidence. For instance:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi_40th/images/1972/apollo17Rover.jpg

[ocpaul20]

Also, somewhere there is a list of all the rubbish and pollution they left on the Moon (http://www.whizzospace.com/leftovers/leftoverslist.htm). Isn't that just like mankind to pollute everywhere he goes. Trash bags, a bible, and even a moon boot I believe I read somewhere - although I cannot see it in the list now.

Anyway, what pictures have you looked at yourself for evidence of moon landings?

[eburacum45]

Here's just about the best picture of a landing site taken from lunar orbit; the LM landing stage can just be seen.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html

[mugaliens]

Here's just about the best picture of a landing site taken from lunar orbit; the LM landing stage can just be seen.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html

Nice shadow!

[Tobin Dax]

Nice shadow!
My brain was reading the craters as hills. I was confused for a second. :)

[solomarineris]

Anyway, what pictures have you looked at yourself for evidence of moon landings?

i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake. I spend at least 1.5 hour every day in front of editing my own pictures, I am very intimate with the digital photography process.
I am not claiming at all we did not land on the moon. I'm just saying that I have not seen a single, convincing photo of the Moon artifacts, tracks we left behind.
Why?
With today's technology we shouldn't have any difficulty observing it!

[slang]

i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake. I spend at least 1.5 hour every day in front of editing my own pictures, I am very intimate with the digital photography process.

Digital? Did you just imply that your experience with digital photography gives you expertise to talk about the credibility of Moon landing era photography?

[solomarineris]

Digital? Did you just imply that your experience with digital photography gives you expertise to talk about the credibility of Moon landing era photography?

i did not imply that, I said you can create any environment possible.
Moon pictures are fantastic!
Look, if what you see satisfies you it is great.
It just doesn't satisfy me, thats all.

[hhEb09'1]

i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake. I spend at least 1.5 hour every day in front of editing my own pictures, I am very intimate with the digital photography process.
I am not claiming at all we did not land on the moon. I'm just saying that I have not seen a single, convincing photo of the Moon artifacts, tracks we left behind.
Why?
With today's technology we shouldn't have any difficulty observing it!I'm moving this thread from Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers to the Conspiracy Theories forum

[Peter B]

i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake. I spend at least 1.5 hour every day in front of editing my own pictures, I am very intimate with the digital photography process.

Which "moon pictures" did you look at? Where did you see them (what web-site)? May I recommend the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal?


I am not claiming at all we did not land on the moon. I'm just saying that I have not seen a single, convincing photo of the Moon artifacts, tracks we left behind. Why?

What was not convincing about them?


With today's technology we shouldn't have any difficulty observing it!

Where from? The Earth? Remember the Moon is 380,000 kilometres away, and the largest human artifact on the Moon, the Lunar Module Descent Stage, is only a few metres across. It's far too small to see from the Earth. The Hubble Space Telescope has a resolution of about 80 metres per pixel.

[tofu]

With today's technology we shouldn't have any difficulty observing it!

I'd like to hear you expound a bit on exactly what this means, with estimated costs provided. Something like this:
______ government should spend $______ to develop a lunar orbiter that will have _______ capability. They should spend an additional $_____ to launch and operate the orbiter. The valid scientific objectives for spending this money are: ______

But I'm not going to get my hopes up; I've noticed that only 1/10 questions are answered.

[Swift]

i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake. I spend at least 1.5 hour every day in front of editing my own pictures, I am very intimate with the digital photography process.
I am not claiming at all we did not land on the moon. I'm just saying that I have not seen a single, convincing photo of the Moon artifacts, tracks we left behind.
Why?
With today's technology we shouldn't have any difficulty observing it!
solomarineris,
Are you talking about photos taken on the lunar surface itself, during the Apollo missions, or are you talking about photos taken from lunar orbit, Earth orbit, or the Earth's surface of hardware left on the moon?

[HenrikOlsen]

Please note that this is a recently moved thread, CT special rules about answering pertinent questions in a timely manner apply to questions asked after the move.
solomarineris, please familiarize yourself with Rule 13.
If you do not wish to discuss this under those rules, please ask the the thread to be closed.

[JayUtah]

...

i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake.

In exactly what way? How should they have looked different in order to appear real? How do you know what they should look like?

I spend at least 1.5 hour every day in front of editing my own pictures, I am very intimate with the digital photography process.

As am I, and with the film processes that preceded it. I take an average of 7,000 photos a year, digital and film combined. I don't see anything wrong with the Apollo photographs.

With today's technology we shouldn't have any difficulty observing it!

With what specific technology should we have already obtained these pictures you desire?

[NickW]

I am not claiming at all we did not land on the moon

If you think we actually went to the moon, then what are you actually claiming? Is it that we actually went, but faked all the pictures?

[Van Rijn]

i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake.


Which ones don't look fake, and why?


But I want to see evidence.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/phx-20090102.html
It shows Phoenix landing site, heatshield, parachute, lander identified.
Do we have any moon pictures which will show us any tacks/rovers/landers?
Any help would be appreciated.
Solo

Do you consider the image of the Phoenix landing site to be fake? If not, why?

What I'm looking for is the clear distinction that you use to decide "fake" or "not fake." My hunch is that you're subjectively declaring images to be fake, and any images provided of moon landings would be similarly declared fake.

[AtomicDog]

Also, somewhere there is a list of all the rubbish and pollution they left on the Moon (http://www.whizzospace.com/leftovers/leftoverslist.htm). Isn't that just like mankind to pollute everywhere he goes. Trash bags, a bible, and even a moon boot I believe I read somewhere - although I cannot see it in the list now.

Anyway, what pictures have you looked at yourself for evidence of moon landings?

How do you pollute a world that was never alive?

Every pound of unneeded weight jettisoned on the Moon meant another pound of specimens that could be brought back. I would hate to have left the Genesis Rock behind on the Moon to bring back a bag of trash.

[LaurelHS]

I wouldn't consider all of the items on that list to be "rubbish and pollution." I like the idea of the Fallen Astronaut sculpture. Dave Scott said in the ALSJ, "We felt satisfied in doing it. Several good guys didn't get to go."

[ravens_cry]

Besides, imagine in 2000 years from now, with the solar system comfortably settled, and possibly some probes sent to the nearer stars, with mirrors kilometres across observing extra solar planets, think of all the fun the future archaeologists will have.
Archeologist love trash!

[solomarineris]

Which ones don't look fake, and why?
Most of them look fake, there's a single light source originating right on top, like flood light
Do you consider the image of the Phoenix landing site to be fake? If not, why?
Phoenix pix are definitely not fake, you don't only have Phoenix pix but tens of thousands from Opportunity & Spirit, Viking. There light scatters right way.
I am just not entirely convinced how poor light distribution is on the Moon.
It's like the light is where you wish to be.
What I'm looking for is the clear distinction that you use to decide "fake" or "not fake." My hunch is that you're subjectively declaring images to be fake, and any images provided of moon landings would be similarly declared fake.
Look,
Of course I am going to look at them "Subjectively", what other options Have I?
The only option is getting some orbital pictures which will put everybody's mind at ease.
Is it too much to ask for?
Some of us are just plain skeptics to a fault. I don't buy conspiracy stories, I don't believe UFO's, ghosts, paranormal crap.

[NickW]

If you think we actually went to the moon, then what are you actually claiming? Is it that we actually went, but faked all the pictures?

You are jumping far off the skeptical wagon, but the questions you raised when you posted them, but I think you need to start answering some of the other peoples as well.

[JayUtah]

...

Of course I am going to look at them "Subjectively", what other options Have I?

You have the option (and here at BAUT, the obligation) to provide evidence that would convince others that the lunar photos you refer to are fake. That starts first by identifying the specific lunar photographs you're talking about. Then explaining what specifically about them makes you think they are fake. Simply saying you look at photos a lot and you think the Moon photos are fake is not enough, because there are plenty of people who have similar experience and skill and who dispute your judgment.

The only option is getting some orbital pictures which will put everybody's mind at ease.

That may be the only option you're willing to consider, but that's not the only option that's available. You're not the only person who believes the lunar photos are fake, and the orbital pictures we already have don't put their minds at ease. Or apparently yours. So another option is to figure out exactly why you're so uneasy. That requires you to explain yourself a little more.

Is it too much to ask for?

Yes, unless you can provide a more substantial basis for your claim that the photos we have are fake. If there's no substantial reason for doubt, then there's no compelling reason for confirmation.

Some of us are just plain skeptics to a fault. I don't buy conspiracy stories, I don't believe UFO's, ghosts, paranormal crap.

How does passing off fake lunar photos as real not qualify as a conspiracy?

[Fazor]

Hmm. Another thread that starts with "I don't believe in conspiracies, but I have a question." Then followd up with "I think the pictures are fake!"

Shocking! ... and by shocking, I mean common to the point of banality. If I were an actor, and this thread a date on the calendar, I'd be Bill Murray and the thread would be Groundhog Day. Oh well. 'Round and 'round we go.

If you really have doubts about the photos, I suggest you first put what exactly you doubt into clear questions. Then, once you have those questions, use the forum search function to find the answers to those questions, which have undoubtedly been stated many times in the past. Once you've done that, then you should ask any unanswered questions.

The website in JayUtah's signature is also a great resource for information on the Apollo missions including the photographs.

[BigDon]

Hi Solo, welcome to BAUT.

Remember, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. It can keep you from trouble, but nobody ever uses it.

Also be aware that as are ability to make fake pictures grow, are ability to detect a fake picture grows as well. So that pretty much kills that argument.

[HenrikOlsen]

The only option is getting some orbital pictures which will put everybody's mind at ease.
Is it too much to ask for?
Not if you'll pay the millions it'll cost to send the camera.

If you expect someone else to pay, then yes, it's too much.

[BetaDust]

Hi solomarineris, Welcome to Baut.



The only option is getting some orbital pictures which will put everybody's mind at ease.
Is it too much to ask for?


LRO is going to launch soon, just relax.

[JayUtah]

...

Hmm. Another thread that starts with "I don't believe in conspiracies, but I have a question." Then followd up with "I think the pictures are fake!"

Well, to be fair he has only claimed they look fake. That can mean a number of things. An abundance of caution suggests we should wait until...

If you really have doubts about the photos, I suggest you first put what exactly you doubt into clear questions.

[Paul Beardsley]

Some of us are just plain skeptics to a fault.
And some have a faulty idea of what a skeptic is. Skepticism isn't merely disbelieving everything.

[Fazor]

Si, yo supongo. Lo siento, pero tengo paciencia poco hoy, y declaracions como "With today's technology we shouldn't have any difficulty observing it!" cuando el dice que el tiene experiencia con fotographia ... es dudoso.

Sorry, more practice. That's [I]suppose to say "Yes, I suppose. I'm sorry, but I have little patience today, and statements like "With today's technology ... etc" when he says he has experience with photography (albiet photo editing), it's questionable.

It's the lack of specific questions that makes it seem to fit the pattern. I guess we'll see.

[Torch2k]

If I were an actor, and this thread a date on the calendar, I'd be Bill Murray and the thread would be Groundhog Day.

Maybe the CT section of the forums should have an MP3 sticky of 'I've Got You, Babe'?

[Van Rijn]

Look,
Of course I am going to look at them "Subjectively", what other options Have I?


You can explain what criteria you use to declare an image to be fake or not fake. If you have no established criteria, then why shouldn't I expect you to arbitrarily declare any image presented to you as fake?



The only option is getting some orbital pictures which will put everybody's mind at ease.


So are you saying that you consider orbital pictures as definitely not fake? Why are orbital pictures so much better than pictures taken up close?



Is it too much to ask for?


What about this one already provided?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html

Did that put your mind at ease? If not, why?

[peter eldergill]

And some have a faulty idea of what a skeptic is. Skepticism isn't merely disbelieving everything.

Yes it is

[Fazor]

Yes it is
Where's your proof? I don't believe you.

[slang]

Where's your proof? I don't believe you.

Yes you do.

[Donnie B.]

That's not an argument, it's just contradiction. ;)

[Daffy]

Yes it is

As long as it also includes disbelieving one's own prejudices; which, of course, it very rarely does. That's where it all falls to the ground, unfortunately.

edited to add: Which has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that NASA is faking photos, btw...for which there is no evidence whatsoever that I have seen. Quite the opposite. Might as well say the photos of Abraham Lincoln are all fake since no one living was there when they were taken.

[slang]

That's not an argument, it's just contradiction. ;)

NO it ISN'T ... on topic..

solomarineris, would you be so kind to try to answer the most asked question at least? What makes you say that the images look 'fake'? Can you please try to put in words what makes you distinguish between moon landing pictures that seem real and those that you think do not? Maybe give some examples?

[Torch2k]

The photos of Abraham Lincoln are real???

Ohhhhh, come onnnnnn! How gullible do you think we are?!?!?!

[Daffy]

The photos of Abraham Lincoln are real???

