1969 Moon Landing

[Rincewind]

Are you saying Neil Armstrong was a puppet?

[shen]

Are you saying Neil Armstrong was a puppet?

Well the name is an anagram for A Gremlin Snort... you decide!

[Uncle Monty]

Jesus, 28 people are absolute morons.

[AdamN]

[BoneDog]

If you showed someone like El Empty two videos blah blah

Da f*&k you talkin about Cyrille?

On a side note, I'm not sure what that BBC link photo is supposed to show. It's a rubbish photo and with all the high definition cameras around today we still get shitty close up pictures of the moon. If they really wanted to show us the footprints on the moon they could easily dazzle us with a treat of a live feed video from one of the many satellites up there with one of those cameras that can read a newspaper somebody is holding on earth.

Plenty of people have shown NASA's tampering and doctoring of pictures over many decades so this crappy picture does nothing to prove anything either way. I certainly don't trust the nazi liars. (no offence to any civilian workers at NASA - just the nazis at the top)

[Vacamion]

It's a rubbish photo and with all the high definition cameras around today we still get shitty close up pictures of the moon. If they really wanted to show us the footprints on the moon they could easily dazzle us with a treat of a live feed video from one of the many satellites up there with one of those cameras that can read a newspaper somebody is holding on earth.

Disagree.

Just because the TV and films say satellites can see things at human scale, doesn't mean that it's so. The human scale stuff you see on Google Earth is taken from a plane.

The width of a newspaper (about half a metre) might be, at very best, a single pixel on the highest resolution imaging equipment.

There are four types of resolution when discussing satellite imagery in remote sensing: spatial, spectral, temporal, and radiometric. Campbell (2002)[5] defines these as follows: - spatial resolution is defined as the pixel size of an image representing the size of the surface area (i.e. m2) being measured on the ground, determined by the sensors' instantaneous field of view (IFOV); - spectral resolution is defined by the wavelength interval size (discreet segment of the Electromagnetic Spectrum) and number intervals that the sensor is measuring; temporal resolution is defined by the amount of time (i.e. days) that passes between imagery collection periods; and radiometric resolution is defined as the ability of an imaging system to record many levels of brightness (contrast for example). - Radiometric resolution refers to the effective bit-depth of the sensor (number of greyscale levels) and is typically expressed as 8-bit (0-255), 11-bit (0-2047), 12-bit (0-4095) or 16-bit (0-65,535). - Geometric resolution refers to the satellite sensor's ability to effectively image a portion of the Earth's surface in a single pixel and is typically expressed in terms of Ground Sample Distance, or GSD. GSD is a term containing the overall optical and systemic noise sources and is useful for comparing how well one sensor can "see" an object on the ground within a single pixel. For example, the GSD of Landsat is ~30m, which means the smallest unit that maps to a single pixel within an image is ~30m x 30m. The latest commercial satellite (GeoEye 1) has a GSD of 0.41 m (effectively 0.5 m due to US Govt restrictions on civilian imaging).

The resolution of satellite images varies depending on the instrument used and the altitude of the satellite's orbit. For example, the Landsat archive offers repeated imagery at 30 meter resolution for the planet, but most of it has not been processed from the raw data. Landsat 7 has an average return period of 16 days. For many smaller areas, images with resolution as high as 41 cm can be available.[6]

Satellite imagery is sometimes supplemented with aerial photography, which has higher resolution, but is more expensive per square meter. Satellite imagery can be combined with vector or raster data in a GIS provided that the imagery has been spatially rectified so that it will properly align with other data sets.

[breadandcheese]

Da f*&k you talkin about Cyrille?

On a side note, I'm not sure what that BBC link photo is supposed to show. It's a rubbish photo and with all the high definition cameras around today we still get shitty close up pictures of the moon. If they really wanted to show us the footprints on the moon they could easily dazzle us with a treat of a live feed video from one of the many satellites up there with one of those cameras that can read a newspaper somebody is holding on earth.

