40th anniversary of the moon landing (or not)

[Flash In The Pan]

Supposing it's all genuine and the Americans did go to the moon in a rocket made out of bacofoil and roofing tiles with less computing power than my laptop, why haven't they been back now that technology (including the telescopes that other nations possess ) has moved so much?

You'd have thought if they managed that feat back then that by now you'd be able to go there on your holidays.......

 

[fletch5]

but there nothing there to warrant another visit??:shrug:

have to agree it looks doubtful they made it there though

 

[Cobra]

but there nothing there to warrant another visit??:shrug:

Probably not, but the "way" the Americans "are"
it just seems strange that if they did it once why not do it again?

If they had hit the deepest spot in the ocean 40 years ago
I bet that the would have done it again ( some years later) as
technology moved on to see "what else they could find"

 

[Flash In The Pan]

but there nothing there to warrant another visit??:shrug:

have to agree it looks doubtful they made it there though

Why build the space station then? It's 220 miles up into space. The moon is approximately 250,000 miles away.That's like me planning to make a trip to London and deciding instead to build a stopping off point at the end of my garden path....

You have to put the Moon landings into context - the Russians beat the Americans into space, the only way the US could save face was to be first to the Moon, by hook or by crook....

 

[whiteflyer]

NASA have not said they have NEW film, but they have newly restored and enhanced film


Of course they landed on the moon how else did the set up the The Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging retro-reflector array, which is still being use to this day.

Why are there no stars in the photos, well come we are photographers and we know about dynamic range. Just go out at night in a brightly lit city and take a photo, there will be no stars in your shot too and that's with 40 years on improved camera technology.

As for seeing what they left behind with a telescope that's just not possible at the moment. The Hubble is probably the best telescope we have, but if we point it at the moon each pixel from the Hubble would be about 10 meters across on the moon, far far to big to pick up a any thing left by the Apollo missions.

It's not as if only the American went to the moon, they are just the only one to send a man there, the Russians where the first to orbit the moon and the first to take photos of the dark side.

If they did not go then the Americans lied, the Australians lied (Parkes Radio Telescope) the UK lied (Jodrell Bank) and yet not one single person has owned up to the lie.

Why build the space station then? It's 220 miles up into space. The moon is approximately 250,000 miles away.That's like me planning to make a trip to London and deciding instead to build a stopping off point at the end of my garden path....

The Station HAS to be at a distance that will keep it in earth orbit, also remember this is the International space station, you have to put it where other countries want it too.

Why have we not been back? It's not about technology but money. They need to have the public behind a mission if they are going to spend millions of tax dollars. There just has not been that public appetite.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Of course they landed on the moon how else did the set up the The Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging retro-reflector array, which is still being use to this day.

How do you know it's there, because the people who claimed to have put there say so? :shrug:

 

[whiteflyer]

How do you know it's there, because the people who claimed to have put there say so? :shrug:

Because they bounce a laser beam off it EVERY day, that's how we know the moon is spiralling away from Earth at a rate of 38 mm per year.

The Russians did send a smaller version up with a unmanned mission, so you could use that to deny the Apollo missions, but as posted earlier some people will never believe we went to the moon, for myself I have never seen irrefutable evidence that we did not go.

What ever you believe it has been mankind biggest success, either in going or in hoaxing the whole world for 40 years.

 

[Splog]

NASA have not said they have NEW film, but they have newly restored and enhanced film .

They have also lost the original film

Of course they landed on the moon how else did the set up the The Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging retro-reflector array, which is still being use to this day.

By one guy with a 40 year old motorbike and just to measure the moon getting further away by 4" a year, Why and what's the point, keeps him in a job I suppose

Why are there no stars in the photos, well come we are photographers and we know about dynamic range. Just go out at night in a brightly lit city and take a photo, there will be no stars in your shot too and that's with 40 years on improved camera technology.

So why is the background always black? They had filters 40 yrs ago :shrug:

As for seeing what they left behind with a telescope that's just not possible at the moment. The Hubble is probably the best telescope we have, but if we point it at the moon each pixel from the Hubble would be about 10 meters across on the moon, far far to big to pick up a any thing left by the Apollo missions.

However, NASA have shown quite a few shots of the Mars rangers taken by probes and if they wanted! similar technology could be used, such as the probes sent to search for water or ice on the moon and OK they didn't stick a cam on there!...But why not?....


Love these discussions.............

 

[Splog]

Because they bounce a laser beam off it EVERY day, That how we know the moon is slowly moving away from earth.

Answered in the other post, but seriously....Why and how do we know that guy that does it hasn't been taken in HL&S ?

 

[whiteflyer]

T
By one guy with a 40 year old motorbike and just to measure the moon getting further away by 4" a year, Why and what's the point, keeps him in a job I suppose

Not just one guy but also the McDonald Observatory and the Côte d'Azur Observatory.