Ohhhhh, come onnnnnn! How gullible do you think we are?!?!?!

Of course not...The Knights Templar hired a Freemason actor to impersonate him because the aliens abducted the real Lincoln and many year later replaced him with Paul McCartney.

[Swift]

Let's keep the jokes down to a low roar.
solomarineris, please start answering the questions that have been put to you, or we will close this thread.

[solomarineris]

Hmm. Another thread that starts with "I don't believe in conspiracies, but I have a question." Then followd up with "I think the pictures are fake!"

Well, to be fair he has only claimed they look fake. That can mean a number of things. An abundance of caution suggests we should wait until...

If you really have doubts about the photos, I suggest you first put what exactly you doubt into clear questions.

Hi Jay,
I'm fr Utah too, W.Jordan, living in Houston with zero elevation.
Anyway, I don't understand the hostility of some posters. I checked out your website, it's full of great information.
Again, the explanations, pictures fail to convince me. I am sorry.
Frankly, I don't find any of you guys explanation satisfactory, that includes Phil Plait, who is a top notch astronomer.
I agree, I look like an idiot when I express my doubts about Moon Landing.
To me an orbital picture would cast all doubts aside; a rover track, something left behind.....
Until then no amount of analysis will suffice to convince me.
As I said, I am not a scientist, an average Joe, who has doubts.

[Jason Thompson]

Again, the explanations, pictures fail to convince me.

But why? This is what we're trying to get at here.


To me an orbital picture would cast all doubts aside; a rover track, something left behind.....
Until then no amount of analysis will suffice to convince me.

Again, why? What is it about the thousands of images, hours of film and TV, and other stuff that fails to convince you, where a single shot from orbit (except the ones we already have) would?

[JayUtah]

...

I'm fr Utah too, W.Jordan, living in Houston with zero elevation.

Greetings to a transplanted Utahn, although I didn't grow up here.

Anyway, I don't understand the hostility of some posters.

Don't mistake frustration for hostility. All you've done so far is to express disbelief and doubt. People are asking for reasons behind that disbelief and doubt, and you're not giving any. You simply keep repeating that you don't believe the evidence. Without a clear statement of reasons why the evidence should not be trusted, you're simply hiding from the evidence and denying it.

Again, the explanations, pictures fail to convince me. I am sorry.

We want to know why they fail to convince you. If someone holds up a picture that says "Here's Buzz Aldrin standing near the flag on the Moon," and you say "It's fake," or "It looks fake," then you owe people an explanation of what exactly about the picture looks fake. The most common example of others' assertions is that the illumination looks wrong to them. But please tell us what about the photographs makes them fake in your judgment.

Frankly, I don't find any of you guys explanation satisfactory, that includes Phil Plait, who is a top notch astronomer.

What specifically is wrong with them?

I agree, I look like an idiot when I express my doubts about Moon Landing.

No offense intended, but maybe that should be telling you something. Might doesn't make right, but when a whole lot of people believe in something, and have obviously taken the time to research it, and you have trouble expressing the opposite view -- then maybe it's time to think about why you believe what you believe.

To me an orbital picture would cast all doubts aside; a rover track, something left behind...

But you haven't said anything about the orbital photos that were posted. And you haven't explained what's so magically convincing about a photo taken 60 miles above the lunar lander, as opposed to a photo taken four feet from the lander. What makes one automatically credible and the other seem "fake?"

Until then no amount of analysis will suffice to convince me.

Statements like these are perhaps what convince people that your mind is made up in spite of the facts instead of because of them.

As I said, I am not a scientist, an average Joe, who has doubts.

Well then look at it this way: the only people who have doubts are the average joes. The scientists, historians, technicians, and engineers who have all the relevant knowledge and experience have no problem believing in the Apollo missions. What kind of theory becomes less plausible the more you know about the subject?

[solomarineris]

NO it ISN'T ... on topic..

solomarineris Can you please try to put in words what makes you distinguish between moon landing pictures that seem real and those that you think do not? Maybe give some examples?

Okay, I will try about the pictures
Remember though this is my observation, mine only.

I run a Medical Practice, not Chiropractice, not a Homeopathic Clinic, not a GNC store. the reason I'm saying what I do is; I don't believe any of that stuff, I don't take vitamin pills ever since I married to my physician wife. However, I have faith what she prescribes, I have faith in vaccines.
I'm an avid photographer, I take thousands of pictures, mostly landscape. Out of those thousands can you guess how many I keep?
Less than couple hundred.

I look at the Moon Pictures; I've never seen such perfect pictures in such a inhospitable landscape. almost in every picture the light is perfect and coming from only one source, granted light will not be scattered there because of the lack of Atmosphere but it drives me crazy.
I have to take another trip to NASA to see whatever displays they have there. Another thing; Phil Plait was saying, we brought ton of Moon rocks back, where are they, I haven't seen more than couple pounds. Is there a picture of mass of Moonrocks anywhere I can google?♠

[eburacum45]

Only 842 lbs of moonrock have been brought back from the Moon.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

[solomarineris]

But you haven't said anything about the orbital photos that were posted. And you haven't explained what's so magically convincing about a photo taken 60 miles above the lunar lander, as opposed to a photo taken four feet from the lander. What makes one automatically credible and the other seem "fake?"


Did I miss something? Who posted orbital pictures of Moon Landing Sites?
There was only one with a less than flimsy shadow.

Another thing Jay, just because they are scientists, astronomers, doctors, theologians, whatever....just because they know their subject much better than me does not mean they are right I am wrong.
I'm not ignorant either, I did not make my mind up.
for example; I was talking this staunch theologian, who was trying to convince me to believe that Jesus walked on the water. I said there is no way because nobody ever walked on the water or raised a dead.
Moon landing is a fact, because we have pictures, records, data....You name it.
But, in spite of that...What if we didn't?

[gwiz]

I look at the Moon Pictures; I've never seen such perfect pictures in such a inhospitable landscape. almost in every picture the light is perfect and coming from only one source, granted light will not be scattered there because of the lack of Atmosphere but it drives me crazy.

The famous moon pictures look perfect because the best pictures are the ones that become famous. Try looking at everything on a film magazine and you will see plenty of imperfect ones. For example, on this roll compare 5903 (famous) and 5904 (unknown):

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/Ap11_Mag40.jpg

[solomarineris]

Only 842 lbs of moonrock have been brought back from the Moon.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
Damn!
Hate to play prosecutor here but I see one rock.
It doesn't mean they don't exist though.
Thanks for the link.

[Fazor]

for example; I was talking this staunch theologian, who was trying to convince me to believe that Jesus walked on the water. I said there is no way because nobody ever walked on the water or raised a dead.

You may want to stay away from examples of this ilk here (and if you haven't already, check out the forum rules). Regardless, I don't see how in either case you've done anything other than arbitrarily make up your mind because one scenario "sounds right" to you and the other doesn't.

[gwiz]

Damn!
Hate to play prosecutor here but I see one rock.
It doesn't mean they don't exist though.
Thanks for the link.
Google the Preliminary Science Report for any Apollo mission and you'll find it stuffed full of pictures of moon rocks, both in situ and in the lab. Check the scientific papers for the early Lunar Science Conferences, the special issues of Science magazine devoted to each mission, also check that the authors of these papers are geologists from all over the world, not just NASA.

[Moose]

I look at the Moon Pictures; I've never seen such perfect pictures in such a inhospitable landscape. almost in every picture the light is perfect and coming from only one source, granted light will not be scattered there because of the lack of Atmosphere but it drives me crazy.

Landing on the moon isn't something one can do every day. Ever missed opportunity is missed forever. Astronauts were trained to take simple, but effective shots in the conditions they were expecting. The engineering was designed to make their tasks as user-proof as possible.

But no, not every shot came out perfect. I found this (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5904.jpg) one in about a minute. I've seen many others in the past. I've no doubt others will bring up other images and links in the near future.

Print media and NASA's PR office will always choose to publish the better shots, and crop images so that the best parts of those shots appear in print. The more evocative their choices, the better their publications sell. That's simple economics.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.html) publishes everything. Even the bad shots. You need only do a little digging.

As for the moon rocks, 20 odd billion dollars were spent to obtain those samples. Would you not agree that intentionally contaminating that much irreplaceable material for a PR shot seems... wasteful?

Some samples were released for PR purposes (such as the rock in the Smithsonian), but most of it has been kept isolated from Earth conditions to protect the rocks for science research. That isolation protects the conditions that tell geologists for absolute certain the rocks cannot be of Earth origin.

[Swift]

Damn!
Hate to play prosecutor here but I see one rock.
It doesn't mean they don't exist though.
Thanks for the link.
I have personally eye-balled four or five - one at the Museum of Natural History in NY, one at the Smithsonian, and two or three different ones at traveling NASA exhibits. And that's just the "pretty" ones they take to show people.

Researchers are still doing research on the rocks brough back 40 years ago. Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/15/MNFF15B3TE.DTL) is a newspaper article on some research just recently published.

[formulaterp]

Damn!
Hate to play prosecutor here but I see one rock.
It doesn't mean they don't exist though.
Thanks for the link.

Damn! Hate to play Ophthalmologist (Or the Count from Sesame Street) here but that link clearly shows at least 4 (One .. Two .. Three ... FOUR! HA!! HA!! HA!!) complete samples and slices of another. But if you want more, take a look at this link:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/

Hundreds of links to .pdf files with pictures and results of scientific studies performed on them. Of course you don't have to believe any of it, because it might not look right. Being a skeptic and all.

I found this by typing "lunar samples pictures" into Google. Its the first result.

[slang]

I look at the Moon Pictures; I've never seen such perfect pictures in such a inhospitable landscape. almost in every picture the light is perfect and coming from only one source, granted light will not be scattered there because of the lack of Atmosphere but it drives me crazy.

Thank you solomarineris. That's a valid question, and if your doubt is based it, I can understand it. Understand though, that what you have probably seen are the best photographs available. The ones selected for publication. But many, many more photographs were taken, and even a quick glance around shows that many pictures are not quite so perfect.

Here is a recent thread (on another board) (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=2322) showing thumbnails of many of the pictures taken during Apollo. I think most originals are available on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, as linked to by Moose in the previous post.

[Swift]

But you haven't said anything about the orbital photos that were posted. And you haven't explained what's so magically convincing about a photo taken 60 miles above the lunar lander, as opposed to a photo taken four feet from the lander. What makes one automatically credible and the other seem "fake?"


Did I miss something? Who posted orbital pictures of Moon Landing Sites?
There was only one with a less than flimsy shadow.

This post (http://www.bautforum.com/1445405-post5.html), which contained this link (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html).

There is also a good explanation as to why we don't see even more.

Can the Hubble Space Telescope take a picture that shows the Apollo lunar modules on the Moon? With its 2.4 meter diameter mirror, the smallest object that the Hubble can resolve at the Moon's distance of around 400,000 kilometers is about 80 meters across. So, from low Earth orbit even Hubble's sharp vision can not image the Apollo lunar module descent stages, at most a few meters across, left behind at the lunar landing sites. A space telescope over ten times the size of Hubble could ... or a much smaller telescope in close lunar orbit.
There are planned missions to lunar orbit that will take better pictures, but it hasn't happened yet.

[JayUtah]

...

I look at the Moon Pictures; I've never seen such perfect pictures in such a inhospitable landscape.

What exactly about the lunar landscape would make it difficult to take pictures?

...almost in every picture the light is perfect

Explain what you mean by "perfect."

...and coming from only one source, granted light will not be scattered there because of the lack of Atmosphere but it drives me crazy.

This doesn't really describe anything. I'm sorry you're being driven crazy, but you have to explain in more objective and precise detail what's wrong with the pictures in your opinion.

There is a single emissive light source but a considerable number of reflectors. Have you ever used a reflector in the studio? One of the classic photo school assignments is to light a portrait where the only emissive source is directly behind the subject. Can you do it?

Another thing; Phil Plait was saying, we brought ton of Moon rocks back, where are they, I haven't seen more than couple pounds.

Okay, sounds like we're leaving the subject of photographs and moving on to everything else that's wrong with the Apollo missions. I think it's best that you revisit your initial declaration that you don't believe in conspiracy theories. It sounds like you're winding up to take the full tour.

[JayUtah]

...

There was only one with a less than flimsy shadow.

Ah, so you did see it; you just don't want to talk about it. Now apparently begins the ad hoc revision portion of the typical discussion. You ask for evidence. The evidence is provided. But only after it's provided do you decide it doesn't fit your needs: you revise your request after it is satisfied, to make it once more unsatisfied.

All you got from the Mars photos were small, unidentifiable objects you were told were the spacecraft remnants. That seems to satisfy you in that case. Why do small specks in other photographs fail to satisfy you?

And please, what is so darned inherently credible about orbital photos? You see, it's one thing to say we need that sort of data because it would be so valuable. It's another thing to say we need it just because it's the only thing you know can't be provided. One approach attempts to answer the question. The other just hypes up the proposition that some supposedly important question can't be answered.