Plenty of people have shown NASA's tampering and doctoring of pictures over many decades so this crappy picture does nothing to prove anything either way. I certainly don't trust the nazi liars. (no offence to any civilian workers at NASA - just the nazis at the top)

As BlueSi above said. If the moon landings were fake, it would have been a hell of a propaganda victory for the Soviets, with the potential to change the direction and possible outcome of the cold war. If the Soviets had proved the moon landing fake, the people of America would have instantly lost faith in their government, and smaller nations around the world who allied themselves to America would be pulling away and would possibly be approaching the Soviet Union to ally themselves under their sphere of influence.

The fact that the Soviet Union never once said the moon landing was fake and accepted it shows that there is no conspiracy theory here.

[Jace]

Even Lloyd from Dumb and Dumber has confirmed its true

[Uncle Monty]

Even Lloyd from Dumb and Dumber has confirmed its true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_X8ZZwcs4k

[Rincewind]

I like the idea of going to the moon to film a fake moon landing. Almost as good as doing a controlled demolitition to give the impression of a terrorist attack.

[ithuriel]

The moon is bathed in solar and cosmic radiation or is it protected by the Earths magnetic field?

If it is outside the Earths protection then would the astronauts not have been bathed in dangerous levels of radiation and radioactive material

The only official answer i have seen to this question was that whilst travelling to the moon the space ships engine compartment could provide shielding if a solar flare happened

I find it all very dubious.

[Jace]

The moon is bathed in solar and cosmic radiation or is it protected by the Earths magnetic field?

If it is outside the Earths protection then would the astronauts not have been bathed in dangerous levels of radiation and radioactive material

The only official answer i have seen to this question was that whilst travelling to the moon the space ships engine compartment could provide shielding if a solar flare happened

I find it all very dubious.

didnt nasa confirm that the astronauts future illnesses may have been caused by being exposed to high levels of radiation and planned to tackle the problem using better lead protection in space?

[Jimbo]

Not read through the whole thread, but this topic has always had me hooked. Its hard to believe it was real when the conspiracy theorists show their evidence, but I want to believe it was real.

Some photos are well known, and appear to clearly show that they have been doctored. The ones that show cross hairs, supposedly on the lens of the camera, disappearing behind scenery or the suits.

Different photos taken in different locations from seperate missions show the same background and landscape.

Some video footage appears to show the use of wires to make it seem that the astronauts are in a weightless environment, this to me is some of the best evidence that they were faked.

The cynic in me says they were faked, and it was just so that the Americans beat the Russians in what was a hostile time between the 2 countries

[Dr The Singh]

Not read through the whole thread, but this topic has always had me hooked. Its hard to believe it was real when the conspiracy theorists show their evidence, but I want to believe it was real.

Some photos are well known, and appear to clearly show that they have been doctored. The ones that show cross hairs, supposedly on the lens of the camera, disappearing behind scenery or the suits.

Different photos taken in different locations from seperate missions show the same background and landscape.

Some video footage appears to show the use of wires to make it seem that the astronauts are in a weightless environment, this to me is some of the best evidence that they were faked.

The cynic in me says they were faked, and it was just so that the Americans beat the Russians in what was a hostile time between the 2 countries

Nothing fake, cus i'm posting on foxestalk from the moon right now!!

[Jimbo]

Nothing fake, cus i'm posting on foxestalk from the moon right now!!

take some photos

[Dr The Singh]

take some photos

There all blurry though, and look as though they've been shot in the 60's, my mate also brought his very large camcorder, which is showing in some of the pics

[Fox96]

I've only just seen this, and don't know if these points have been covered. So no hating.

Right, in some respects it could be real, but there's a lot of fake and valid points i'll go through.

Point 1: Stars.

No Stars are visible in this picture, if we can see them from Earth, why not on the moon?

Point 2: Lighting

From the moon, there is only 1 light source, The Sun, which if you look at Armstrong's shadow, should be on the left.

Now if it is on the left, why is the United States Flag (on the side of the lander) and writing so easily visible? To see that so clearly, multiple lighting must have been used?

Point 3: Same Background

Look at the picture below, they have the same hilly background, but in one the lander is not visible, even when they go back to Earth, the lander would stay there, why has it been removed?

[Rincewind]

I'm sure these questions would have been asked before many times and a simple logical answer given to each one. I do not have my logical cap on atm so I will leave it for somebody that is wearing one to answer.

[davieG]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19050795

Apollo Moon flags still standing, images show

Images taken by a Nasa spacecraft show that the American flags planted in the Moon's soil by Apollo astronauts are mostly still standing.

