Faked Moon Landings

[jt-3d]

... so the far side isn't going completely unobserved.

No, it isn't.

[Van Rijn]

Also, hypothetical aliens would have to get there in the first place. Assuming we could detect them on the observed surface of the moon we could detect them in flight. Keep in mind we couldn't detect our own spacecraft at that distance unless they are transmitting towards earth, or do something else to stand out - such as sporting a retroreflector pointed in the right direction.

But if you are going to worry about hypothetical aliens, may I suggest you worry about the possibility of invisible elves lurking in your backyard as well? And please don't hesitate to ask me for suggestions of other things you could worry about.

[worzel]

I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

You don't have a backyard.

[Van Rijn]

I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

You don't have a backyard.

PROVE IT!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(In all honesty, this is the backyard in which deer and raccoons, skunks and opossums and various other assorted wildlife sometimes play. Not to mention the pet cats. I might post a picture of a deer sometime. But the yard does exist. Yes, indeedy. I have the scars from yard work to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt ... unless my memories have been tampered with and it is all a plot by the Powers That Be.)

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Well communications satellites would be no use there unless you found some and wanted to talk to them. There have been a number of imagery satellites, such as Clementine, the Lunar Prospector and currently the ESA's Smart-1, however their missions were things other than looking for Alien bases. Keeping a Satellite in orbit about the moon is hard though, as their orbits get elongated by the mascons and then they decay and go splat.

We could, Put One, at The Lunar L-2 Point ...

It would, Stay in Place, With Only a Little Nudge, Now and Again, And, It Would Give, COMPLETE, Far-Side Coverage!!!

Cool, huh?

[Count Zero]

Yeah, other than us not having line-of-sight from Earth to L2, that would be great...

[Van Rijn]

It would have to be in a halo orbit large enough to "see" the earth. Given the nature of the L2 point, there would have to be regular corrections - it would require fuel now and then.

[zoisnick]

Also, hypothetical aliens would have to get there in the first place. Assuming we could detect them on the observed surface of the moon we could detect them in flight. Keep in mind we couldn't detect our own spacecraft at that distance unless they are transmitting towards earth, or do something else to stand out - such as sporting a retroreflector pointed in the right direction.

But if you are going to worry about hypothetical aliens, may I suggest you worry about the possibility of invisible elves lurking in your backyard as well? And please don't hesitate to ask me for suggestions of other things you could worry about.

Okey tell me about the elves in your backyard..

[zoisnick]

No, it isn't.

It is amazing though that while for Mars we have hundreds of pictures of the surface of superb clarity, for our moon and especially the far side no clarity at all, just some pictures showing all of the far side, all of the south pole but no detail... It makes you wonder.

If the antenna cannot transmit to Earth couldn't the computer store the images and transmit them when the satellite can see the Earth?

Didn't astronauts that circled the moon take any pictures or did it happen that it was night at the time? How terrible if they couldn't send them when the far side was lit by the Sun.

The picture that you show does not include the right side. The zond picture didn't either. Is there a better one? I thought that in the center there was a huge crater.

[Tolls]

Didn't astronauts that circled the moon take any pictures or did it happen that it was night at the time? How terrible if they couldn't send them when the far side was lit by the Sun.

The one above posted by jt-3d is from Apollo 16.
This one is from Apollo 11 and shows the detail of a crater 308 in some clarity I would say.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030312.html

I'm sure there are many many more if you spent some time looking rather than making assumptions.

[gwiz]

Zoisnick, once again you say data isn't available without looking for it. Part of the far side of the moon was in daylight on all Apollo missions, and plenty of photos were taken, just search for them. Also the unmanned Lunar Orbiter and Clementine probes mapped pretty well the entire moon. The very obvious crater on the far side is called Tsiolkovsky.

[Kiwi]

It is amazing though that while for Mars we have hundreds of pictures of the surface of superb clarity, for our moon and especially the far side no clarity at all, just some pictures showing all of the far side, all of the south pole but no detail... It makes you wonder.

What the heck are you talking about? Have you done no research at all? There are heaps of extremely sharp photos of many areas of the moon, including the back. I have them in books and magazines going back decades.

For instance, on Apollo 15 there was a special mapping camera, and part of an article is devoted to it in National Geographic, Vol. 140, No. 1, July 1971, pages 247-249, and followed by very detailed photos.