Another thing Jay, just because they are scientists, astronomers, doctors, theologians, whatever....just because they know their subject much better than me does not mean they are right I am wrong.

But you opened the door to that possibility when you confessed that you were not a scientist but instead just and "ordinary joe." How does that apply to your arguments except to suggest that they might know something you don't? And if they know something you don't, and are thus working with a better set of information which they understand better than you, then who is more likely to have drawn the best conclusion regarding the data?

[PetersCreek]

I'm an avid photographer, I take thousands of pictures, mostly landscape. Out of those thousands can you guess how many I keep?
Less than couple hundred.

I look at the Moon Pictures; I've never seen such perfect pictures in such a inhospitable landscape. almost in every picture the light is perfect and coming from only one source...

Have you looked at all the Apollo photograhs? The are many examples of less than perfect photos: lightstruck, misframed, severe lens flare, and accidental shots of the ground, etc. Now, how many and which ones do you think were published or otherwise widely distributed? The pretty ones.

I'm a photographer, too, and I cull a lot of shots that just don't accomplish the artistic goal I had in mind. There's the key difference between how you and I approach photography and how NASA did. They weren't there to shoot the cover of Life magazine. They took pictures to document the mission and as another means of collecting scientific information. It's fantastic that they brought back many stunning photos but even if they'd been mediocre or worse, the best of them still would've made the cover.

[solomarineris]

There was only one with a less than flimsy shadow.

Ah, so you did see it; you just don't want to talk about it. Now apparently begins the ad hoc revision portion of the typical discussion. You ask for evidence. The evidence is provided. But only after it's provided do you decide it doesn't fit your needs: you revise your request after it is satisfied, to make it once more unsatisfied.

All you got from the Mars photos were small, unidentifiable objects you were told were the spacecraft remnants. That seems to satisfy you in that case. Why do small specks in other photographs fail to satisfy you?

And please, what is so darned inherently credible about orbital photos? You see, it's one thing to say we need that sort of data because it would be so valuable. It's another thing to say we need it just because it's the only thing you know can't be provided. One approach attempts to answer the question. The other just hypes up the proposition that some supposedly important question can't be answered.

Another thing Jay, just because they are scientists, astronomers, doctors, theologians, whatever....just because they know their subject much better than me does not mean they are right I am wrong.

But you opened the door to that possibility when you confessed that you were not a scientist but instead just and "ordinary joe." How does that apply to your arguments except to suggest that they might know something you don't? And if they know something you don't, and are thus working with a better set of information which they understand better than you, then who is more likely to have drawn the best conclusion regarding the data?

Yo know something Jay?
You are free to draw any conclusions from posts you like. We all pick and choose just about everything in life. I believe in Black Holes but I don't believe in Dark Energy the way most proponent scientist explain to me.
The best information is not always a definitive diagnosis.
I am fairly new here, I am thrilled to be educated by some of you.

All you got from the Mars photos were small, unidentifiable objects you were told were the spacecraft remnants. That seems to satisfy you in that case. Why do small specks in other photographs fail to satisfy you?

Well, I totally disagree with you, Mars Orbiter's picture is almost crystal clear and Moon orbiter's picture is blurry at best.
Again, we have our Confirmation Bias here.

[Dave J]

The Apollo surface photos were taken with large(r) format cameras and top quality lenses. That they were of such sharp quality is only normal and expected. Nonetheless, there were many, many shots which were of lesser quality due to focusing errors, bad exposure, and sun glare.

The Lunar Recon Orbiter will be launched this year, and should have a capability to provide better shots of the landing sites (though this isn't it's real mission). I don't know that they will be as good as the Mars orbiter shots.

The Apollo "deniers" will no doubt claim they look fake, or are fake, as it is a NASA spacecraft providing them. In the meantime, we only have the photos from the orbiting CSM, along with the thousands taken there on the surface.

...but we can't deal very well with your uneasy "feelng" on the pictures.

The real question being...what do you think a real photo taken on the Moon should look like? Why should the "good" pictures not be crystal clear?

[Gillianren]

Another thing Jay, just because they are scientists, astronomers, doctors, theologians, whatever....just because they know their subject much better than me does not mean they are right I am wrong.

That's true. However, it should certainly give a strong presumption that you are wrong. You said earlier that you stopped taking vitamin pills since marrying a doctor. (I don't necessarily see the connection, since a lot of people's doctors put them on vitamin pills, mine included, but there we are.) You cited her expertise about things like vaccines. So what makes her opinion more believable than that of the engineers, geologists, and so forth who will tell you that the Apollo evidence is definitive? I postulate that it's that you want to believe doctors.


Moon landing is a fact, because we have pictures, records, data....You name it.
But, in spite of that...What if we didn't?

I hope you realize what a poor argument this is. "Sure, we have a ton of evidence that shows this to be true. But what if we ignore that?"

[JayUtah]

...

You are free to draw any conclusions from posts you like.

No, I'm not. The rules require me to address the arguments you actually make, not the ones I think you might have made or ones I wish you had made. But conversely the rules require you in turn to express your claim clearly. That allows us to ask you questions about your claims and their supporting arguments, and requires you to answer those questions concisely, directly, and promptly.

I believe in Black Holes but I don't believe in Dark Energy the way most proponent scientist explain to me.

Fine, but we're not talking about either of those. We're talking about photographs you say look fake. You are being asked exactly what makes them look fake, and you're giving only general, non-committal answers. That doesn't work in the Conspiracy section of BAUT.

You said the photos look fake because the lighting is "perfect." You were asked in turn how many of them you had actually seen, and you were asked to describe what you mean by "perfect" in this context (e.g., well-exposed? artistically illuminated?).

The best information is not always a definitive diagnosis.

Straw-man argument. No one is asking you for a definitive diagnosis. However, "They look fake to me" is simply not sufficient. Definitive or not, you must explain yourself.

I am fairly new here, I am thrilled to be educated by some of you.

It would be easier to believe that if you didn't say things like "None of your explanations is convincing," and "No amount of analysis will convince me." It is a disingenuous approach to say you're only asking questions when your motive might be instead to challenge a widely-held belief and advocate something else.

Well, I totally disagree with you, Mars Orbiter's picture is almost crystal clear and Moon orbiter's picture is blurry at best.

I don't see the reason why this (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/phx-20090102.html) is so much more convincing than this (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html), nor why either is more convincing than this (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg), especially when the accusation is being thrown around so lightly that thousands of photographs must have been faked.

Please answer the question why you consider an orbital photograph to be so much more convincing evidence.

Again, we have our Confirmation Bias here.

No, the ad hoc revision continues. We went from there not being any discussion at all about orbital photographs to quibbling over an acceptable level of quality.

You still have yet to justify your expectations for orbital photography. Since those are the expectations against which you plan to measure the evidence, you owe us that justification.

[mugaliens]

I'm just saying that I have not seen a single, convincing photo of the Moon artifacts, tracks we left behind.
Why?
With today's technology we shouldn't have any difficulty observing it!

By "today's technology," I assume you're referring to recent advances in optics, mirrors, and other components of telescopes, including the Hubble, huh? I'll bet you're wondering why we don't just point the Hubble at the Lunar landing sights and show it all, including the Lunar Lander, the Moon Rovers, their tracks, and maybe, on a clear day, the flag that we erected there.

Is that about it?

[tofu]

I assume

This is what's so frustrating about solomarineris. He wont be direct. He wont tell us exactly what he is looking at and exactly what he expects to see. So we're left to assume. I thought he was talking about an orbiter, but maybe you're right and he's talking about the HST

solomarineris, if you're reading this, I'd like to repeat my question: please detail EXACTLY what you would like to happen, including estimated costs (just guess, nobody knows exact costs)

"I solomarineris think that the government of _______ should spend $_______ developing a lunar orbiter that will be able to take pictures of ______ resolution. The scientific objective of this mission, and justification for spending this money, is ______"

Is it unreasonable for me to ask you to fill in those blanks?

[AGN Fuel]

For anyone interested in the samples (http://ser.sese.asu.edu/cgi-bin/DPSC_Browse.pl) (just because I adore this site so much).

And for those looking for poorly framed, illuminated, sunstruck etc images, here's the 70mm catalogue (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/). Shouldn't take long to find some contenders for the "Dud shot of the Year" award.

[Daffy]

Another thing Jay, just because they are scientists, astronomers, doctors, theologians, whatever....just because they know their subject much better than me does not mean they are right I am wrong.
I'm not ignorant either, I did not make my mind up.
for example; I was talking this staunch theologian, who was trying to convince me to believe that Jesus walked on the water. I said there is no way because nobody ever walked on the water or raised a dead.
Moon landing is a fact, because we have pictures, records, data....You name it.
But, in spite of that...What if we didn't?

With all due respect, I have seen over my lifetime the rise of the very curious notion that one person's opinion is just as good as any other's...on any subject. You hear that idea spread all the time on talk radio. How on earth did people fall for that silly notion?

If I develop cancer, I will go to an expert oncologist; if I want to understand quantum physics I will discuss it with a educated physicist. I am a pretty smart guy...and I will argue with authority various points about music or film/video production/photography; those are my areas of expertise.

So, just because some pictures look "fake" to you is really irrelevant. Your opinion (or mine) is NOT as valuable on the subject as those of people who are educated and experienced in the field. And ALL of those people say they are real. If you are really interested in the truth read carefully what they are saying, learn from it, and stop falling back on well-it-just-looks-fake-to-me. That means nothing.

[solomarineris]

[b
No, the ad hoc revision continues. We went from there not being any discussion at all about orbital photographs to quibbling over an acceptable level of quality.

You know what? I really do not care what you think, you're dragging this thread to a personal attack level. Just re-read what ad hoc means first;
Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form This is not my intention.
As for this moon orbiter picture versus Mars orbital picture. You clearly demonstrate your lack of expertise. Mars orbital picture is infinitely sharper than Moon picture and on top that it is published less than 1200 kb, in actuality Mars picture is probably over 2mb, if they'd publish that picture 2mb details would scream at us.

Let me put it this way;
I don't have lots of money to burn, but if this was a bet paying $1 to $99 dollars and minimum bet were 5K. I'd put the money where my mouth is. Just to see.
Would you?
I'd get 495K if it was fake but lose 5K right now.
Would you do it?
Would you put 5K of your hard earned money to win 500dollars? Since you are so sure? Obviously all the facts are on your side. Strangely enough, I agree.
I just like to bet on intangible.

[solomarineris]

and stop falling back on well-it-just-looks-fake-to-me. That means nothing.
OK, I'll just stop entertaining the idea it's fake, because it means nothing.
Thanks for the advice.
I'm sure I'll be a better critical thinker tomorrow, instead of a stupid one now.

[R.A.F.]

I just like to bet on intangible.

Your "willingness" to wager is irrelevant, and serves only as a distraction.

[solomarineris]

And some have a faulty idea of what a skeptic is. Skepticism isn't merely disbelieving everything.

glad you're on safe side of skeptical thinking.
Peace.

[solomarineris]

Your "willingness" to wager is irrelevant, and serves only as a distraction.
Yes, I've heard that before

[ocpaul20]

If I develop cancer, I will go to an expert oncologist; if I want to understand quantum physics I will discuss it with a educated physicist. I am a pretty smart guy...and I will argue with authority various points about music or film/video production/photography; those are my areas of expertise.
Using your cancer example, (and this is also relevant to the conspiracy theory theme) I will tell you a true story that was told to me by a very good friend. His sister is high up in one of the top US drugs companies. A few years back she was excited because their company was developing a new cancer chemotherapy drug that was more effective than previous ones. The overall rate of "success" was 2.5%. As you probably know, success is measured in time life was extended from expectation.

Still going with the cancer theme, there are alternatives to conventional medicine that have been tried in the past where the rate of success is much higher - even though people tend to use conventional treatments first (that they can pay for with their health insurance). Often patients do not come to alternatives untill all conventional avenues have been exhausted. (for example, fasting regimes and others)

I believe there is room for alternative theories in addition to the mainstream ones.


With all due respect, I have seen over my lifetime the rise of the very curious notion that one person's opinion is just as good as any other's...on any subject. You hear that idea spread all the time on talk radio. How on earth did people fall for that silly notion? It really depends in what context that opinion is given - if it is given as an expert in a subject (for example in a court case or white paper for government) where the outcome could effect lives, then of course it is important to have a real grounding and good knowledge in the subject.

However, where people are just having a discussion on a subject, then I think that one persons opinion is as valid (in the context of the general discussion - in a pub for example) as the next person's opinion. Education on the subject does not really matter in this case - if you do not think the people in the discussion are knowledgable enough for the level it is being discussed, then you cease to debate it, dont you?.

[Torch2k]

I don't understand the hostility of some posters.