 

[Splog]

Not just one guy but also the McDonald Observatory and the Côte d'Azur Observatory.

Nope, they just use the data from one man and his bike

 

[dazzajl]

So why is the background always black? They had filters 40 yrs ago :shrug:

I'm suspecting that you know the answer to that one. Same reason that they wear the natty suits.

I guess that really it makes not a jot if difference to my life whether we went or whether we didn't. Except that I'd like to live in a world where we have been to the moon, so as far as I'm concerned, we did.

Also, I've never seen the case against to be as strong as the case for.

 

[theadmiralcs]

Make sure you don't say that man has never been to the moon to Buzz Aldrin, he'd punch you in the face.

FWIW - yes we did go

 

[Steve Smith]

since re-finding my interest in photography 3 or 4 years back, with the
inconsistency of the "moon landing images"
rather like the 3 very random ones I posted on the other page)

The main image put out by the conspiracists is the one with two different angles of shadow. Mythbusters managed to do this with a single light source just by changing the contours of their moon's surface.


Steve.

 

[Cobra]

The main image put out by the conspiracists is the one with two different angles of shadow. Mythbusters managed to do this with a single light source just by changing the contours of their moon's surface.


Steve.

You've lost me

the myth busters went to the moon and re-shot it?
or altered the moon surface?
I really am not sure what you are trying to say here
Try again in words of one syllable for a pleb Ta

Also what about the other image with a lot of shadow from a
small piece of equipment and virtually no shadow from the Luna landing craft

 

[Cobra]

NASA have not said they have NEW film, but they have newly restored and enhanced film

On the news tonight in readiness for the 40th anniversary of the "moon landing"
'Twould seem that the Americans have "found" film footage that
was "apparently" "lost"

its supposed to be better than "anything" previously seen
.....................

I never said that they had new film /\

 

[Steve Smith]

the myth busters went to the moon and re-shot it?
or altered the moon surface?
I really am not sure what you are trying to say here
Try again in words of one syllable for a pleb

They made a model of the moon's surface. Put a model lunar lander and some rocks on it. Lit it with a single light.

Then they changed the topography of the surface which was a grey dust made from portland cement (and something else) to make their shadows match those of the disputed NASA image.

Watch it. About half way through this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0


Steve.

 

[Cobra]

They made a model of the moon's surface. Put a model lunar lander and some rocks on it. Lit it with a single light.

Then they changed the topography of the surface which was a grey dust made from portland cement (and something else) to make their shadows match those of the disputed NASA image.




Steve.

Thanks

Interesting theory but the have manipulated the surface to throw those shadows
without any first hand experience of the moon surface in that or any other area of the moon,
So yes they have shown how it may have happened
But in itself it is no more than a theory.

Each side can put forward irrevocable evidence that we did / didn't go
and counter arguments will be put forward to each and every explanation
( from both sides )
I guess we will never know the truth certainly not in our lifetimes

 

[Steve Smith]

I guess we will never know the truth certainly not in our lifetimes[/COLOR]

Well... you think they didn't and I'm fairly sure they did so it's best to leave it there.


Steve.

 

[mr bizzare]

I bet they're panicking in case the Japanese get to the moon before they do, otherwise they'll have a tough time explaining who stole all the US flags and lunar rovers

Not me, was chasing a big foot at the time honest gov

 

[Cobra]

I guess we will never know the truth certainly not in our lifetimes[/COLOR]

Well... you think they didn't and I'm fairly sure they did so it's best to leave it there.


Steve.

I'm not totally convinced either way to be honest, but thanks for the discussion

 

[Caledonia]

Taken form a page dicussing the conspiracy theory on Wikipedia.

According to Dr. James Longuski, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering at Purdue University, the size and complexity of the alleged conspiracy theory scenarios make their veracity an impossibility. More than 400,000 people worked on the Moon landing project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. Hundreds of thousands of people (astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers) would have had to keep the secret. Longuski also contends that it would have been significantly easier to actually land on the Moon than to generate such a massive conspiracy to fake such a landing.

Full article here clickety click

 

[whiteflyer]

Well you asked for it and now you have it.

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions' lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules' locations evident.

Than again anything can be done in photoshop theses day, if fact I don't believe ANYTHING I see on TV in a paper or magazine as it's all fake, in fact I don't even thing there are other people posting on this form it's just some big government machine trying to make me think there are other people out there, when I know for a fact I'm the only person left on this planet. You can't prove to me you are living people.

 

[Cobra]

Well you asked for it and now you have it.

I see no image :shrug:

 

[Cobra]

Taken form a page dicussing the conspiracy theory on Wikipedia.



Full article here clickety click

Yes I don't think that there is any doubt that they went into space
The images "beamed" back or shown later could have been
from a studio that would only have taken a "few in the know" :shrug:

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

There are hundreds of gb worth of images that actually say different
Like the flag fluttering on the moon
and the way the "cross hairs" on many images are inconsistently behind in some
and in front in others. Just two that stick in my mind but a
quick google produces a lot more.

