Extremely high-res outtakes from Apollo 11’s 1969 moon landing

I was only 7 months old when Neil & Buzz set foot on the moon, but for as long as I can remember I have been fascinated by the story. The "Moon Hoax Conspiracy" is what brought me to ATS, and is still one of my favorite "Tin-Foil Hat" topics. Although the photo archive from this story has undoubtedly been discussed here on ATS, I thought that it might be worthwhile to bring it out again for members that might have missed it.

QUARTZ SOURCE ARTICLE

The first human set foot on the moon 49 years ago on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong emerged from the Apollo 11 lander. Along with the footage that was broadcast live on television, iconic images of the lunar expedition come from still photos the astronauts took themselves on a Hasselblad camera. The photos provide exceedingly crisp depictions of the lunar surface, the astronauts’ equipment and candid shots of the explorers themselves. The Project Apollo Archive, a passion project of space enthusiast Kipp Teague, published extremely high-resolution scans of film provided by NASA. Included in these images are classic shots of the Apollo crew on the moon’s surface and quieter moments inside the vehicles that carried them.

Included as well are less meticulously composed, almost accidental-looking images taken by the astronauts over the course of their mission. The off-kilter composition and the in-between moments remind you that beneath the layers of their impermeable spacesuits, there were actually humans walking on the moon.

View thousands of images from the moon missions:
PROJECT APOLLO PHOTO ARCHIVE ON FLICKR

We needed these shots, thanks

Friggin no dust at friggin all on the pads, I'm buying that shot of Earth...looks correct and dreamy

a reply to: seattlerat

This one struck a chord in me. We always think the earth looks bigger from the moon than this. Would make me feel pretty alone seeing this:

a reply to: GBP/JPY

How should dust act in a low grav environment?

Here's another touching one:

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: seattlerat

This one struck a chord in me. We always think the earth looks bigger from the moon than this. Would make me feel pretty alone seeing this:

It probably does look bigger in person.

Just like a picture of the Moon taken from Earth looks smaller in the image than it seemed "in real life", I expect a picture of the Earth from the Moon to have the same effect.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

Friggin no dust at friggin all on the pads, I'm buying that shot of Earth...looks correct and dreamy

Lemon Pledge?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: GBP/JPY

How should dust act in a low grav environment?

Good question let's compare.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
We needed these shots, thanks

Friggin no dust at friggin all on the pads, I'm buying that shot of Earth...looks correct and dreamy

I'd expect a lot of dust on the pads ONLY if it were done where there was a thick enough atmosphere for the dust to billow into clouds and remain suspended as a cloud in that atmosphere, and then slowly fall upon the pads.

However, there is virtually no atmosphere on the Moon; therefore there would be no billowing cloud of dust. Instead that dust would be pushed out of the way sideways by the thrust, and would take a parabolic trajectory down when the thrust was shut off. The dust would not be suspended for very long.

And, by the way, the procedure was for the engines to be shut down while the LM pads were still a couple of feet from the surface. So there might not have been much dust being pushed aside when the pads were on or directly above the Moon's surface.

a reply to: Realtruth

Doesn't last very long.

And there's no wind making it worse.

I expected it to be thrown further than it was.

a reply to: seattlerat

Dust all over the boots displaced by no more than mere footsteps, yet a jet propelled massive craft leaves the entire area super neat after landing using x amount of thrust..

It's one of those lies where you have to just say fork it... just keep going, keep up the facade.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: seattlerat

Dust all over the boots displaced by no more than mere footsteps, yet a jet propelled massive craft leaves the entire area super neat after landing using x amount of thrust..

It's one of those lies where you have to just say fork it... just keep going, keep up the facade.

There's dust all over the surface of the Moon at the landing sites. I'm not sure what you mean by "super neat".

During landing, most dust would have already fallen (and most of it falling on existing dust, mind you) before the LM actually landed. Plus it would have fallen away from the LM, considering it was being pushed away by the thrust.

Again, there would be no billowy cloud of dust hanging there after landing to then fall upon everything. There was nothing (virtually no atmosphere) in which a cloud of dust could hang.

If a cloud of dust did eventually settle in a layer upon all of the surfaces of the LM after landing, THEN you would have some evidence, because that could only happen where there were more atmosphere than the Moon has.

You can probably fake moon dust, and I've never seen moon dust, but all that dust on the surface of the moon in those pictures looks like moon dust

I love the idea of the moon landing conspiracy, but it's one conspiracy I think I'm ready to let go. I believe we landed on the moon.

There, I said it!!!

WE LANDED ON THE MOON!

One year before humanity's first lunar landing, the moon must have still felt quite far away.

From this link.

www.space.com...

Well that's a hot polariod

I'm not buying the light or the horizon.

Not arguing, just doesn't look right to me.

I saw a video somewhere that compared the moon landing photos to the Chinese rabbit rover.
They were remarkably similar.

No stars for either.
Dark side lit up by reflection.
No dust crater

These images have been available for years. They, along with in depth information about Apollo 11 and the rest of the missions can be found here.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

To be fair they have, but a lot of the ones at the ALSJ (and the Apollo Image Atlas) are not always of the best quality. What the Flickr Archive owner has done is collate the highest quality versions of the scans available from a variety of sources and collated them in one place (something NASA should have done in the first place).

Another very good source for high resolution versions of (some) of these image is this one:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

a reply to: seattlerat
Thanks for the link and pictures, I never tire of looking at Moon pics.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Dust all over the boots displaced by no more than mere footsteps, yet a jet propelled massive craft leaves the entire area super neat after landing using x amount of thrust..

It's one of those lies where you have to just say fork it... just keep going, keep up the facade.

Keep in mind that without a magnetic field nor atmosphere the dust has an electrostatic charge due to solar ionization. It'll cling very well to some surfaces.
Physicist Learns Why Moon Dust Is So Dangerous: Static Cling