Hopefully, you can appreciate that many posters come here with no other intent than to 'stir up the natives'. Consequently, things can quickly get a little edgy. Although it may not have been intentional, 'the photos look fake' likely set off some trip flares.


Again, the explanations, pictures fail to convince me. I am sorry. Frankly, I don't find any of you guys explanation satisfactory, that includes Phil Plait, who is a top notch astronomer.

There are very knowledgeable people here from many fields, but it's awfully hard for them to address your doubts unless you identify the specific issues that are causing them.


To me an orbital picture would cast all doubts aside; a rover track, something left behind ...

Unfortunately, there are very few of these, and I can imagine they're not very convincing to someone who has 'doubts'. But what about all the surface pics? There are tons of them, showing exactly what you're describing.

Do the pictures fail to convince you because they lack context? NASA SP-4205 - 'Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft' is available online, and presents a history of NASA and the Lunar program right up to Apollo 11. Would this help get both the photographers and all the 'stuff' they're taking pictures of in place for you?

[Gillianren]

However, where people are just having a discussion on a subject, then I think that one persons opinion is as valid (in the context of the general discussion - in a pub for example) as the next person's opinion. Education on the subject does not really matter in this case - if you do not think the people in the discussion are knowledgable enough for the level it is being discussed, then you cease to debate it, dont you?.

We don't discuss it for the sake of people who've made up their minds. The point of discussion is to show people with a lesser amount of knowledge where the failings in their education are. Your opinion on particle physics is not as good as Eta C's, no matter where you're having the conversation; Eta C is a particle physicist and you aren't. Telling someone that they're wrong is not a debate. No one here is debating the validity of the Apollo landings; that implies that there is an equal possibility that they didn't happen. There simply isn't. The amount of education you have on the subject is entirely relevant to whether your opinion is valid or not, and I am frankly stunned that you don't realize that that's true.

[Daffy]

Using your cancer example, (and this is also relevant to the conspiracy theory theme) I will tell you a true story that was told to me by a very good friend. His sister is high up in one of the top US drugs companies. A few years back she was excited because their company was developing a new cancer chemotherapy drug that was more effective than previous ones. The overall rate of "success" was 2.5%. As you probably know, success is measured in time life was extended from expectation.

Still going with the cancer theme, there are alternatives to conventional medicine that have been tried in the past where the rate of success is much higher - even though people tend to use conventional treatments first (that they can pay for with their health insurance). Often patients do not come to alternatives untill all conventional avenues have been exhausted. (for example, fasting regimes and others)

I believe there is room for alternative theories in addition to the mainstream ones.
It really depends in what context that opinion is given - if it is given as an expert in a subject (for example in a court case or white paper for government) where the outcome could effect lives, then of course it is important to have a real grounding and good knowledge in the subject.

However, where people are just having a discussion on a subject, then I think that one persons opinion is as valid (in the context of the general discussion - in a pub for example) as the next person's opinion. Education on the subject does not really matter in this case - if you do not think the people in the discussion are knowledgable enough for the level it is being discussed, then you cease to debate it, dont you?.

I lost my first wife to cancer...because of her mildly high profile at the time as a musician, she was put into a very aggressive, experimental treatment program. Through her I got to meet personally some of the top cancer researchers in the field...and I have never in my entire life met such a truly dedicated and caring group of people. They did indeed extend her life for several years...and when it was over, many of them even showed up to her funeral, crying.

I also met a LOT of charlatans peddling bogus "alternative" treatments who were, IMO, lucky not to be tarred, feathered and run out on a rail. My contempt for such parasites knows no bounds. The rules here prevent me from truly explaining just how much I despise them.

Education does matter...only the uneducated think otherwise. And they do so, usually, very loudly and obnoxiously.

[solomarineris]

I lost my first wife to cancer...because of her mildly high profile at the time as a musician, she was put into a very aggressive, experimental treatment program. Through her I got to meet personally some of the top cancer researchers in the field...and I have never in my entire life met such a truly dedicated and caring group of people. They did indeed extend her life for several years...and when it was over, many of them even showed up to her funeral, crying.

I also met a LOT of charlatans peddling bogus "alternative" treatments who were, IMO, lucky not to be tarred, feathered and run out on a rail. My contempt for such parasites knows no bounds. The rules here prevent me from truly explaining just how much I despise them.

Education does matter...only the uneducated think otherwise. And they do so, usually, very loudly and obnoxiously.

Daffy,
Thanks for sharing this with us.....

[Swift]

It really depends in what context that opinion is given - if it is given as an expert in a subject (for example in a court case or white paper for government) where the outcome could effect lives, then of course it is important to have a real grounding and good knowledge in the subject.

However, where people are just having a discussion on a subject, then I think that one persons opinion is as valid (in the context of the general discussion - in a pub for example) as the next person's opinion. Education on the subject does not really matter in this case - if you do not think the people in the discussion are knowledgable enough for the level it is being discussed, then you cease to debate it, dont you?.
In the case of the BAUT CT and ATM forum, the rules are a little closer to your white paper example than the casual conversation about any subject. We don't ask that anyone be an expert (though there are experts here in many of these fields), but we ask that if they advocate non-mainstream ideas that they back them with evidence.

As far as the cancer discussion, I know people have strong feelings, but please don't derail this thread.

[Dave J]

If the Mars orbiter was in orbit around the Moon, it's entirely likely that the landing sites would be quite detailed. Unfortunately, for the doubters, it's not. We must deal with the evidence we have...literally tons.

The cameras on the Mars orbiter are far, far superior to those that were in the SM SIM bay. It's practically apples and oranges, and there's no way to change that.

So, what specifically is wrong with the surface images?

[solomarineris]

We don't discuss it for the sake of people who've made up their minds. The point of discussion is to show people with a lesser amount of knowledge where the failings in their education are. Your opinion on particle physics is not as good as Eta C's, no matter where you're having the conversation; Eta C is a particle physicist and you aren't. Telling someone that they're wrong is not a debate. No one here is debating the validity of the Apollo landings; that implies that there is an equal possibility that they didn't happen. There simply isn't. The amount of education you have on the subject is entirely relevant to whether your opinion is valid or not, and I am frankly stunned that you don't realize that that's true.

Say what?
No one here is debating the validity of the Apollo landings
If you are so sure why co you bother to participate?
I expressed 5% of doubts. My particle physics education might not be up par with Eta C or whomever, but I am still free to express my opinion any way I fit to say.
the validity of the Apollo landings; that implies that there is an equal possibility that they didn't happen. There simply isn't.
Fine, if you are so sure ignore me.
But you cannot make me see something I don't. I guess I'm not as good as you.

[LaurelHS]

Moon orbiter's picture is blurry at best.


I look at the Moon Pictures; I've never seen such perfect pictures in such a inhospitable landscape. almost in every picture the light is perfect and coming from only one source, granted light will not be scattered there because of the lack of Atmosphere but it drives me crazy.

So both a blurry picture and a "perfect picture" are evidence of a fake? It sounds like you're trying hard to set up a no-win situation here.

[Boxes]

Thousands of pictures from the landings are available, all taken by NASA, but you don't believe them. However, if NASA takes a few from lunar orbit, you will. Yeah, OK:rolleyes:.

[Daffy]

My particle physics education might not be up par with Eta C or whomever, but I am still free to express my opinion any way I fit to say. .

Yep. Doesn't mean it has any value, though.

Syntax issues aside, of course. ;)

[solomarineris]

So both a blurry picture and a "perfect picture" are evidence of a fake? It sounds like you're trying hard to set up a no-win situation here.
You're not reading carefully.....
I never said Fake
I said compare the quality of pictures.

[solomarineris]

Thousands of pictures from the landings are available, all taken by NASA, but you don't believe them. However, if NASA takes a few from lunar orbit, you will. Yeah, OK:rolleyes:.
Thanks dude,
That's all I need.
It's not my fault to be born as a "Doubting Thomas".

[Dave J]

60's technology vs 2000's technology...how can you say they should be equal? Digital vs film emulsion...and so on...

[Swift]

solomarineris,
First, I'm still unclear as to what you are questioning. Do you think the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon? What exactly do you think is wrong with the photos taken on the surface and if you don't think that are "fake", then what are you saying about them?

Second, if, for example, you doubt that the astronauts landed on the moon, or took some/all of the photos they took, what exactly would convince you otherwise?

[LaurelHS]

You're not reading carefully.....
I never said Fake
I said compare the quality of pictures.

Did I misunderstand this?


i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake . . . I am not claiming at all we did not land on the moon. I'm just saying that I have not seen a single, convincing photo of the Moon artifacts, tracks we left behind.

If so, I apologize.

[solomarineris]

solomarineris,
First, I'm still unclear as to what you are questioning. Do you think the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon? What exactly do you think is wrong with the photos taken on the surface and if you don't think that are "fake", then what are you saying about them?

Second, if, for example, you doubt that the astronauts landed on the moon, or took some/all of the photos they took, what exactly would convince you otherwise?

Swift,
I don't know...
I honestly do not know...
I am 95% of sure we went to the moon.
I look at the moon pictures, they look surreal.
Convincing me would be easy...
Just show orbital pictures of tracks, rovers, lander.
whatever....

[Gillianren]

Say what?
No one here is debating the validity of the Apollo landings
If you are so sure why co you bother to participate?

To inform the misinformed.


I expressed 5% of doubts. My particle physics education might not be up par with Eta C or whomever, but I am still free to express my opinion any way I fit to say.

Yes, but you're not entitled to have it thought to be of the same standard. If you were to argue particle physics with Eta C, or satellite construction with Jay, your ignorance would be apparent, and you would fail to convince anyone. Quite frankly, by declaring your opinion to be as valid as theirs makes any opinion you have look less valid, because you show that you don't even know enough to know how wrong you are.


the validity of the Apollo landings; that implies that there is an equal possibility that they didn't happen. There simply isn't.
Fine, if you are so sure ignore me.
But you cannot make me see something I don't. I guess I'm not as good as you.

You've never adequately explained what you don't see. Why do the pictures look fake? What qualifications do you have to know what pictures taken on the Moon should look like? I'd like to help educate you, though I don't know as much as a lot of others around here, but I can't even begin to get at where you're ignorant, other than that you think your opinion on factual matters to be as valid as that of people who know more about it than you.

[Daffy]

Swift,
I don't know...
I honestly do not know...
I am 95% of sure we went to the moon.
I look at the moon pictures, they look surreal.
Convincing me would be easy...
Just show orbital pictures of tracks, rovers, lander.
whatever....

Since you already reject ALL the overwhelming evidence against your position, I ask, in all seriousness, and with no intended rudeness, why should anyone care to try and convince you of anything?

I am not being rhetorical...I am looking for an answer here: what possible reason is there to try?

[Dave J]

I don't think solo has looked at any of the very many bad photos taken on the Moon's surface, even though thery are readily available on the net.

And solo also expects that Apollo photos should be of equal quality as those of the MRO photographic system.

...and still no photos (satellite or otherwise) of Hillary on the peak of Everest.

[Swift]

Swift,
I don't know...
I honestly do not know...
I am 95% of sure we went to the moon.
I look at the moon pictures, they look surreal.
Convincing me would be easy...
Just show orbital pictures of tracks, rovers, lander.
whatever....
Well, the moon is sort of a "surreal" place. No atmosphere, sky is black-even in daylight, weird greyish "dirt", 1/6 the gravity so people bounce around. IIRC, some of the astronauts commented that the horizon was closer than they were used to on Earth, because of the moon's smaller size.

Actually, the "surrealness" is one of the things that convinces me! There have been past discussions around here about IF you were going to fake it, particularly with the technology available in 1969, how would you do it. And the short answer is, you couldn't. The fact that it looks so different than Earth is the proof that it wasn't filmed/photographed on Earth!

I'm not sure why orbital pictures would convince you, but if that works for you, so be it. But unfortunately, you are going to be disappointed - there currently is nothing out there that can do that, not to the resolution of even seeing the landers. There are lunar orbiters being planned that will, but you are going to have to wait several years for them.

[AGN Fuel]

I look at the moon pictures, they look surreal.

They are photographs taken of human beings walking on the airless, waterless surface of the moon. They are not going to look like snapshots from your last holiday to the beach.

However, that is not the point. There is nothing in any of the photographs that I have seen (and I have seen a lot) that are not entirely consistent with the environment in which they were taken.

It is this point that seems to be the point of aggravation between yourself and other regulars here. You say "They don't look right" and they say, "Why, can you tell us the anomaly?" It is your failure to indicate what is wrong with the photos that is causing friction.


Convincing me would be easy...
Just show orbital pictures of tracks, rovers, lander.
whatever....

If this is the only proof you will accept, then you will have to wait. The only orbital photographs have already been provided to you and you have rejected them as insufficient. Tough, I'm afraid, for there are no others yet.

Only accepting this level of proof however raises two interesting points though: why would you accept orbital photographs as proof, when such photos will be provided by the same organisation that you doubt. Why will their orbital images be a greater proof than the numerous insitu images currently available?

