NASA Post Thousands Of Images Online To Prove Moon Landings Were Real

originally posted by: templar knight
Looking at photograph AS08-17-2710 and magnifying in on this, the anomaly seems to have strange lines (almost roads) emanating from it. I can understand the white complex as an aberration but the road like lines don't make a lot of sense in terms of a spoilt photograph. Picture

High-rez image with your "anomaly": eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
The next frame in that film roll shows the same crater on the edge of which the "anomaly" appeared, but now it's gone: eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Ergo, it's a bit of fluff or something, that was either on the film itself, or got there during the scanning process.

I think the whole - Moon landings were faked conspiracies are propagated by people who want to discredit conspiracy theorists who try to disclose the *real* conspiracies.

It's a ridiculous idea that they didn't land on the moon , and still building these fantastic spacecraft's now and in the past.

I understand that if you know about there movie settings , that it may look like they faked all these moon operations.

But in that time they didn't have those fancy simulators as we have now.

And to give those astronauts the feeling they were actually there to operate in this simulated Hollywood like set , I find very understandable and necessary Imo.

I never had any doubts that it might be fake. Although I seldom thought that it would be shameful for NASA to do such a thing.

I think the opposite, that NASA is in fact way ahead right now , thanks to all the moomlandings and many other space related things they do until today.

a reply to: wildespace

It was also photographed in a different orbit (AS08-12-2100) and has been imaged by several Lunar Orbiter images with no sign of that feature.

My original NASA hard copy of the 'Analysis of Apollo 8 photography and visual observations' doesn't show the "anomaly", so yes, it's fluff on the scanner.

originally posted by: lavatrance
But let me get this straight....the only time it was possible, the only time we had that level of tech, was back in 1970 when you couldn't even buy a basic calculator. When a simple dollar store calculator of today had 1000 times the computing power of NASA's best tech.

Like do you see how ludicrous that seems??? But yet with 1970 tech they did it!...

While some very clever engineering and a few pieces of specific tech needed to be developed, the technology used to go to the Moon in 1969 was not beyond the general technology of the time.

You had chemical rockets, which had been around for decades, pressure vessels for life support, a electro-mechanical inertial guidance gyro (based on 1950s technology), and a simplified guidance computer and decades-old guidance gyros. The basic tech was pretty straightforward, although it took a few new ideas and some precision engineering to make the launch vehicle and 3rd stage powerful enough and the other hardware lightweight enough.

For the most part, it took a refinement of existing technology to get them to the Moon -- not the inventions of all-new technology. The big refinement in existing technology was taking the existing rocket engines tech and scaling it up -- which wasn't an easy feat, but still didn't rely on a new rocket technology (it was still the basic chemical-fueled technology that was in place at the time -- just bigger). The newest pieces of technology that needed to be developed was probably a space suit that provides freedom of movement and the navigation computer.

But even the navigation computer only needed to do rudimentary tasks, such as take readings from the inertial guidance system to determine the craft's actual attitude versus the desired attitude, and fire off the reaction control thrusts to compensate for differences. Inertial guidance gyroscopes had already been in use in aviation for a few years prior to Apollo, keeping track of an airplane's actual location versus its desired location and compensating for difference (e.g., automatic pilot), and it could be argued that the external forces that may send a plane off course are greater than the external forces that may throw a spacecraft off course. So applying that tech to a spacecraft would be doable, as long as it could be made lightweight enough.

Apollo was a tremendous engineering feat, but if you break down that engineering, you can see that it was a do-able feat at the time. It required great skill and cleverness, but not magical developments of tech.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
The Apollo was low-tech (by our standards) affair taken to its limits.

Here's a photo of Margaret Hamilton standing next to listings of the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer (AGC) source code.



Apollo guidance computer used something known as core rope memory, meaning that wires were literally woven through metal cores in a particular way to store code in binary.

www.vox.com...

It's amazing what humans can achieve using relatively simple tools. Just look at the Great Pyramids.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

It has already been pointed out I posted a thread on this back in OCT 2015 and the images have been online for a lot longer than that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: doug9694

And the cameras used on the moon were set manually to short exposure times. As are the ones on the space station. Which means they're not going to see stars. They won't on earth either.

If the ISS's cameras exposure times are adjustable then you can indeed capture star scape. The ISS is in the shadow of the Earth nearly 50% of the time. You can even get apps to do this on your Iphone! On Earth!

a reply to: doug9694

They could, yes. There's not a lot of reason to. They can get far better pictures with Hubble and other satellites.

originally posted by: doug9694

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: doug9694

And the cameras used on the moon were set manually to short exposure times. As are the ones on the space station. Which means they're not going to see stars. They won't on earth either.

