I am not crazy about any conspiracy theory

[solomarineris]

But I want to see evidence.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ph...-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/ph...-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/ima...llo17Rover.jpg

[ocpaul20]

Also, somewhere there is a list of all the rubbish and pollution they left on the Moon. 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/ph...-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. 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.