Why wouldn't the flag flutter? There is an atmosphere on the moon just not with appropriate partial pressure oxygen for humans to survive unaided.

Horizon doesn't look very far.

Where are the stars? (A guy who films car adverts says they always have to add stars in PP.)

With mapping surveys etc over the intervening years, where are the shots of gear left at the landing sites?

Dynamic range? to capture the stars the forground would have to be something crazy like 5 or 6 stops over exposed.

As for mapping there are resolution issues. Currently the best satelitte for mapping Earth has a 10mx10m area as 1 pixel, and there are no man made satellites orbitting the moon taking photos of it all day



For every theory there is a logical reason behind it but some people would rather not believe regardless of the evidence

 

[Cobra]

Why wouldn't the flag flutter? There is an atmosphere on the moon just not with appropriate partial pressure oxygen for humans to survive unaided.

Well I wasn't sure so I did a quick google
and this quote in various forms (usually from sites declaring the we did infact land on the moon)

The footprints left by Apollo astronauts will last for centuries because there is no wind on the Moon. The Moon does not possess any atmosphere, so there is no weather as we are used to on Earth. Because there is no atmosphere to trap heat, the temperatures on the Moon are extreme, ranging from 100° C at noon to -173° C at night.

So there you have more contradictory evidence
"from a pro site" and the flag blowing out at approx 90o ?

For every theory there is a logical reason behind it but some people would rather not believe regardless of the evidence

As I have said before
And for every argument there is a counter argument


Actually were are now starting to go around in circles
with no real proof either way
I am getting bored with this discussion and feel like moving on to a less controversial discussion here

 

[whiteflyer]

The flag flutter was due to there being a spring wire rod in the top to make it stand out and not just lie limp.

 

[Cobra]

..... a spring wire rod in the top to make it stand out and not just lie limp.

Ah thanks
( I guess I could do with one of those )

 

[theMusicMan]

As for mapping there are resolution issues. Currently the best satelitte for mapping Earth has a 10mx10m area as 1 pixel, and there are no man made satellites orbitting the moon taking photos of it all day

I don't profess to be in the know here, but am enjoying the read.

However, I don't understand this comment above. If this is the case, why can I see objects less than 10mx10m in my street on Google Earth then...? If 1px is supposed to represent a scale of 10mx10m surely this wouldn't be the case and I should not be able to see anything with dimensions of less than 10mx10m...?

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

I don't profess to be in the know here, but am enjoying the read.

However, I don't understand this comment above. If this is the case, why can I see objects less than 10mx10m in my street on Google Earth then...? If 1px is supposed to represent a scale of 10mx10m surely this wouldn't be the case and I should not be able to see anything with dimensions of less than 10mx10m...?

Google Earth/Maps start as satelite images and then after a certain distance changes to aerial photos

 

[theMusicMan]

Google Earth/Maps start as satelite images and then after a certain distance changes to aerial photos

Really...?

So some company or group of specialists have taken probably millions of photos, from the same height above ground, all over the entire planet...?

Sure, it may be true, I have no reason to doubt you, but I do find that somewhat hard to believe.

 

[Caledonia]

Really...?

So some company or group of specialists have taken probably millions of photos, from the same height above ground, all over the entire planet...?

Sure, it may be true, I have no reason to doubt you, but I do find that somewhat hard to believe.

It's not that hard to believe, this link here is a company that has covered the UK and there are hundreds of other companies world wide doing the same thing.

That is the reason in Google Earth, you can go from hi-res photos at one spot and then when you move your view a little in another direction all you see are fuzzy outlines. The lo-res areas have not been covered by aerial photography yet - or Google have not got hold of the images yet.

It makes perfect sense to me

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

Yes, really.

Watch James may's 20th Century when he goes to a lab that is building a satellite, he asks about resolution and google earth

 

[theMusicMan]

OK, thanks for the clarification... just hard to believe that's all.

 

[Nod]

OK, thanks for the clarification... just hard to believe that's all.

Have a look at the relevant bit of Wiki's article on Google Earth HERE.

 

[u8myufo]

but there nothing there to warrant another visit??:shrug:

have to agree it looks doubtful they made it there though

I beg to differ, I thought there was a gold plated Hassy left up there

 

[will69]

To be fair though Chris,I don't think there's much they don't know about the moon now, and it's usefulness as a starting point for deep space exploration is largely negated now by the space station.

It's usefulness is that it has water.

 

[Cobra]

Google Earth/Maps start as satelite images and then after a certain distance changes to aerial photos

So once "Google moon" get their arse into gear all our doubts
(one way or another will be answered :

 

[Knikki]

Well I think they did go but now I have seen this

Clicky Clicky

I am not so sure..