Probe pictures Moon landing sites


Recommended Posts

Nasa can take high res photos of planets and galaxies millions of light years away, but they can only take crappy b&w low detail pictures of the moon?

Please give us a link to these supposed high res photos of distant planets, because I've never seen any. Or are you confusing "artist impression" pictures with actual photographs??

There are no facepalms big enough for this I'm afraid.

That would apply to the comment I just replied to as well. Seriously, how did some of these people pass even elementary school science class???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it not impressive though?

NASA is trying to convince people of how real the Moon landings are, and inspire taxpayers to return.

Astronauts may have landed on the Moon, but these photos are not convincing.

Unfortunately, it is clear that the 1970's photos and video of the Apollo landings were faked.

(please do your own research)

Some of us wonder if we really went to the Moon, in 1969, and early 70's.

I would only believe a neutral third-party, sending a landing probe to the Moon surface, giving close-up views of the equipment left behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO, Oh my God! I take it you are joking, otherwise that's a silly comment, I can tell you know absolutely NOTHING about astronomy, did you know there's no atmosphere in the moon ( ie: no air/wind ) ?

I was just joking. I was just following the ones who said it was PS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what? these photos completely suck.

Nasa can take high res photos of planets and galaxies millions of light years away, but they can only take crappy b&w low detail pictures of the moon?

im so disappointed. i thought NASA would be able to have Moon Street view or something by now.

Pictures you see online are created by layers of hundreds and hundreds of pictures taken by the Hubble or whatever. Distant objects don't move fast, so it's easy as hell to do so. And then they are all mended together and color is added.

It's very very difficult to do the same thing on the moon since you can't exactly match it's rotation without getting sucked in or away. These photos of the moon are one simple picture as it's making it's way around. The satellite in orbit is hauling ass around the moon, so with all things considered, it's actually remarkably good quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? There are many nice HD photos of galaxies, and of planets. hell google earth lets you get up close to the surface of mars. Maybe not super high detail, but certainly high enough that you'd expect better pictures of the moon since its so very close.

I'm sure you earned many golden stickers in elementary school to show for your intellectual superiority in science, but still no reason to insinuate that others are dumb.

dude those photos of mars is from Orbiting Satalites and stuff. distant galaxies are long exposure and fuzzy at best, what you see in google earth are composites and heavly cleaned up images, and when i say cleaned, i mean digitally manipulated, the photoes iv seen of galaxies and extra soloar planets are just fuzzy dots

*edit* there are verry few orbital telescopes pointed at the moon, there are a crap laod more that have been around mars and other planets. and the mars images have to be color shifted or something, as they are off, blue turns red, and bunch of other crap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? There are many nice HD photos of galaxies, and of planets. hell google earth lets you get up close to the surface of mars.

Please tell me you aren't seriously comparing a photo of a galaxy with a photo of a planet? Do you realize how huge of a scale difference you are talking about there?? Taking a picture of even the closest known extra-solar planet is probably similar in scale to taking a picture of a single grain of sand on a beach on the Earth with a camera on the Moon. And most of the photos of Mars that you see were taken by probes that we have put in orbit around it, and therefore are of similar quality to those we have of the Moon. And you claimed that we had "high res photos of planets and galaxies millions of light years away". That is what I asked for links to, and of course you failed to provide them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy! Time to bring out the conspiracy theorists again! Maybe we should put them all in a space craft and send them there to see for themselves the truth. That would end the conspiracy fast! ROFL! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pictures you see online are created by layers of hundreds and hundreds of pictures taken by the Hubble or whatever. Distant objects don't move fast, so it's easy as hell to do so. And then they are all mended together and color is added.

It's very very difficult to do the same thing on the moon since you can't exactly match it's rotation without getting sucked in or away. These photos of the moon are one simple picture as it's making it's way around. The satellite in orbit is hauling ass around the moon, so with all things considered, it's actually remarkably good quality.

Sense you make some :woot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it is clear that the 1970's photos and video of the Apollo landings were faked.

(please do your own research)

I did my own research and I know a bit about photography and lighting. And they're not faked. There's not a ingle viable argument by the hoax people proving they are faked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what? these photos completely suck.

Nasa can take high res photos of planets and galaxies millions of light years away, but they can only take crappy b&w low detail pictures of the moon?

im so disappointed. i thought NASA would be able to have Moon Street view or something by now.

Lol someone obviously scored a D in basic optics class. I like the idea of "Moon Street View" though. If we had kept at it, it's one of those things that should have happened. This is why I miss the cold war. Yeah we could all have been blown to bits at any second. But it gave us all something to struggle for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtfBVbT29WASowcyG7ZkFA_pRWDySBeP36G11gMO98DpTwUkcD

No but seriously, seeing images like this is cool to prove that we really have done it.