Secondly, pinning all of your belief in the veracity of the missions on orbital images, completely ignores the massive body of evidence already available to prove the landings. It's a little bit like a character from one of those CSI shows pinning their investigation of a murder on DNA from an eyelash, when police already have Hi-Definition security footage from 6 different angles, fingerprints, 12 independent eyewitnesses and a signed confession from the suspect (and the suspect's Mum).

[AGN Fuel]

Man, you guys type fast!!!

[JayUtah]

...

You know what? I really do not care what you think...

That is obvious. You practically began the thread by saying you

...you're dragging this thread to a personal attack level.

If you believe anything I have said attacks you personally, use the button at the top of the offending post to report it to the moderators. They will rule on it and administer disciplinary action as required.

Just re-read what ad hoc means first;

Ad hoc revision is not the same as an ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc revision is synonymous with moving the goalposts, and is a technique employed by advocates who find themselves unprepared for the evidence they encounter.

As for this moon orbiter picture versus Mars orbital picture. You clearly demonstrate your lack of expertise.

Okay, let's talk about that. You say you look at your digital photos for 1.5 hours a day. What is your adjudicated training in photographic analysis? I have college training in photographic analysis. My analysis has been reviewed specifically in the journal Science. I have taught digital computer graphics and digital imaging at the University of Utah (where the Adobe and Pixar people went to school). Further, my analysis techniques and skill have been continuously on display here for about seven years.

Mars orbital picture is infinitely sharper than Moon picture...

No, it is not "infinitely" sharper; it is marginally sharper. But that's largely irrelevant. I'm not blind to see the difference in clarity, but I'm asking about the evidentiary value.

You say the Mars photo is authentic and serves to verify the facts of the mission. And you look at the Moon photo and say it doesn't prove anything. But in the each photo the salient features occupy only a few pixels -- far too few to support a positive identification of any object and thus provide evidence of authenticity. In the Mars photo the lander, its shields, and its parachute are identified only because the analyst knew explicitly what he was looking for, and approximately where. He can match expected albedo information to features that stand out from their environment. Similarly in the Moon photo the long shadow and white spot are consistent with what is known about a 22-foot tall Apollo lunar module at a certain time of lunar day. One can identify them only by knowing what to look for.

In two photos where the features of interest span only a small multiple in each case of the sampling resolution, I want to hear your argument for why one is valid evidence and the other isn't.

...and on top that it is published less than 1200 kb, in actuality Mars picture is probably over 2mb

And file size means exactly what in this discussion?

Let me put it this way...

Hypothetical wagers mean nothing.

Let's put in the way we've been putting it since this discussion began. Can you cite even one single Apollo 70 mm still photograph (such as the one I linked to) and make an evidentiary case that it has been faked as you claim? Will you answer the question why you consider orbital photography so much more valuable for authenticating space missions than other kinds? I have asked these questions several times. I would like answers.

It's not my fault to be born as a "Doubting Thomas".

The problem is that your doubt is inexplicably selective. You don't trust NASA to produce lunar surface pictures that are authentic. Yet you want them to produce orbital photos for you. Why do you trust the orbital photos from the same source as the lunar surface photos you dismiss as fakes?

I look at the moon pictures, they look surreal.

That doesn't make them fake or wrong. If you argue that the photos must be fake because they don't match your expectation, you have to state and defend your expectation. Otherwise one possible answer to your dilemma is that your expectation is incorrect or unsupported.

OK, I'll just stop entertaining the idea it's fake, because it means nothing.

You're conflating the right to hold a belief with the obligation to support it with something substantial if you want it generally believed by others. The objection is not to your belief; the objection is to your inability to support that belief with anything stronger than saying you believe it. "They must be fake because they look fake to me," means nothing in terms of a proof.

You seem very intent on making this exercise a value judgment about belief rather than an evidentiary test of an allegation of fact.

Fine, if you are so sure ignore me.

That's not how a public forum works. If you make a statement in public, and someone disagrees with it, nothing compels the objector to remain silent about it. The price of free speech is the responsibility to deal with the consequences of having said it. If you don't like your opinions challenged, then perhaps you shouldn't tell people what they are.

[Van Rijn]

You're not reading carefully.....
I never said Fake
I said compare the quality of pictures.

In fact, you did:


i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake.


. . . which prompted my (so far unanswered) question: Which ones don't look fake, and why?

[Paul Beardsley]

Thanks dude,
That's all I need.
It's not my fault to be born as a "Doubting Thomas".

Martyr-talk.

I've come to the conclusion that you are not a Doubting Thomas at all. You simply have poor reasoning skills and very poor communication skills.

Either that, or you are deliberately choosing not to reason or communicate.

[nomuse]

Someone help me out here. This is far from the first person professing extensive photographic experience I've run into on Apollo Hoax forums, who gives to me the impression of being completely out of their comfort zone in regards the lighting situation on the Moon.

My problem here is that I'm a theatrical lighting designer, not a photographer. I've watched studio photographers work, I've attended lectures, I've chatted with them, I've read trade magazines. But I have no experience in it myself.

My question is; does being an experienced photographer of necessity include the ability to think about the total lighting situation; the balance of different sources, the natural bounce of the surroundings, and so on? Or is there a whole school of studio photography that works entirely by rule-of-thumb, and outside the preset selection of floods for a 70/30 key and fill, has no real intuition or understanding about how light behaves outside of those narrow and artificial constraints?

I am searching for an answer to how I am so surprised when someone with this background can't appear to see the lighting effects that seem so clear to me -- me, with a different (and in my opinion less appropriate) background.

[Mellow]

Solomarenis: Like most people here, I would just be happy for you to say...

This picture xxxxxxxx here looks fake to me and here are the reasons why..
1. Reason 1
2. Reason 2

If you can't, I'll just counter your arguement with "The pictures look 100% authentic to me" and by the way, I too work with digital images every day but I accept that it's not the best basis for an understanding of the film based imagery from the Apollo missions.

I do however, understand digital image manipulation as I work for a well known software company in this space, but as I said above, I think that knowledge is almost irrelevant.

Believe me, I'm not being aggressive or personal, I'm just really really curious as to what looks wrong to you.

ta

[gwiz]

Just show orbital pictures of tracks, rovers, lander.
whatever....
Have you looked at this site?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/ApolloLanding/apollolanding_index.shtml

The hi-res pictures of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 sites all show the landers (the rest are pre-landing pictures), and the rover tracks are just about visible in the Apollo 17 one.

[Paul Beardsley]

Here's something that might cast some light on this irritatingly vague thread.

I have an abridged edition of South by Sir Ernest Shackleton, edited by Peter King, published by Pimlico in 1999. What it lacks due to abridgement it appears to make up for in terms of photographs and annotations.

On page 7, there is an annotated caption for a photograph on page 6, which reads: "A photograph of Endurance which has all the classic Hurley qualities of contrast, composition and dramatic lighting. Hurley would sometimes make composite pictures to enhance his effects."

Now, if we loosely apply the definition of "fake" to include Hurley's artistic approach to photography, then we can say that some of the photographs of Shackleton's expedition "look fake" and yet at the same time declare that we have no doubt at all that he did indeed visit Antarctica.

Is something like that going on in this thread? Possibly. But I don't know, because the OP is refusing to answer the questions that would help clarify his position.

[Donnie B.]

There seems to be little point in any further discussion in this thread.

If solo is being truthful when he says that the only way to dispel his 5% of doubt about Apollo is to see high-resolution images of the landing sites, we can do no more until such imagery becomes available.

There might, of course, be other ways to dispel that remaining doubt, but that would require solo to come forward with detailed descriptions of the specific things about the existing images that produce that doubt. So far, however, solo has shown no willingness to provide those details -- perhaps because he can't put his doubts into explicit terms -- which means we can't do anything more on that score either.

Until something breaks that logjam, we're stuck.

So, solo, do you have any intention of trying to describe in detail what's bothering you about specific Apollo photographs, films, or video? If the answer is no, then we might as well let this thread die.

[Paul Beardsley]

Agreed.

[tofu]

If you are so sure why co you bother to participate?

Because this stuff is fascinating to us, we want to learn more about it ourselves, and like most things in life, we'll learn more when challenged than when surrounded by yes-men.

We want you here. We want you to ask questions. We really really do. We want to have a conversation with you in which you present your side and we present ours. But you wont answer specific questions or go into detail - I've asked you twice to fill in the blanks on a statement that included which government you wanted to get the orbital photographs, but you wont answer. and AGN Fuel just asked the same thing when he said, "why would you accept orbital photographs as proof, when such photos will be provided by the same organisation that you doubt" and you'll ignore him too.

So, you ask why we bother to participate. I've given you an answer. What I want to know is, since you can't or wont discuss things in detail, why do you bother to participate?

[Swift]

Martyr-talk.

I've come to the conclusion that you are not a Doubting Thomas at all. You simply have poor reasoning skills and very poor communication skills.

Either that, or you are deliberately choosing not to reason or communicate.
Paul, that is not appropriate. Attack the ideas, not the person, no matter how they are presented. Don't make assumptions about others' motivations. Please consider that an official warnng.

[solomarineris]

I am not being rhetorical...I am looking for an answer here: what possible reason is there to try?

I don't know why you think you have to convince me of anything, I've already said I believe it, it just that there's an intangible feeling I have when I look at the pictures.
I frankly do not waste my time to measure, shadows, heights, fluttering flag or any inane elements. I read other peoples observations.
I am just leaving the impossible possibility open. that's all.

[tofu]

I don't know why you think you have to convince me of anything, I've already said I believe it, it just that there's an intangible feeling I have when I look at the pictures.

ok, well, uh, thanks for sharing.

Later on, if you decide you want to discuss, this discussion forum will still be here.

But for now, it seems that Donnie B. nailed it: "There seems to be little point in any further discussion in this thread."

[solomarineris]

So, solo, do you have any intention of trying to describe in detail what's bothering you about specific Apollo photographs, films, or video? If the answer is no, then we might as well let this thread die.

No, Donnie I don't have any specific observation to make, I do not want to dispute any aspect of Apollo Program. I'm not much of a fan of any conspiratorist theory, it is just me.
I am telling you this again; when I look at those pictures I get this "unreal" feelings, same time I don't feel that way about Mars Rover pictures, Saturn, Voyager pictures.
It is as simple as this; Moon surface pictures bug me, it also bugs me seeing that huge Moon Rover aside flimsy lander.
I looked at pre-landing photos when Landers were just about to touch down;
perfect! Nothing wrong with those, they are as real as it gets.

[solomarineris]

Have you looked at this site?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/ApolloLanding/apollolanding_index.shtml

The hi-res pictures of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 sites all show the landers (the rest are pre-landing pictures), and the rover tracks are just about visible in the Apollo 17 one.

Thanks,
it helps.

[Jason Thompson]

It is as simple as this; Moon surface pictures bug me,

That's not simple at all. There must be a reason they bug you. Something must be wrong with them.


it also bugs me seeing that huge Moon Rover aside flimsy lander.

You know there's an abundance of technical documentation on the rover and the lander, which show a) that the lander was not as flimsy as you seem to think, b) that the rover was possibly more flimsy than it looked, c) how the two actually worked, and d) how the one was transported within the other? Have you looked at that at all?

[Daffy]

I don't know why you think you have to convince me of anything, I've already said I believe it, it just that there's an intangible feeling I have when I look at the pictures.
I frankly do not waste my time to measure, shadows, heights, fluttering flag or any inane elements. I read other peoples observations.
I am just leaving the impossible possibility open. that's all.

Thank you for answering my question. There is no point.

[Fazor]

I am telling you this again; when I look at those pictures I get this "unreal" feelings, same time I don't feel that way about Mars Rover pictures, Saturn, Voyager pictures.
Okay. So you aren't saying anything is amiss, rather you get a weird feeling when you see moon pictures.

I get a funny feeling when I see pictures of a smiling, scantly clad Jennifer Aniston. I don't get that same feeling when I see photos of Al Gore or Marlon Brando.

But if this thread is just meant to talk about how some pictures evoke certain emotions, then this is the wrong section of the forum.

Swift made it clear that we should not guess at your motivations, so I won't. But the fact remains, if you aren't saying there's a conspiracy, then there should be no thread in the Conspiracy Theories section.

If you are saying there's a conspiracy, or might be a conspiracy, you are obligated to go beyond "Because I have a feeling there is" and explain why and how the images are "not right".

[Daffy]

I get a funny feeling when I see pictures of a smiling, scantly clad Jennifer Aniston. I don't get that same feeling when I see photos of Al Gore or Marlon Brando.

