Moon Truth

I am pretty sure we went to the moon, more than once in fact. What i am interested in is what they said they found up there. I have heard crazy stories.When armstrong got back he said "their up there, and they sure arent making cheese". there are more stories like this.

if the moon landings (with real astronauts!) did happen, then shouldn't the astronauts (well, at least the first three - armstrong, aldrin and collins) have expressed their satisfaction during the start of the press conference? after all, they are automatically 20th century's greatest explorers (since columbus and magellan).

there're a lot of unanswered questions friends... hope somebody uncovers!

where are the video of the press conferences of the later moon astronauts?

during the press conference, why are all the three almost to the point of behaving like they're about to get caught faking their trip to the moon? (now don't say that armstrong is reserved or aldrin is less-spoken or things like that!)

and why did aldrin and collins become uncomfortable to the point of restlessness when patrick moore aske them about being able to see stars through the solar corona in spite of the glare? just look at aldrin react involuntarily!

and why did collins become agitated at the mention of stars? moreover, why did he answer - "i don't remember seeing any."? why? was he supposed to mention that statement considering that he was all the time sitting inside the command module orbiting the moon?

the video of the first moon landing was far short of the then current broadcasting video standard, or to put it this way, not only shoddy and shabby but worst. why did the quality become dramatically fine during the later missions?
still their are questions unanswered... more later...

reply to post by Zenic


i don't know whether you've actually seen the lander or not, but no matter even if you point the hubble telescope (the one in space) toward the moon and magnify it to the hilt or maximum zoom, you can barely see a maximum of 50m (164ft) per pixel resolution (at the maximum zoom i repeat). i read at nasa's page the lander itself was about 20ft max. that's odd considering you spotted a dimension an eighth of the original size (8 times smaller when a single pixel would encompass the whole 164ft!

you did it and i'd like to know how?

Originally posted by CGBSpender
I am pretty sure we went to the moon, more than once in fact. What i am interested in is what they said they found up there. I have heard crazy stories.When armstrong got back he said "their up there, and they sure arent making cheese". there are more stories like this.

I'm with ya, man. I've never believed the moon landing hoax theory. I've said many times that I'd believe that we warned off the moon before I'd believe we never went.

well, physics does tell that van allen radiation belts are not themselves a radiator of cosmic rays but the belts have been formed by the earth's powerful magnetic field which traps most or all the solar deadly ionized radiation from striking the earth's atmos. that's point one.

point two: why does nasa repeatedly stress that the radiation levels outside the van allen belts are unpredictable than within the belts themselves? and why are they undertaking a study and launch a unmanned rad-det probe sometime in 2010 or 11 to measure radiation levels at the vicinity and on the surface of the moon? haven't we been there already? didn't apollo15-17 crew perform a whole day of activity? do we get x-rays tests done on our teeth or chest or any other body portion for a whole day? if geo-synchronus satellites (for our communication, weather or tv) are covered and protected with thick lead sheets to prevent their electronics from being annihilated by the solar radiation, then how come the astronauts survived their moon walk with only 25 layers of nothing more than bullet-proof suits? remember, kevlar is, REPEAT IS, solidly BULLET-PROOF, but hold it against even a portable x-ray machine, and it becomes useless!

the x-ray technicians who take snaps of your body wear protective lead covered flexible nylon layered cloths. i guess, even if nasa had been mindful of this fact, they would have succeeded in convincing the hoax believers! and i'm not one of them. but i don't believe nasa either, for the simple reason that they give Never A Straight Answer!

reply to post by gEEkEr


This has all been exhaustively discussed elsewhere. One good place to go read about the Apollo Hoax claims is www.clavius.org.... After you read that, if you have specific questions I'd be glad to discuss it further, just start a thread if there isn't an appropriate one out there already.

I can prove there are stars in the moon landing photographs. First, I have to go rip up some tile that the previous idiots NAILED AND STAPLED DOWN, and I will be back in a few hours. Gonna leave the thread up, and as soon as my hands stop aching, I will come back here and prove to you the moon pics have stars in them. Righty K? Okie day then?




GOOD.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by wylekat]

Here we go. First up is the famous first moon landing shot, untouched.


And now, the reprocessed image, using nothing more than brightness, contrast, and unsharp mask in Photoshop Elements:


Now, aside from the fact there's some dust on the lens- the bright specks in the back are stars. The pic even shows the tiny bit of lunar atmosphere- the blue.

Funny- no scaffolding, no lights, no rafters......

[edit on 1-11-2008 by wylekat]

Originally posted by wylekat
Now, aside from the fact there's some dust on the lens- the bright specks in the back are stars. The pic even shows the tiny bit of lunar atmosphere- the blue.

How can you be sure those are stars? Did you compare with other photos to be sure that it isn't dust that was on the scanner? I see lots of specks in the LM shadow. So that tells me that there was a lot of dust specks in this scanned image. The odd speck might actually be a star, but it's impossible to say.

As for the blue. That is not the atmosphere. When you crank the brightness in an image to extremes, it's going to do all sorts of crazy things to it. Note that the blue is also appearing in the shadowed areas of the LM as well. Not just in the black lunar sky.

wht about this european SMART-1 mission, did it shot some pictures of the Apollo landing zone? All pictures i have seen are worthless cause you cant see anything. The hubble telescope cant see the landers, the resolution can barely see objects of 50 meters in size, hte landers are only 5 meters. To see the landers with your home telescope is laughable indeed when even hubble cant see it. The picture above is also laughable because those "stars" are everywhere, even on the shoe of the astronaut, in every dark area on the picture.

reply to post by Terminal


so your post has a 2002 date but let me comment any way. If you read Penatration by Ingo Swan and also consider that NASA went public with the fact that the moon has indeed an atmosphere.Which in my opinion solves the Faked moon landing. Also consider that there is a beaken on the moon.How ever did it get there sitting all nice and pretty if someone didnt put it there,who or what did?...hope this helps as late as it is

reply to post by CGBSpender


Read the book Penetration by Ingo Swann..he states what he saw on the moon and it is a fun read