RE: Apollo?
 

As I point, all the shadow deatails are open for comment, this is the best NASA has to offer and they've had many years to work the details... lets look at something more serious.
There is a great deal of detail in the shadows on the right side of the lander. To you it may look black but take a closer look and you'll see that it isn't. What is unusually about this? Well, nothing if you'd exposed for it but the problem lays with the very bright, reflective space suit. This remember is being lit by a few trillion watt lamp... with no diffuser, no soft box added.
The light reflected back of the suit (the flag and just about anthing else wiht or reflective) would be blinding and have an major effect on the light reading and thus influencing the shutter speed ie very fast. This inturn would under expose the other areas.
This could be compensated for by over exposing for these dark areas... but that would super-over expose the hight lights. This just hasn't happened with this picture. This exposure is simply just to good for these extreme lighting conditions.

Look and the Rover parked infront of the lander. Areas of it appear grainier than the rest of the picture. Enlarge the picture real big until you start seeing the pixcels... look at the wheels. this is a different quality from the lander... look at were it says United States. See who the back wheels/tyres arn't 100%. Theres also a paralell cut between the ground and half the tyre. Could that be nature? Look how the rear back wheel is floating and merging into the lander details behind it. Look at the hight lights or the lack of them on the Rover. Certain white boxes would have a major lightlight but no.

Still can't see it in the details? Enlarge the Rover so it almost fills the screen( I have a very big flat screen so I don't know about you guys) look around the seating area where it interacts against the lander. Notice how the closest back rest support (for the right side passenger) is clearly in the picture. Now look at the left chair support has gone...burn out in the high light with out a trace? out of focus? Notice the lack of definision between the lander and the rover in this area. It's very messy. This is the most difficult area in the whole picture to have to merge and retouch two imagines... to many details to do it perfectly, but this is a class job don't get me wrong. I don't think this pic was comp'd in Photoshop. It's been digitally enhanced later but the grain has the hall marks of multiply duping suggesting it was done earlier.
Make of it what you will but this and all the other signs add up to composite shot of multiply images, shot separatly under similar lighting conditions.
An this is by far one of the best Nasa has to offer.
PS. Somebody mentioned that I said I was a Proffessional Photographer... I said Art Director.

Try this site if yopu already havn't. http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/
The language is a bit strong but some interesting points.

RE: Apollo?
 

With images, you can see what you want to.
A couple others: as16-22-19533 and as16-133-18347 from the NASA site, reduced to fit here and annotated...
The shot of the LEM in space shows a vast difference in shadow information due to the distance from the reflective surface of the moon, which lights the off-axis sides of the LEM on the moon, but has no similar effect in space.
The delicate gold highlights in the shadows on the aluminum reflective Passive Seismic Experiment from the gold foil on the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generatro are proper.
The afore-mentioned "halo" around one of the leaping astronaut's boots would be from the moon dust everything on the moon becomes covered with.
There are -rational- explanations for any presumed modifications to the Apollo images... after seeing a continuous series of rational explanations without a single example of a Photoshopped photo, there is a limit to even paying attention to this "stuff".
I had several go-arounds with one of the major voices in the Apollo "conspiracy", Richard Hoagland, on Compuserve's "Issues forum" some years back, looking at his ideas and finding none of them holding up to examination, just as with the claims made here recently.

RE: Apollo?
 

Too funny. It is pretty amazing to me that someone would be so bored as to come up with the crap on that website, and then actually put it on the web.

I can remember one time in college, a girl who got into writing a research paper about people that thought the gov't was out to get us. She didn't believe any of it. She left town to meet with some people up north and talk about their theories. After a couple days, she called a prof at the school for help because the gov't was after her for writing this paper. She was actually terrified.

Tell someone something enough and color it enough, they will believe anything. Thats how these theories come about. Someone doesn't believe something, they come up with all kinds of BS as to why it is fake, and others get on the band wagon.

I think they need to get a life and do something constructive personally.

RE: Apollo?
 

anyone who thinks they are "Photoshopped"--State of the art special effects, 1960-70 style, see "Tora Tora Tora" and "Battle of Britain". Pretty sick, compared to today's "Star Wars", etc.
And for more info, go to http://www.badastronomy.com
full debunking and explanations on the apparent "Inconsistencies" there.
Get a life, guys. Anyone can have an opinion, even silly conspiracy theorists...
That doesn't make it valid.

"IF 100,000,000 people believe a lie to be the truth, it is still a lie." we went, we landed, we came back. and stayed.