Please, Zoisnick, be responsible and do some proper research before making ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Edited to add:
As noted in the following posts, the correct reference for the article about the Apollo 15 mapping camera is National Geographic Vol. 141, No. 2, February 1972, pages 247-249.

[PhantomWolf]

Please, Zoisnick, be responsible and do some proper research before making ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Oh, come on, you can't tell me you are serious? I mean when was the last time that any of the ATM's in this forum actually did real research before typing their ridiculous claims?

[Laguna]

* just forget what I wrote*

[worzel]

It would have to be in a halo orbit large enough to "see" the earth. Given the nature of the L2 point, there would have to be regular corrections - it would require fuel now and then.

And on what mission was that photo supposedly taken? I see a few anomalies in it.

[zoisnick]

Please, Zoisnick, be responsible and do some proper research before making ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Oh, come on, you can't tell me you are serious? I mean when was the last time that any of the ATM's in this forum actually did real research before typing their ridiculous claims?

Allright, allright I am lazy and you people are great - I mean it - but still I think the pictures of the far side of the moon are fewer than the ones from Mars.

[zoisnick]

* just forget what I wrote*

No hard feelings. We are all in this together.

[Hamlet]

Allright, allright I am lazy and you people are great - I mean it - but still I think the pictures of the far side of the moon are fewer than the ones from Mars.

So? What does that prove? Mars has been under intense scrutiny because there is more there to understand. Mars has an atmosphere and polar ice caps. Mars once had active volcanoes and may have had liquid water on the surface. It may once have harbored life and it still may. These are exciting areas for investigation and require a great deal of remote sensing in order to tease out the answers.

While the Moon is an interesting body in itself, it doesn't offer the potential for discovery that Mars does. It shouldn't be too hard to see why we have more imagery of Mars than the Moon.

[TheBlackCat]

It is amazing though that while for Mars we have hundreds of pictures of the surface of superb clarity, for our moon and especially the far side no clarity at all, just some pictures showing all of the far side, all of the south pole but no detail... It makes you wonder.

What about the ocean floor right here on Earth? By this reasoning we should have massive amounts research on it, but it is relatively unexplored considering how close it is.

[SolusLupus]

Not that I wouldn't advocate researching more into the ocean floor. Lots of stuff left undiscovered...

[Swift]

What about the ocean floor right here on Earth? By this reasoning we should have massive amounts research on it, but it is relatively unexplored considering how close it is.

It makes you wonder why all the CTers don't think that the Trieste dive to Challenger Deep was hoaxed. There are even fewer pictures, I suspect the high pressures at that depth are much more challenging than vacuum, and I even fewer people went.

[Count Zero]

Allright, allright I am lazy and you people are great - I mean it - but still I think the pictures of the far side of the moon are fewer than the ones from Mars.

I think it's really a matter of phrasing. The question "Why haven't they taken photos of [x]?" is presumptuous and confrontational. Asking "Have photos been taken of [x]?" or "I've never seen photos of [x], where can I find some?" are both ways of asking that will give you a much less hostile response.

[zoisnick]

What the heck are you talking about? Have you done no research at all? There are heaps of extremely sharp photos of many areas of the moon, including the back. I have them in books and magazines going back decades.

For instance, on Apollo 15 there was a special mapping camera, and part of an article is devoted to it in National Geographic, Vol. 140, No. 1, July 1971, pages 247-249, and followed by very detailed photos.

Please, Zoisnick, be responsible and do some proper research before making ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

The July 1971 issue of National Geographic had an article on Apollo 14 "To climb up a Cone Crater" pages 136-148 and has no pictures of the far side.
What are you talking about?

In this article it solves a lot of our mysteries such as:

- The sky appeared to the astronauts "completelly black" in their own words. They could not see the stars?!!! Explain that if you can.

- The golf ball that Shepard hit traveled less than 100 yards!!

- They did experiment with a Solar wind collector. Where are the results?

[zoisnick]

I think it's really a matter of phrasing. The question "Why haven't they taken photos of [x]?" is presumptuous and confrontational. Asking "Have photos been taken of [x]?" or "I've never seen photos of [x], where can I find some?" are both ways of asking that will give you a much less hostile response.

I don't want to be confrontational but since I am disagreeing with the beliefs of most in this thread how else can it be?