The photos from Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) show the flags are still casting shadows - except the one planted during the Apollo 11 landing.

This matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being knocked over by engine exhaust as Apollo 11 lifted off.

LRO was designed to produce the most detailed maps yet of the lunar surface.

Each of the Apollo missions planted an American flag in the soil at their landing sites.

Scientists had previously examined photos of the Apollo landing sites for the flags, and had seen what looked like shadows cast by them on the lunar surface. But this was not considered conclusive.

Now, researchers have studied photos of the landing sites taken at different points during the day (and under different illuminations) and have observed shadows circling the points where the flags are thought to be.

Prof Mark Robinson, the chief scientist for the spacecraft's camera instrument, LROC, said in a blog entry: "From the LROC images it is now certain that the American flags are still standing and casting shadows at all of the sites, except Apollo 11."

He added: "The most convincing way to see that the flags are still there, is to view a time series of LROC images taken at different times of day, and watch the shadow circle the flag."

"Personally I was a bit surprised that the flags survived the harsh ultraviolet light and temperatures of the lunar surface, but they did. What they look like is another question (badly faded?)"

LRO began its mission in lunar orbit in September 2009, to identify mineral and other resources on the Moon as well as scout promising landing sites for future missions.

This image from the LROC camera shows the Apollo 16 flag - and its shadow - today

[The Doctor]

So, now running a sweepstake on the excuse used by El Empty to dismiss this.

I'm going with photoshopped.

[Captain...]

So, now running a sweepstake on the excuse used by El Empty to dismiss this.

I'm going with photoshopped.

We got aliens from other planets, which we are in secret contact with, to fly to the moon and put them there on our behalf.

[Guest]

It was real. I was there.

[fleckneymike]

How anyone can believe we didn't land on the moon is beyond belief.

Obviously you can choose to ignore the moon rocks, the retroreflectors, the fact that it was possible to track the missions (which those pesky Russians did), the TV footage, the original photo's, the more recent photos from third parties, but in doing so you open yourself up for understandable derision.

[Daggers]

I've only just seen this, and don't know if these points have been covered. So no hating.

Right, in some respects it could be real, but there's a lot of fake and valid points i'll go through.

I'm not spending time listing the answers - you'll find all of your points debunked here: Bad Astronomy

Enjoy.

Clavius & Mythbusters

[BoneDog]

So, now running a sweepstake on the excuse used by El Empty to dismiss this.

I'm going with photoshopped.

I don't need an excuse! Take another look at the photos linked. I can't see a flag. Admit it, they are awful pictures that prove nothing.

How anyone can believe we didn't land on the moon is beyond belief.

Obviously you can choose to ignore the moon rocks, the retroreflectors, the fact that it was possible to track the missions (which those pesky Russians did), the TV footage, the original photo's, the more recent photos from third parties, but in doing so you open yourself up for understandable derision.

Every single piece of 'evidence' you mention has been utterly debunked in the marvellous writing in the links I posted in my moon hoax thread quite recently. I'll just mention a couple again -

1. The reflectors mean nothing. People were reflecting beams off the moons surface years before the first 'landing'.

2. The moon rocks are not evidence of anything. Most of them have gone missing and some of the remaining have been found to be wood, not rock. Fakes. The other remaining rocks are the same as other rocks that have been found in the antarctic. They were not collected in space, but were collected from here on earth after landing here many moons ago.

I'm not spending time listing the answers - you'll find all of your points debunked here: Bad Astronomy

Enjoy.

Clavius & Mythbusters

Again, all utterly debunked. The series I linked to spends quite a bit of time on the people over at Bad Astronomy and also destroys the useless Mythbusters episode regarding the moon missions.

You folk obviously haven't read the series. When you have, maybe you can start to show the real evidence of the moon landings.

For anyone interested the link to parts 1,2 and 3 of the top series of debunking is at the bottom of the first post. Check it out for supreme awesomeness. Also look at the pictures (at the bottom of post #1) of the "Moon Craft" supposedly used to land on and take off from the moon. Anybody who believes that the pictured craft was up to the task is quite literally insane or totally clueless on what is required (by NASA's own admission) to land on and take off from the moon.