RE: Apollo?
 

rw...you have a quote by Gordon Lightfoot, and you're telling people to "get a life"?;)

RE: Apollo?
 

Attempting to detect the "conspiracy" in the Apollo program by analyzing an errant pixel or two is naive at best, and essentially very superficial, considering the sheer size of the Apollo program.
It used tens of thousands of personnel, countless individual companies and government agencies, and if the "conspiracy" had any basis in reality, all dedicated to supporting a styrofoam, aluminum foil and duct tape simulation out in a sound stage in the desert.
One of the major occupations of people in programs of this magnitude, and even small ones, is "whistle-blowing". That none have surfaced in any meaningful way is an indication that the program was legitimate.
None of the technology that Apollo developed, just to get the thing to work at all would not have been needed. Why build what wouldn't be used?
Why kill 3 men testing an all-oxygen capsule environment if the men would never leave earth in the first place?
Much of the progress in electronics and manufacturing developed because Apollo needed the stuff! For real.
As with any conspiracy, chasing a pixel and ignoring the overall environment has no point.

RE: Apollo?
 

I had a look at that geocities apollo site :eek:
I really like how they have an "Apollo Facts" section and number 2 starts with "Rumor has it....." Hang on I thought it was a fact not a rumor..........

RE: Apollo?
 

Oh man, we were just having a little fun! Food for thought, and all......

RE: Apollo?
 

And if the truth be known--any "pixels" were introduced well after 1969. Those pictures were done on Film, not digitally. Digital images are a recent phenomenon.
I know that this is hard for you kids ( <40 years old) to accept, but film was and is still the best medium for documentation. A modified negative and or slide is easily detected...
and the original slides and negatives are archived somewhere...

RE: Apollo?
 

I have a NASA publication, hard cover book, printed in 1975, "APOLLO, Expeditions to the Moon", with many many photos.. the ones available today on the website look exactly the same.
In 1975 there was nothing that could "Photoshop" anything.
I can't comprehend the need to debunk the Apollo achievements.
Digital images today are striving to match 35mm film performance.
NASA used 6x6 Hasselblads. The image resolution is OUTSTANDING, and it will be some time before a chip to that level of resolution and size, without costing 1/2 the national debt (street value) becomes commonly available :)

RE: Apollo?
 

Yup! I do aerial photography for a living and we use a 9 inch film camera. There are only a couple digital cameras made so far, but the quality isn't there yet and the storage is far from being good. The other problem is the price. Noone can touch them.

Haven't commented on the "pixel" comments made about the photos in question. All I can do is laugh. Maybe they think someone went back in time and edited them with photoshop.

RE: Apollo?
 

As I said, anyone can have an opinion:D

"The Legend lives on from the chippewa on down...."

edited to get the quote right....

RE: Apollo?
 

3 page long thread. I had no idea it would go that far.
Er, by the way where did I say that this was a digital picture?
I even went as far as to say that the grain in the picture (remember I've choosen one of the absolute best NASA show case pictures) showed signs of multiply duping.
The pixel reference are comments about the digital image we're looking at on the screen.
The film in that camera has never been anywhere near the moon. The man in the picture didn't walk on the moon. That Lunar Rover we're looking at never drove on the moon.
As horrible as it might sound.
But we did go into space. The photos of that experience are ready available, low earth orbit, space walking etc and genuine. Thats why they look different.

Have any off you bought that book Full Moon? The author was given unlimited privilaged access to the archive picture bank so the book contains many pictures never seen by the public.
There are several pictures that Flyboy, our proffession arial photographer should find very interesting. They are of the far side of the moon. Shot with a digital mapping cameral. They show amazing detail... amazing! It's must have been a crying shame that the Digital mapping camera was unable to capture images nowhere near as good quality for the hundreds of pics' from the earth side of the moon! Damn that 70's digital equipment eh! Just not as reliable as we hoped.

We went to the moon. Hello?

RE: Apollo?
 

One more laugh to share with you before I turn my attention to 9-11.
Go to http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...j/a15/a15.html
Scroll down a little to " Landing at Hadley. Go to the last film Quick time clip, (the number is a15f.1044006pd)
It show the final decent of Apollo 15 to the moon surface. Very impressive stuff. In the last few seconds we get the gigantic blast of dust as the landers masive engine gets closer and closer to the surface... tense moment and them touch down. Bam... the dust cloud clears instantly... leaving the viewer to enjoy the view of the moon surface completely devoid of blash effects. Tiny details, not a single thing out of place.
It's so impressive... I'm convinced it's real.

RE: Apollo?
 