If the ISS's cameras exposure times are adjustable then you can indeed capture star scape. The ISS is in the shadow of the Earth nearly 50% of the time. You can even get apps to do this on your Iphone! On Earth!

Depending on the exposure time, the camera would need to be mounted on a motorized movement that is in sync with the motion of the ISS, or else the stars would just be streaks.

One thing the Hubble has going for it is that it could be trained on an object in space for hours (or even days) while keeping perfectly fixed stilly on that object.

originally posted by: Hecate666
I am still confused that there is only either 'they landed' or 'they didn't'.
I have always been of the opinion that they didn't land the first time [too little time, 9 month from paper to landing, race against Russia etc] but they did land afterwards.
So yes they landed and there will be images, but I am still dubious about the first time. Can't we have a name for a conspiracy theory like mine?
It's annoying to always explain.

You know what I consider strange...?

The US and The USSR spending billions of dollars in this race and when the US claims to be first Russia isn't intereseted anymore. An honorable second place sniffing out whats on the Moon after all that effort and investments..? I don't get it... unless..

a reply to: zatara

The USSR did get to the Moon, only not on manned missions. They had many successful missions, some returning samples.

a reply to: zatara

Russia ended their attempts to get to the moon when their rockets get having major problems. They were going to launch a Zond that would go around the moon before Apollo 8, but it wasn't ready. After Apollo 8 did its flight, there was no chance of them beating the US to the moon. The LK was designed to carry a single cosmonaut, because their rockets were up to the same level as the Saturn V. They still planned to visit the moon after the US landed there, but the N1 rocket had multiple failures up until 1972, when they went to other projects.

www.wired.com...

idano why they would bother. anyone with half a brain can see that this is an exercise in futility. you just ignore those types of people. thats all you can do about it.let people believe they were fake, let people believe the earth is flat. who gives a damn. no matter what smart people will make smart decisions and over time progress will prevail.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: doug9694

UH-huh, you read that? Really? I read they went.

Photo shows a rock nearer to the sun does it? By what, a few feet? What difference is that going to make do you think?

I put in the rock info so some bone head would not try to say it was further away and say that is the reason of darker ground around it. Still say there would be darkness just like that rock at least at rock level of the astronaut's feet. Did not, BTW, say we didn't go. just that that pic was not from the moon. unless they put up a reflective shield and light source of some sort to light up the shadow side of the astronaut. This would have to be done when in the Earth's shadow. You think that is an actual pic taken on the Moon? Please explain!

originally posted by: doug9694Still say there would be darkness just like that rock at least at rock level of the astronaut's feet. Did not, BTW, say we didn't go. just that that pic was not from the moon. unless they put up a reflective shield and light source of some sort to light up the shadow side of the astronaut.

The "reflective shield" is easily visible in the reflection on Buzz Aldrin's visor: It is the lunar surface. The brightness of the surface-reflection is equivalent to having a 100-Watt bulb in every square meter of surface all the way to the horizon. He is also getting substantial side-fill light from of the foil-covered lunar module, which is also visible in the reflection. These sources are easily bright enough to provide the fill light on Aldrin's down-sun side.

Here's another way of looking at it: You can see that the shadowed part of Aldrin's suit is just a little bit darker than the sunlit lunar surface in the background. The surface reflects ~7% of the light. The white betacloth suit reflects ~80% of the light. It should be obvious that light that is reflected off the surface and then off the suit towards the camera is going to be only a little bit darker than light that just reflects off the surface towards the camera. This is exactly what we see in the picture.

Hope this helps.

Guys, NASA didn't post anything. LoL. They couldn't care less of conspiracy people! Those photos were online since years in apolloarchive wesbite, the guy who posted on Flickr is not NASA directly! Anyways, I download my fav ones, processed the colors with camera raw in photoshop and made a video. I hope you guys like it =)



ps: I also inserted a restored Apollo 16 "16mm" footage in the middle of the video =)


and this is the album of my fav ones on my page: www.facebook.com...

All processed by me.

NASA haven't yet come clean about planet x's near passage so I'm always dubious of their info..

Saying that I have come forward and made My own announcement in the form of a years worth of conclusive photos and documentation-included in the thread below:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: EndOfDays77

you claim NASA hasnt come clean but you post clouds as conclusive??

your trolling attempt has been noted.