Must...resist...joke...must...resist...;)

[solomarineris]

Believe me, I'm not being aggressive or personal, I'm just really really curious as to what looks wrong to you.ta

Mellow,
Thanks for your patience. Let me explain in way how I feel when I look at those pictures;
I was already a teenager when "Twilight Zone", "Lost in Space", "Star Trek" appeared. when I look at the pictures, I get the feeling of watching a chapter "Twilight Zone", the big reason is perhaps they are BW. To me they just look extraordinary, surreal.
Another thing upsets me more than anything; we Humans 99% of time never backed off from a progress in such magnitude. We had that technology forty years ago, we just gave it up! I've seen Saturn V rocket (thankfully somebody had intelligence to pull it out of exposure and save it), it was far better launcher than Shuttle ever will be. Now I hear we cannot even find the plans of it.
Anyway, some elements in this whole Apollo mission doesn't add up in my mind.♠

[Daffy]

We had that technology forty years ago, we just gave it up!

Ever hear of the Dark Ages?

The sack of the Great Library at Alexandria?

The Amiga processor?

Humans have quite often given up beneficial things...whatever your "feelings" might be telling you.

edited to add for those who caught it: Yes, I am an Amiga geek.

[tofu]

We had that technology forty years ago, we just gave it up!

It's all about money. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_costs_and_cancellation), Apollo cost $135 billion in 2005 dollars. NASA's total budget for 2005 (http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/FY05_budget.html) was $16 billion - and keep in mind, they can't spend all of that money on going to space. Congress earmarks some of it for pet projects (you must spend X million to put computers in a school in my district). What NASA can actually use directly for space exploration is smaller than whatever number you see for their budget.

If we wanted to go to the moon, we could do it, but we'd have to pay for it. Here's a comparison of what the US spent money on in 2008:

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/tofu/babb/budget.gif


Everybody here in BAUT would be just thrilled if they would spend the money to go to the moon. But if they don't spend the money, then they can't go to the moon. It's a little naive to think that the problem is that nobody wants to go. The reality is, nobody is willing to spend the money to go.

We spend almost nothing on space exploration. It comes to just $60 per US citizen. That's why we aren't going to the moon.

Should it be cheaper to go today than it was 40 years ago? Absolutely. How much cheaper? What has changed in 40 years? Rockets have *not* gotten any cheaper. Gravity hasn't changed. The biggest change in the last 40 years has been in the area of computers, but guess what - we already had the necessary computer power 40 years ago. Smaller and faster computers don't really help that much. It's still going to be expensive to go to the moon.

I'd also like to point out that you've now raised another issue without answering the questions that you were asked about photographs in general and robotic lunar orbiters in particular. When you raise an issue, like "why don't we have pictures from orbit" and people ask clarification questions, you are supposed to answer those questions before moving on to something else. Do you want to talk about robotic orbiters or do you want to talk about manned missions?



I get a funny feeling when I see pictures of a smiling, scantly clad Jennifer Aniston.

I'd be happy to send you what technical information and images I've been able to gather, and to analyze the structural engineering aspects of a raised center of gravity owing to the attachment of dual exocrine glands at a high point on the frame - perhaps there could even be videos to demonstrate their elasticity at various rates of acceleration.

[Fazor]

Thanks Tofu, but I'd probably be safer to just leave it up to my imagination. Don't want Tara to get jealous or something. :)

[LaurelHS]

What does "cannot even find the plans of it" mean? It seems to me, just from a casual search, that there is a lot of information about the Saturn V available.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/contents.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/p405.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/contents.htm

[R.A.F.]

when I look at the pictures, I get the feeling of watching a chapter "Twilight Zone", the big reason is perhaps they are BW.

Hope that isn't your biggest reason because all lunar surface operations excepting A11 were in color.

[Swift]

Another thing upsets me more than anything; we Humans 99% of time never backed off from a progress in such magnitude. We had that technology forty years ago, we just gave it up!
I don't agree with the 99% of the time. But I was upset too - not because it means that the Apollo landings were fake, but because we blew a great opportunity. Unfortunately, history his full of examples of such missed opportunities.

It just proves humans do stupid things.

[Dave J]

Mellow,
Thanks for your patience. Let me explain in way how I feel when I look at those pictures;
I was already a teenager when "Twilight Zone", "Lost in Space", "Star Trek" appeared. when I look at the pictures, I get the feeling of watching a chapter "Twilight Zone", the big reason is perhaps they are BW. To me they just look extraordinary, surreal.
Another thing upsets me more than anything; we Humans 99% of time never backed off from a progress in such magnitude. We had that technology forty years ago, we just gave it up! I've seen Saturn V rocket (thankfully somebody had intelligence to pull it out of exposure and save it), it was far better launcher than Shuttle ever will be. Now I hear we cannot even find the plans of it.
Anyway, some elements in this whole Apollo mission doesn't add up in my mind.♠

Unfortunately, the demise of the Apollo program was in the works as the early landings were underway, certainly not the choice of NASA and all those who were contributing. It was a sad day when they ended the program with Apollo 17, then the Skylab and Soyuz linkup.
The "plans" were scattered amongst thousands of contractors, and one couldn't likely find "the plans" even back then. But every piece was designed, engineered, probably drawn with drafting tables and T Squares, then after the program, drawings were stored by the various contractors. Eventually they were probably destroyed/disposed of, just due to the costs of storage.

But there is a lot of really interesting stuff at this site. You might find it very interesting, one of my favorites.

http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/spacepdf.htm

There are gobs of technical reports and such there...happy hunting!

[Jason Thompson]

Mellow,
Thanks for your patience. Let me explain in way how I feel when I look at those pictures;
I was already a teenager when "Twilight Zone", "Lost in Space", "Star Trek" appeared. when I look at the pictures, I get the feeling of watching a chapter "Twilight Zone", the big reason is perhaps they are BW.

OK, I think we need some clarification on what you mean when you say 'pictures'. Are you referring to photographs or video or film? In the case of photographs, about half were colour and half were black and white. Over all the flown missions, by the way, there are about 10,000 of each, colour and black & white. In the case of film it's all colour, as far as I know. In the case of the TV all the lunar surface footage from every landing except the first was in full colour. Since the first only lasts about three hours in total, but the last three missions cover three days on the lunar surface, that's a tiny fraction of the lunar surface TV that's black & white.


To me they just look extraordinary, surreal.

So they should. There are men walking on an alien landscape, sunlit but with a dark sky, in lower gravity, in spacesuits. Why should it not look slightly weird compared to everything you ever see in everyday life?


We had that technology forty years ago, we just gave it up! I've seen Saturn V rocket (thankfully somebody had intelligence to pull it out of exposure and save it), it was far better launcher than Shuttle ever will be.

Define 'better'. It's a whole lot of wasted metal fifteen minutes after ignition. The shuttle is designed to a whole different philosophy.


Now I hear we cannot even find the plans of it.

I hear that a lot. There's a wealth of technical information, including some very detailed plans, available on the Saturn V. A lot of it is online. What plans do you think are missing?


Anyway, some elements in this whole Apollo mission doesn't add up in my mind.♠

Which elements?

[JayUtah]

...
To me they just look extraordinary, surreal.

That may be understandable. But it's unfortunate that you chose to describe it using terms such as "they look fake." That immediately (at least to this audience) signals that you're claiming they were fabricated.

Another thing upsets me more than anything; we Humans 99% of time never backed off from a progress in such magnitude.

I disagree. I am an engineer. I see very good ideas sidelined or lost regularly for reasons that have nothing to do with their success or potential. Technical progress is simply not at all monotonic in my experience (20 yrs) in the field.

I've seen Saturn V rocket ... it was far better launcher than Shuttle ever will be.

Apples and oranges. The Saturn V was a good design, but the Saturns and the STS simply were not designed for the same kind of application.

Now I hear we cannot even find the plans of it.

Heard from whom?

"The plans" comprised literally millions of sheets of paper, not all of which ever existed at one time in the same place. The LES documents, for example, were produced by Thiokol which became Morton-Thiokol which became ATK which became Alliant Something-or-Other. And that group is designing the new Orion LES, using the old J-size Saturn LES drawings as examples.

And they're classified. That was required in the 1960s. They don't need to be classified anymore, but declassification costs money. It's just cheaper to assign a cleared worker to refer to them.

Similarly Rocketdyne is going to have all the documents for the F-1, and their subcontractors will have the designs for the valves, structures, and so forth. Alliant or Boeing won't have any of that.

Among the people who believe the handling of Apollo design documents is suspicious I have yet to find anyone who has actually worked in the aerospace industry, who knows the type and number of documents that such a design would normally produce, or who can carry on an informed discussion about what is normal and acceptable practice in that industry for retaining documents. It seems to be one of those red herrings.

According to the NASA Public Affairs office, enough of the Saturn V design documents were collected, microfilmed, and stored in the U.S. National Archives to satisfy the need to retain them for reference.

Anyway, some elements in this whole Apollo mission doesn't add up in my mind.♠

[Gillianren]

Must...resist...joke...must...resist...;)

All I could think was Streetcar Named Desire Marlon Brando or Island of Dr. Moreau Marlon Brando? It's a huge difference. About 200 pounds.

[Fazor]

Sorry for the ambiguity Gillian, but honestly neither does anything for me.

[Daffy]

All I could think was Streetcar Named Desire Marlon Brando or Island of Dr. Moreau Marlon Brando? It's a huge difference. About 200 pounds.

But either one would be very disturbing dressed like Jennifer Aniston.

[Gillianren]

But either one would be very disturbing dressed like Jennifer Aniston.

I grant you. But even the straight guys in the class where we watched Streetcar had to admit that the man was good-looking in those days. His personality wasn't the greatest, so it wasn't the same as watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Paul Newman, but still.

[Daffy]

I grant you. But even the straight guys in the class where we watched Streetcar had to admit that the man was good-looking in those days. His personality wasn't the greatest, so it wasn't the same as watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Paul Newman, but still.

Any latent tendencies I may or may not have regarding young Marlon Brando in a thong are mine and mine alone, if they were there, which they aren't, and even if they were, would not hold up in any decent court of law.

I will admit to a man crush on Alan Arkin, though. :)

(Betcha I hear about this post from the mods!)

[Swift]

Ok, no more derailing with the Streetcar.


No, Donnie I don't have any specific observation to make, I do not want to dispute any aspect of Apollo Program. I'm not much of a fan of any conspiratorist theory, it is just me.
I am telling you this again; when I look at those pictures I get this "unreal" feelings, same time I don't feel that way about Mars Rover pictures, Saturn, Voyager pictures.
It is as simple as this; Moon surface pictures bug me, it also bugs me seeing that huge Moon Rover aside flimsy lander.
I looked at pre-landing photos when Landers were just about to touch down;
perfect! Nothing wrong with those, they are as real as it gets.
solomarineris, I think the ball is in your court. Do you wish to continue this thread? I think people have tried to address your concerns. I'm not sure that there is much more that people can say here and that we can completely eliminate your doubts.

If you want to continue, or have new issues (such as the end of the Apollo program), we can continue this thread. But you should expect that people will continue to question your statements and you will be expected to answer. If not, please let me know and we'll close this thread.

[JonClarke]

Ever hear of the Dark Ages?

The sack of the Great Library at Alexandria?

The Amiga processor?

Concorde

SR-71

Nuclear thermal rockets

Submersibles that can reach the deepest parts of the ocean

[Studioguy]

Laser disc

Betamax

8 track tape

And the wristwatch television

[Scamp]

Why?

It's the question I ask myself each time a thread like this pop's up. The evidence is incontrovertible and yet the deniers persist. Obviously hard fact and reason is not going to change the mind of the conspiracy theorist. So what's really going on? Perhaps the answer lies not with the physical sciences but with human psychology. On a whim I Googled "the psychology of conspiracy theorists"

The first result (of many) was: The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_rmd1.htm)by Wayn McDonald. A very interesting read.



Goertzel identified three traits as being correlated with a belief in conspiracy theories:


anomia, the respondent stated a belief that he/she felt alienated or disaffection relative to “the system;”
A tendency to distrust other people
A feeling of insecurity regarding continued employment


So Solo, is there anything else in your life you would like to talk about?

[LaurelHS]

Why?

It's the question I ask myself each time a thread like this pops up. The evidence is incontrovertible and yet the deniers persist. Obviously hard fact and reason is not going to change the mind of the conspiracy theorist. So what's really going on?

Here's an earlier thread about this question (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/62274-why-do-people-believe-conspiracy-theories.html).

[AGN Fuel]

I do think a component is that the layperson is largely unaware of the scale and scope of Apollo. Many people I speak to are surprised that there were 6 successful landings - a common rejoinder is "I just thought it was Neil Armstrong and that other guy, Buzz Lightyear..."

So when such a person sees something that is outside of their experience in a photograph, video or whatever, then they question it. That's cool. It's healthy. I think sometimes because we have seen the same questions over and over ad nauseum, we sometimes become overly aggressive with newbies and they respond by getting defensive, which in turn provokes more ire.

I admit that there are some that some that come to BAUT with a mindset that the PTB are guilty of a wide range of deceptions, that they themselves have rumbled the dark secret and anyone that doesn't instantly agree is either 'one of them' or a 'sheeple'. Such people have no desire to be educated.