As for finding proof that the conspiracy is there, watch a show like mythbusters. They explain the whole flag moving, foot prints in the dust, reflections, lighting, and a whole lot more. Thats just one source, there are loads of others out there which prove the same thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So provide me with some actual proof that they are fake, proof tha I can't refute.

I'll be waiting.

You should be doing your OWN research, including checking your spelling.

What did the camera designer from Hasselblad, say about several of the alleged photos the astronauts took ?

Apparently you missed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

What did the camera designer from Hasselblad, say about several of the alleged photos the astronauts took ?

...

He said he really liked the composition, but he found them relatively unexciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know in the release NASA stated that there were multiple shadows etc, but why is the actual landscape of the moon super clear while the NASA equipment on the moon has huge black splotches all over them that look like a kid was drawing them in MS Paint?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be doing your OWN research, including checking your spelling.

What did the camera designer from Hasselblad, say about several of the alleged photos the astronauts took ?

Apparently you missed that.

You must be joking right?

get the tin foil hats out....

"They had the camera designer from Hasselblad who said he couldn't explain the apparent discrepancies, as the cameras were not designed (nor were there any) strobes or flashes on the missions."

That right there is CONCLUSIVE!!! / end sarcasm..

mythbusters has some evidence that shows that we did go to the moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfKItI-cHPM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of the highly reflective nature of the material which compromises the moons surface

Gotcha. So the "zoomed" in view of the equipment that is actually clear and has the black splotches removed, is that a "photoshopped" version of what the equipment would have looked like if the distortion in the pictures was not present?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be doing your OWN research, including checking your spelling.

What did the camera designer from Hasselblad, say about several of the alleged photos the astronauts took ?

Apparently you missed that.

You see the thing is I don't need to provide proof. The photos are there and they are real. I have researched the alleged proof that they are fake and found the laughable and ridiculous.

You are theones claiming they are fake, the burde of proof lies with you. Give me examples of something that is fake and why it is fake, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

For the readers digest easy to comprehend version loo a mythbusters and the episode they did on this. As for the Lens designer, I would say he's just a lens designer and know little about the effects of taking photos in absolute vacuum with perfectly uniform parallel light across the whole shot.

Now I'm still waiting for some example showing how they are fake, the burden lies with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know in the release NASA stated that there were multiple shadows etc, but why is the actual landscape of the moon super clear while the NASA equipment on the moon has huge black splotches all over them that look like a kid was drawing them in MS Paint?

Examples of such blotches please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pictures clearly show the hardware left on the lunar surface by American astronauts in the 1960s and 70s, including Apollo 17's "moon buggy".

LOL photoshop, picture editing? No necessity to blame them. The fact is that in these published pictures there isn't a single object that you can distinguish and say that this is "clearly shown", look at pictures, only white-black artifacts, it could be just random old mans ass surface under a microscope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can clearly see the 2 of the 3 legs of the intrepid decent stage, the parallel tracks left by the moon buggy and the meandering tracks left by the astronauts.Some quite basic maths out to be able to sort this out. Since you know how high up the satellite was, you can measure the lengths of the legs against any existing decent stage that NASA has. (I'm sure they still have at least one). You can also measure the width of the tracks of the lunar buggy. No doubt someone with enough enhancement technology would be able to work out pretty exactly the locations of the Astronauts 'hops' or footsteps too, then decide who these footsteps belong to, calculate their weight and their average jump height and the acceleration due to gravity on the moon - and say pretty exactly if these steps were likely to be human or not.

They do very similar things with spy photos from satellite here in Earth orbit. With 10's of thousands of security annalists around who could spot a fake, this just leaves the non-believers with one very slim possibility, which is that this photo is a very cleverly executed fake. Or how about the probe itself? Maybe that's fake? Or how about man ever going into space? I bet that's fake too. And this thing called 'space', I've never been there so I suspect that's probably fake as well. Hell how about France? I've never been there either, so I bet that's fake as well.

Not wishing to be flippant, but there are people in the world who will never be convinced of anything. Unless you take them there - and even then no doubt all they would say is 'Meh! so what?!? It is literally a waste of time even trying.

But the moral of the tale is do the math. I would be willing to bet my house on it that if you did, these photos would come up clean and would provide unarguable evidence that they did do it.

If you are too stupid or dumb to do the math, then although I may pity you, I have no empathy for you at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh...the engine is probably seized up, the gas has gone bad, the tires are flat, all rusted out...

:p ;)

you know you need water in the atmosphere to cause something to rust right? Last time I checked...no atmosphere or water in the "air" on the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.