NASA decided to pull the plug on the book that would be answering all the criticism. This will only intensify the critisism since it will be viewed as a weekness on the part of NASA to answer. It looks like a mind game the same like the autopsy of the alien a few years back.

I concentrate on the far side because it appears to be forgoten. Not many pictures exist. Out of the ones we have extremelly few have any detail.

What is happening and the far side has really become the dark side?

[Count Zero]

- The sky appeared to the astronauts "completelly black" in their own words. They could not see the stars?!!! Explain that if you can.

Still the antagonistic tone? *sigh*

Go watch a night game at a football stadium. When you look up, you will see almost no stars. Why? Because your eyes are adjusted to comfortably see the brightly lit field. Only if you are in the dark (or have your eyes closed) for several minutes do they adjust to see the stars. A sun-lit landscape is several times brighter than a lighted football field, and the astronauts were wearing gold visors to cut down on the light reaching them. Under these circumstances, of course they won't see the stars.

- The golf ball that Shepard hit traveled less than 100 yards!!

Shepard hit two golf balls. One landed nearby, the other came down near the ALSEP, ~200 meters away. Not bad for a guy in a motion-restrictive suit swinging a jury-rigged six-iron one-handed in a sand trap.

- They did experiment with a Solar wind collector. Where are the results?

Why do we have to do the research for you? I found these and other science reports at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and so can you.

[AGN Fuel]

I concentrate on the far side because it appears to be forgoten. Not many pictures exist. Out of the ones we have extremelly few have any detail.

No - the images certainly exist and can be ordered from here by anyone who wants to view them.

Your problem is that because NASA hasn't gift-wrapped them for you and left them by your bedside table, you assume that they don't exist. You are without question the laziest correspondent that I have come across on this board.

[jrkeller]

zoisnick,

Here's a nice gifted wrapped website for you. Just click on the resources tab, then the Lunar Atlases, then you have your choice of 4 different sources to choose from.

[Maksutov]

zoisnick,

Here's a nice gifted wrapped website for you. Just click on the resources tab, then the Lunar Atlases, then you have your choice of 4 different sources to choose from.

No, no. You should have linked directly to the Lunar Atlases. Having to click twice to get to the heart of the matter is just another indication of a NASA cover-up.

In fact, shouldn't this appear directly on zoisnick's desktop since he wished for it?

[Gillianren]

I don't want to be confrontational but since I am disagreeing with the beliefs of most in this thread how else can it be?

No. What you are disagreeing with is not beliefs. Beliefs have no factual basis, whereas there are literally tons of evidence supporting the Apollo missions.

NASA decided to pull the plug on the book that would be answering all the criticism. This will only intensify the critisism since it will be viewed as a weekness on the part of NASA to answer. It looks like a mind game the same like the autopsy of the alien a few years back.

First, I'd like a clarification on your thoughts on "the autopsy of the alien a few years back." Do you think it's real? Do you think (gods help us) it's a fake sponsored by NASA? What is its relevance to the subject at hand?

And say NASA had put out a book debunking HBers. Would you have believed it? Would anyone who believes it to be a hoax believe it? Or would it merely have been ignored by HBers and chalked up as a waste of budget by people who already think NASA's budget is too large?

I concentrate on the far side because it appears to be forgoten. Not many pictures exist. Out of the ones we have extremelly few have any detail.

You know, I'm not going to take your word for this. Oh, I don't know if you're right or wrong, but given the fact that you seem either unable or unwilling to do any research, why should I accept what you say about anything that requires it?

What is happening and the far side has really become the dark side?

What is happening is that you're doing insufficient research and blaming NASA for it.

[Van Rijn]

I concentrate on the far side because it appears to be forgoten. Not many pictures exist. Out of the ones we have extremelly few have any detail.

What is happening and the farside has really become the dark side?

What is happening on the farside? What is your evidence for it?

It sounds like you are crying "Terra Incognito! Thar be sea monsters out thar!" That is: Because we can't see the far side from earth, something mysterious must be happening there.

There is a lot about the solar system that we don't know. For all our space probes, we still have just started exploring. As I said earlier, if you want suggestions of things to worry about, I can provide them.

This type of argument is exactly why I have my sig: You are saying there are invisible elves in our backyard (something on the farside) and you want us to prove it isn't so. Sorry - can't be done. No matter how much evidence we have, you could always find a way around it.