But we have had a number of success stories too, from those who come here seeking answers and are given them by the vastly knowlegable people who frequent this board. And of course, for every participant in the fora, there are the lurkers who are trying to find answers of their own. As such, patience and perseverence are important.

[R.A.F.]

I do think a component is that the layperson is largely unaware of the scale and scope of Apollo.

As has been previously discussed elsewhere age is also a factor. It's easier to disbelieve something happened if you weren't alive at the time.

I don't know what will happen when everyone who was alive at the time of Apollo has died...but that "should" be a moot point as hopefully we will have returned to the Moon by then...hopefully.

[AGN Fuel]

As has been previously discussed elsewhere age is also a factor. It's easier to disbelieve something happened if you weren't alive at the time.

Absolutely agree. Important point.

[slang]

a common rejoinder is "I just thought it was Neil Armstrong and that other guy, Buzz Lightyear..."

You owe me a mouthful of scotch. Blended, but still... :)

[Torch2k]

Similar to Scamp's post, but what gets me most often, is "Why does it always come down to the photos???" (Video often included, as well.) I was barely aware until recently that people even believed in an Apollo hoax, but have been looking at a lot of CT material recently, and the photo 'issues' frankly get on my nerves.

They're too perfect, they're all terrible; there are too many of them, there are too few of them; they've been professionally composed, the lighting is all wrong; they're all faked, some were faked; they've hidden photos they don't want us to see, they failed to take photos that would make us believers - in short, whatever can be deemed to be right/wrong/meaningless in all/some/any/none of the leaked/hidden/missing photos/videos/films is grist for the conspiracy mill.

For myself, I think of the photos as the candles on the Apollo cake. I think they're outstanding not so much for what they are, but for the great achievement they illuminate. As AGN Fuel said, many might be 'largely unaware of the scale and scope of Apollo'. I can't help but think, though, that an honest inquiry into the history of NASA and Apollo would not only eliminate doubts about the project's photographic record, but would make the photos more meaningful and interesting.

Or more assailable, if that was the researcher's intent. I love SF, but not if the author is peddling mush. My favorite authors are the ones who were at least conscientious enough to make their fictions sensible, to make their improbable inventions plausible. (Just upsetting that the least plausible of all, the Infinite Improbability Drive, is the one I'd most like to get my hands on.)

So are there any masters of CT out there, any budding Asimovs, or Gibsons, or even Adamses? Or does it always devolve into griping about the lunar Polaroids?

[solomarineris]

Similar to Scamp's post, but what gets me most often, is "Why does it always come down to the photos???" (Video often included, as well.) I was barely aware until recently that people even believed in an Apollo hoax, but have been looking at a lot of CT material recently, and the photo 'issues' frankly get on my nerves.

They're too perfect, they're all terrible; there are too many of them, there are too few of them; they've been professionally composed, the lighting is all wrong; they're all faked, some were faked; they've hidden photos they don't want us to see, they failed to take photos that would make us believers - in short, whatever can be deemed to be right/wrong/meaningless in all/some/any/none of the leaked/hidden/missing photos/videos/films is grist for the conspiracy mill.

For myself, I think of the photos as the candles on the Apollo cake. I think they're outstanding not so much for what they are, but for the great achievement they illuminate. As AGN Fuel said, many might be 'largely unaware of the scale and scope of Apollo'. I can't help but think, though, that an honest inquiry into the history of NASA and Apollo would not only eliminate doubts about the project's photographic record, but would make the photos more meaningful and interesting.

Or more assailable, if that was the researcher's intent. I love SF, but not if the author is peddling mush. My favorite authors are the ones who were at least conscientious enough to make their fictions sensible, to make their improbable inventions plausible. (Just upsetting that the least plausible of all, the Infinite Improbability Drive, is the one I'd most like to get my hands on.)

So are there any masters of CT out there, any budding Asimovs, or Gibsons, or even Adamses? Or does it always devolve into griping about the lunar Polaroids?

Torch,

After starting this thread, I realized that I knew nothing of sorts about the rules of this great board.
Yesterday instead of running my practice (thankfully I am not the doctor my wife is). I invested few hours over this subject, read Buzz Aldrin's interview, looked hundreds of pictures and then after a long day I watched Discovery channel's Moon Landing DVD, those flight directors, engineers, Astronauts, Mission looked perfect.
Now I believe 99% we went there. The remaining 1% is firing questions I need to investigate. Here are the few.
#1) It gets litlle fuzzy for me when Lander separates from Mother Ship, pictures look extremely good, especially still ones taken when Lander approaches to the moon, then we are switched to BW movie in horrible quality (no fault of their own) this part When Aldrin sets foot on the Moon look very good.
#2) When Aldrin takes command of the Lander, 30 seconds fuel left, flying over the boulders, craters, finds a perfect location. We did this landing four, five times more and every time it went perfect, granted practice makes perfect.
#3) Surface temperature and Cameras;
I couldn't see what the temperature was in actual landings but when I googled it says varies between -135C to 105C, plus radiation.
I need to read alot more, for sure.
So far this thread educated me far better than expected.
I find space exploration beyond fascinating.
Too bad for humanity that we blew the chance in a big way not pursuing it.
We witness computer technology today, imagine how it was twenty years ago and what we have today. We could realize Arthur C Clarke's vision.

[Daffy]

Torch,

After starting this thread, I realized that I knew nothing of sorts about the rules of this great board.
Yesterday instead of running my practice (thankfully I am not the doctor my wife is). I invested few hours over this subject, read Buzz Aldrin's interview, looked hundreds of pictures and then after a long day I watched Discovery channel's Moon Landing DVD, those flight directors, engineers, Astronauts, Mission looked perfect.
Now I believe 99% we went there. The remaining 1% is firing questions I need to investigate. Here are the few.
#1) It gets litlle fuzzy for me when Lander separates from Mother Ship, pictures look extremely good, especially still ones taken when Lander approaches to the moon, then we are switched to BW movie in horrible quality (no fault of their own) this part When Aldrin sets foot on the Moon look very good.
#2) When Aldrin takes command of the Lander, 30 seconds fuel left, flying over the boulders, craters, finds a perfect location. We did this landing four, five times more and every time it went perfect, granted practice makes perfect.
#3) Surface temperature and Cameras;
I couldn't see what the temperature was in actual landings but when I googled it says varies between -135C to 105C, plus radiation.
I need to read alot more, for sure.
So far this thread educated me far better than expected.
I find space exploration beyond fascinating.
Too bad for humanity that we blew the chance in a big way not pursuing it.
We witness computer technology today, imagine how it was twenty years ago and what we have today. We could realize Arthur C Clarke's vision.

Since you are "99%" sure we went there, ask yourself: how feasible would it be to achieve a hoax involving thousands of people, and keep them all completely quiet about it? It's absurd on a level that I can best describe as psychedelic!

Our government can't even conduct secret bombing raids and get away with it...especially back then. Let's put it this way: how many people do you have working in your practice? 5? 10? Go tell each of them a secret---doesn't matter what---and tell them they must NOT, under ANY circumstances repeat it to ANYONE. What are the odds the "secret" will remain so? Now multiply that by thousands (including nations hostile to us), and you'll begin to see how mind numbingly stupid this whole moon hoax idea is.

It simply couldn't happen. Not with human beings involved, it couldn't.

[NEOWatcher]

I invested few hours over this subject...
Always good when you fail to understand where the majority is coming from. Good for you.
Now; a few comments to get you started on the rest.

#1) It gets litlle fuzzy for me when Lander separates from Mother Ship, pictures look extremely good
You may want to look at the type of camera used and what type of transmission the camera is using. Either of these factors is very important in quality. Anything from the lander also has the disadvantage of relaying through the command module. (at least until something else can be set up on excursion - I'm not sure about this one, but I know where to look for it)

#2) When Aldrin takes command of the Lander, 30 seconds fuel left, flying over the boulders, craters, finds a perfect location. We did this landing four, five times more and every time it went perfect, granted practice makes perfect.
I wouldn't say perfect, but good enough. It was amazing, so maybe that's where the impression of perfect comes from. I think one of them landed on a slight hillside. On 11, if Aldrin didn't take it, it could have been complete disaster. That shows the power of having alternate procedures.

#3) Surface temperature and Cameras;
Learn about convection and radiative heat transfers and how the vacuum of space effects how those heat transfers occur. You'll find out that a temperature "value" does not equate to "feel".

[Jason Thompson]

#1) It gets litlle fuzzy for me when Lander separates from Mother Ship, pictures look extremely good, especially still ones taken when Lander approaches to the moon, then we are switched to BW movie in horrible quality (no fault of their own) this part When Aldrin sets foot on the Moon look very good.

The separation of the LM, and the descent and landing, was captured on 16mm film. It was not seen live but was released later when the film was processed. Film motion picture photography was a mature art form by the time of Apollo. The lunar surface EVA, however, WAS broadcast live via a TV camera. Television was a few decades old by this time, but a TV camera that could fit into a spacecraft and be carried by one man was an entirely new innovation for Apollo. When you're making TV for terrestrial broadcast you want the best quality, so you build big video cameras on rostra and dollies and the like. To get live TV from space you need to make the camera small and lightweight, and you need to modify the TV signal to be handled by the transmitters and receiving stations used on the flight. If that means sacrificing some quality then so be it. If you view the TV from all of the flights you can see it maturing over time, from grainy black and white to magnificent high res full colour by the time of the last flights.

When querying the quality of imagery, it is important to identify the source of that imagery. Film, TV, still photgraphs, all have their own features and limitations.


#2) When Aldrin takes command of the Lander, 30 seconds fuel left, flying over the boulders, craters, finds a perfect location. We did this landing four, five times more and every time it went perfect, granted practice makes perfect.

It went well, not perfectly. Some of the landings were not so perfect. Apollo 15 landed tipped back on the edge of a crater. Remember also that landing sites had been scouted by previous manned and unmanned flights, so they had a good chance of finding a suitable spot to land in at any of the chosen landing sites: they were chosen for this reason. Had they been unable to land they could always abort and return to orbit.


#3) Surface temperature and Cameras;
I couldn't see what the temperature was in actual landings but when I googled it says varies between -135C to 105C, plus radiation.

The temperatures quoted are surface temperatures. Remember that on the Moon, in a vacuum, there is no such thing as an ambient temperature. It's not like walking outside on a hot day or a cold winter's night. There is no heat to deal with except incoming solar radiation, and the ability to deal with that was well-known by Apollo. That's why the spacesuits were white: it reflects most incoming light and heat. The spacesuit design devoted more effort to keeping the astronauts from overheating due to the heat from their own bodies in a sealed rubber suit than to keeping them from frying in the solar heat.


I need to read alot more, for sure.

Then go to it. You'll find a lot of very well educated people here who are more than willing to answer any questions you may have.

[solomarineris]

Since you are "99%" sure we went there, ask yourself: how feasible would it be to achieve a hoax involving thousands of people, and keep them all completely quiet about it? It's absurd on a level that I can best describe as psychedelic!

Our government can't even conduct secret bombing raids and get away with it...especially back then. Let's put it this way: how many people do you have working in your practice? 5? 10? Go tell each of them a secret---doesn't matter what---and tell them they must NOT, under ANY circumstances repeat it to ANYONE. What are the odds the "secret" will remain so? Now multiply that by thousands (including nations hostile to us), and you'll begin to see how mind numbingly stupid this whole moon hoax idea is.
It simply couldn't happen. Not with human beings involved, it couldn't.
I totally agree with you.

[solomarineris]

The separation of the LM, and the descent and landing, was captured on 16mm film. It was not seen live but was released later when the film was processed. Film motion picture photography was a mature art form by the time of Apollo. The lunar surface EVA, however, WAS broadcast live via a TV camera. Television was a few decades old by this time, but a TV camera that could fit into a spacecraft and be carried by one man was an entirely new innovation for Apollo. When you're making TV for terrestrial broadcast you want the best quality, so you build big video cameras on rostra and dollies and the like. To get live TV from space you need to make the camera small and lightweight, and you need to modify the TV signal to be handled by the transmitters and receiving stations used on the flight. If that means sacrificing some quality then so be it. If you view the TV from all of the flights you can see it maturing over time, from grainy black and white to magnificent high res full colour by the time of the last flights.

When querying the quality of imagery, it is important to identify the source of that imagery. Film, TV, still photgraphs, all have their own features and limitations.



It went well, not perfectly. Some of the landings were not so perfect. Apollo 15 landed tipped back on the edge of a crater. Remember also that landing sites had been scouted by previous manned and unmanned flights, so they had a good chance of finding a suitable spot to land in at any of the chosen landing sites: they were chosen for this reason. Had they been unable to land they could always abort and return to orbit.