It seems to me that there would have to be a GIANT cover-up to cover up not GOING to the moon. I can see where we could have gone TO the moon, then "faked" the landing/exploration. There are a lot of reasons why we would have/could have.

My question remains, why haven't we been back? It's not "the cost factor", do you know how much one ICBM missle/silo costs? How about a war in Iraq?

It's not the "technology factor", we have the tech, and the materials to do it. Space travel is easier than deep sea travel/exploration from a technology standpoint, think of the PSI involved alone...It's easier to maintain atmospheric pressure in space, than to try to keep from being crushed by the pressure of deep sea water acting on an underwater capsule. We obviously can stay in space for protracted periods, so that's not it either.
And as I recalled earlier, we did go to Mars with a lander/rover......I think.;)

bla bla, please don't open that 9/11 can of worms, it's already been done by one Micheal Moore......

RE: Apollo?
 

who is going to pay to go to the moon and why?

Does every one want to? Yes. It would require a whole new space program/mission. I don't think going to the moon would have any immediate benefit. I don't even think it would make a great launching platform for deep space. It would be another rock we would have to launch from. It would be easier to gather the payloads in space and launch from orbit. The shuttle was certainly not designed to go "interstellar" so a new series of ships would have to be designed and built. Look at "Space Ship One". Everyone talks about what a great achievement this was but look at what he did (and it was but…). He went up, touched space and came down. He did not orbit. No big deal you say? If he did gain orbit, that ship could not bring them home. It was only designed to touch space and "fall back" at a very very slow speed. It is the difference between taking a $500 car, making it go 100mph and then making it competitive for the Indy 500.

If we went to the moon it would be a whole new program with no income base. Maybe in the future there could be tourist income but a couple of billionaires interested in space travel is not going to be enough to do it. Will we do it? I think so, but not soon. The interest is certainly there but it will take a long time for the technology and money to meat the need. If we really needed to go we would be there right now.

RE: Apollo?
 

Exactly.......

RE: Apollo?
 

A lot of the research that goes on in space has to do with weightlesness. If you set up a shop on the moon, you will not have a weightless enviroment.

The cloud of dust on the moon clearing almost instantly is a matter of physics. There is no atmosphere so the disturbed particles would fall back to earth pretty quickly. The particles blasted sideways would continue in a ballistic arc until they hit the ground. A cloud of dust is not going to form around the ship and linger like you would see here on earth. They would accelerate back to the moon as fast as the one video showing the hammer versus the feather. Well, I guess if the video is real.

The acceleration due to the gravity of the moon is only 1/6 what you would find here on earth. The lander weighed about 30,000 pounds on earth and 5,000 pounds on the moon. The "massive" rockect motor only needed to put out around that 5,000+ pounds near the surface of the moon. That is not very much thrust for a "massive" rocket motor. Also with no atmoshpere the exhuast of the engine probably diffused somewhat before it got to the surface of the moon slowing it down a little. Even the smallest jet engines on airliners put out around 20,000 pounds of maximum thrust. The dust you see flying up is coming from a different point of view from where the exhuast is striking the moon. It is obviously clear why the details in the background are not disturbed. The exhuast would not have scoured the surface of the moon as you are inferring.

Basically, there is nothing wrong with the video of the landing. There might be if the physics behind it are not understood fully. Just because something looks abnormal, it doesn't mean that it is wrong.

RE: Apollo?
 

Oh, this thread is too good to pass up... I'll jump in and get trolled along with everyone else.... :D

Bla bla, in Post #1 you mention where 65% of the people don't believe we ever landed on the moon..

Can you support that for me, please?

Thanks,

Bob

RE: Apollo?
 

Just for kicks and giggles. The boosters on the space shuttle put out about 3,300,000 pounds of thrust EACH. The thrust needed to land on the moon is around 0.15% of that.

RE: Apollo?
 

With no atmosphere how is the shuttle going to land? How will it get the added fuel up there required to take it to the moon, slow it down, and send it back home? It can't haul that kind of weight. Not even close.

RE: Apollo?
 

I wasn't saying the shuttle would ever go to the moon, it was never designed to do that. I was just comparing thrust amounts between a massive rocket motor and the moon lander upon landing.

RE: Apollo?
 

I understand.

RE: Apollo?
 

I know!

How 'bout since we went to the moon, and we got a shuttle, we just go farm some astroids?:D

RE: Apollo?
 

I always think of that astroid movie with Buce Willis where they sent 2 to go after the astroid. Look how much damage they endured. Look how a little bit of ice brought down the real shuttle. They have a center were they track every nut and bolt floating in space. They have to navigate around each one.