The temperatures quoted are surface temperatures. Remember that on the Moon, in a vacuum, there is no such thing as an ambient temperature. It's not like walking outside on a hot day or a cold winter's night. There is no heat to deal with except incoming solar radiation, and the ability to deal with that was well-known by Apollo. That's why the spacesuits were white: it reflects most incoming light and heat. The spacesuit design devoted more effort to keeping the astronauts from overheating due to the heat from their own bodies in a sealed rubber suit than to keeping them from frying in the solar heat.

Then go to it. You'll find a lot of very well educated people here who are more than willing to answer any questions you may have.

I definitely will.
What do you mean when you write There is no heat to deal ? Doesn't that heat heat or cold have same value? Granted it is not ambient, no atmosphere to distribute, but the heat is heat or is not?

[Swift]

By the way solomarineris, the website clavius.org (http://www.clavius.org/) is another great place for info about the moon landings and the "hoax". It is organized by subject; here (http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html) is the calvius webpage on heat and temperature on the moon.


280 F (138 C) may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not the temperature of any random object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter.

[NEOWatcher]

... but the heat is heat or is not?
Nope;
I guess the easiest way to explain (but inacurate) that relates to common experience is what happens on a hot sunny day.
It may be 90 degrees out, and feel like 90 degrees, but the surface temperature of that blacktop you are standing on may be 200 or more.
Now; take away the atmosphere that lets you feel the 90.

[JayUtah]

...

After starting this thread, I realized that I knew nothing of sorts about the rules of this great board.

The rules in the conspiracy-theory section take most people by surprise. There are reasons for having them, but the rules aren't always intuitive or obvious.

#1) It gets litlle fuzzy for me when Lander separates from Mother Ship, pictures look extremely good

Modern television programs freely intercut 16mm film and poor-quality black-and-white television. The astronauts had a rugged 16mm film camera with them, and it took good pictures. But naturally the film had to be returned to Earth to be developed. The advantage of TV is that it could be seen live, transmitted electronically to Earth. But the technical and physical limitations didn't allow TV transmission for the entire mission.

#2) When Aldrin takes command of the Lander, 30 seconds fuel left, flying over the boulders, craters, finds a perfect location.

No, he found a suitable location. The controllers would have preferred he land where they sent him, because the value of the science done during the mission depends on knowing where on the Moon he actually landed. But because of an unaccounted impulse (a bit of air stuck in the tunnel between the spacecraft when they separated), the spacecraft's trajectory was a bit off.

The de-orbit maneuver had to be precise. For that reason, the spacecraft orbited the Moon ten times before undocking, so that ground controllers could precisely measure the parking orbit. From that, the precise engine burn to de-orbit the lander to the designated landing site could be computed. In Apollo 11's case, that one bit of "thrust" was unaccounted for.

#3) Surface temperature and Cameras;

Actual surface temperature in the lunar morning was about 30 F. But the real problem is that the temperatures cited are for the surface. When we talk about "the temperature" on Earth we usually mean air temperature, which has no meaning on the Moon. Air conveys heat through convective means. Depending on the situation it can take heat away from hot objects (such as cooling your car's engine) or add heat to it (such as a hot breeze warming the shady side of your house).

On the Moon there's no air. So any heat from the surface doesn't really have any mechanism of transfer to get it to the camera. The camera will heat up only insofar as the sun shines directly on it. And thankfully engineers can easily control that degree of heating by selecting coatings with the proper optical properties. The Apollo 70mm cameras were painted with a kind of aluminum paint that is highly effective at reflecting away the heat-carrying wavelengths of light. Similar paint is used on Thermos bottles, and also on some kinds of heavy-duty carrying cases.

[JayUtah]

...but the heat is heat or is not?

No, not really.

The equilibrium temperature achieved by an object in sunlight, using only radiative principles, depends quite heavily on the optical properties of that substance, chiefly its absorptivity and its emissivity. The emissivity partly determines how much heat is radiated away at a given temperature, as electromagnetic energy. That determines how readily an object will cool itself by radiation. But the absorptivity is more important; it describes how much light is absorbed and thus converted to heat.

Aluminized objects can have absorptivities as low as 0.10, or only 10% of incoming light. Practical values for space applications range between that and about 0.4. The industry provides all manner of paints and films that create the proper optical environment to guarantee a suitable thermal environment.

Skylab is a great example. The intended heat shield, which was torn away at launch, had a very low absorptivity. And it was also physically offset from the inner skin. The Apollo command module that was used to ferry the astronauts to it had a similar coating, and maintained a comfortable inner air temperature of about 65 F without much need for adjustment. But when Skylab's inner skin was exposed to sunlight, and because of its much higher absorptivity (it was never intended to serve as the reflective layer), the workshop air temperature was approximately 130 F. That difference is due entirely to the optical properties of whatever surface was exposed to the sun.

The average absorptivity of the rocks and dust of the lunar surface is about 0.88, meaning it absorbs most of the light that hits it, and converts it to heat. So the upper layers of the lunar surface get very, very hot after being exposed for some time to the sun's rays.

[Scamp]

It simply couldn't happen. Not with human beings involved, it couldn't.

Oh great, now we are going to get a flood of posts proposing that Aliens helped the US fake the moon landings..... :doh:

[Swift]

Oh great, now we are going to get a flood of posts proposing that Aliens helped the US fake the moon landings..... :doh:
Search around the CT forum Scamp - been there, done that.

[Scamp]

Search around the CT forum Scamp - been there, done that.

Ahh, so were I to look I suppose I would find that Aliens helped to fake the Moon landings. In return for that boost in National prestige, the US Government granted the Aliens limited harvesting rights (cattle parts, occasional human, etc...) but JFK would not go along with the plan an so he had to be eliminated. The Aliens also provided the chemtrail formula to help control our population and prevent the average citizen from asking too many questions and exposing their ongoing plan which of course included a major harvesting effort in Sept. of 2001 resulting in an extensive Government cover-up of their actions.

Yes, It's all so clear now.



(Ya know, this could make a great movie! Any screenwriters out there?)

[Daffy]

oh great, now we are going to get a flood of posts proposing that aliens helped the us fake the moon landings..... :doh:

lol!

[Studioguy]

#2) When Aldrin takes command of the Lander, 30 seconds fuel left, flying over the boulders, craters, finds a perfect location. We did this landing four, five times more and every time it went perfect, granted practice makes perfect.


Maybe just nitpicking, but it was Armstrong who piloted the LM to the surface.

[Dave J]

A small detail...it was Armstrong who was flying the LM for the landing.

Temperature...the surface gradually heats throughout the daytime cycle, and gradually cools over the nighttime cycle, each cycle lasting about 2 weeks. There's a graph around somewhere that shows this. The Apollo missions landed in the early lunar "morning", so the surface was relatively cool with the low sun angle.
Even so, the surface temp would not affect the cameras unless they were actually on/touching the surface. In a vaccuum (like a vaccuum thermos bottle), there is nothing to transmit the surface's heat to the cameras on the astronaut's chest. There would be radiative heating from the sunlight reflecting off the surface, and the unfiltered sun. The reflective aluminum cover on the camera addressed these sources, along with the constant maneuvering of the astronauts.

Solo, you are at the right place for getting questions/doubts addressed. The experts here have so much experience in the related sciences of Apollo, and have a gift for making it understandable to us neophytes. It's a good thing....

[PetersCreek]

I was just about to post on that point, too, Studioguy...and Dave J.

While Armstrong was piloting the LM through the terminal phase of the landing, Aldrin had his hands full. He read off data like target angle, rate of descent, altitude, computer data, etc. When Armstrong made the decision to land long (and not in a boulder field), Aldrin continued to do that. They were at an altitude of about 75 feet at the 60-second fuel callout but by that time, Armstrong had already found a suitable landing spot. It was just a matter of easing it a little farther downrange to a landing 40 seconds later.

[R.A.F.]

While Armstrong was piloting the LM through the terminal phase of the landing, Aldrin had his hands full. He read off data like target angle, rate of descent, altitude, computer data, etc.

One of the disadvantages of being the LMP...except for an occasional glance, they basically "missed" seeing the landings.

[LaurelHS]

Shortly after the Apollo 17 landing, Jack Schmitt said to Gene Cernan, "Where'd you land? You never let me look outside at all."

[Extravoice]

Aldrin did get to say the first words from the lunar surface, though.

"Contact light" :)

[PetersCreek]

Mmmmm...first words from several feet above the surface of the Moon? I'm not so sure I'd call it "from the surface" based on the contact probe indicator. It sounds..."quibblicious". :whistle:

[Moose]

Heh, ya gotta give the poor guy something. He can't even claim to be the first astronaut to have landed on Bart Sibrel's face.

[gwiz]

Mmmmm...first words from several feet above the surface of the Moon? I'm not so sure I'd call it "from the surface" based on the contact probe indicator. It sounds..."quibblicious". :whistle:
As his next words were "OK, engine stop", I think he still gets the credit.

[Cavorite]

Except for the fact that nobody seems to be sure if Armstrong said "Shutdown" before or after touchdown.

[Paul Beardsley]

solomarineris, in the light of subsequent posts, I'd like to apologise for my comments in post 99.

[Sam5]

i looked tons of moon pictures. Frankly most of them look fake. I spend at least 1.5 hour every day in front of editing my own pictures, I am very intimate with the digital photography process.
I am not claiming at all we did not land on the moon. I'm just saying that I have not seen a single, convincing photo of the Moon artifacts, tracks we left behind.

If you were shown such photos, you wouldn't believe them.

Anyway, many of us saw the landing live. We saw the crude TV pictures, we heard the live audio.

They didn't have Photoshop back in those days.

[Paul Beardsley]

If you were shown such photos, you wouldn't believe them.

Anyway, many of us saw the landing live. We saw the crude TV pictures, we heard the live audio.

They didn't have Photoshop back in those days.

Have you read the subsequent posts? A lot of progress has been made in this thread.

[ravens_cry]

Have you read the subsequent posts? A lot of progress has been made in this thread.
Maybe. . .Sam5. . .is. . .just. . .a. . .real. . .slow. . .typeset.
Maybe. . .they. . .haven't. . .read. . .the. . .other. . .posts. . .yet. . .because. . .they. . .weren't. . .there. . .when. . .they. . .started?
l. . .o. . .l

. . .

:p

[solomarineris]

solomarineris, in the light of subsequent posts, I'd like to apologise for my comments in post 99.

Don't worry about it Paul.
I did quit few apologizing myself. As everything else I need to learn in order to go to next lesson.
I really hate to be "The village Idiot" but sometimes I take the role, for the price of learning.

[R.A.F.]

...many of us saw the landing live. We saw the crude TV pictures, we heard the live audio.

Slight 'nitpick'...no one saw any of the landings live. All were filmed from the LM's. (and that film was brought back, processed, and audio track added.)

Yes...the landings were heard, live, and the Moon walks were televised, live.

[Dwight]

Prior to the EVA, the only tracking stations able to receive the signal were Goldstone and Honeysuckle. About half an hour prior to turning on the TV circuit breakers for the ladder descent, the camera was tested for about 5 minutes -no picture was recorded as the camera was still inside the MESA in its folded position, therefore the only received would have been a black video signal.

When Armstrong started coming down the ladder, Goldstone (the prime receiving station) was receiving TV as was Honeysuckle Creek. The world saw the Goldstone feed with its rapidly crushed black level resulting in the high contrast image devoid of any detail. At the same time, Australian TV stations had the direct Honeysuckle feed which was noisier but which featured Armstrong alot better than the Goldstone signal.

The noisy image stayed until the larger Parkes antenna came online which yielded the best picture throughout the moonwalk. That is why, depending on which country's TV feed you view, you'll see the switch in quality 3 or 4 times in the first 10 minutes.

[Fazor]

I really hate to be "The village Idiot" but sometimes I take the role, for the price of learning.

Oh, we handle that job by committe around here. I champion one of the head chairs, so if you'd like in I could put in a good word for you.

(In other words, don't worry solong as you learn something. ;))

[Sam5]

Have you read the subsequent posts?




Actually no, I didn't. :)



A lot of progress has been made in this thread.

Ok. Thanks. :)

[Jason Thompson]

I really hate to be "The village Idiot" but sometimes I take the role, for the price of learning.

Being ignorant about a subject doesn't equate to being the 'village idiot'. As long as you're willing to listen to the answers given and do a bit of reading around the subject you're fine.

[Studioguy]

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

[Mellow]

Solomarineris,

I'd like to say thanks for sticking with the board, doing some more reading and then applying critical thinking to your own previous thoughts/assumptions/feelings.

I think it shows a very intelligent person who is comfortable with changing their opinions based upon evidence and rational though.... congratulations for not becomming entrenched in a blind belief.

Nice one!

[NGCHunter]

But because of an unaccounted impulse (a bit of air stuck in the tunnel between the spacecraft when they separated), the spacecraft's trajectory was a bit off.
Amazing. I never knew that was the reason A11's trajectory was a bit off. Learn something new every day. Was that not a problem on Apollo 10, or did they just not notice the effect until 11?