NASA have released photos and video of footprints on the moon

NASA have released new photos and video of footprints on the moon from previous lunar missions, also spots were the lunar landers where and even the space buggy. Does this prove that we have really been to the moon?

I don't think they look like footprints at all what do you think? link and video is below.

NASA moon footprints video link

reply to post by DEV1L79


Those images offer basically nothing to persuade anyone to change their beliefs on the issue.. Im guessing with a telescope and good timing/co-ordinates you could see them for yourself?

Its hilarious to me that so many of you are so skeptical. If someone posted those photos and said its footprints of aliens, you would all be nodding in agreement.

reply to post by Gannicus


Erm, no. We wouldn't be skeptical if we did that, now would we? Perhaps you have the words "skeptical" and "gullible" confused?




Deny Butter.

reply to post by BigBruddah

Im guessing with a telescope and good timing/co-ordinates you could see them for yourself?

With a nice enough telescope, probably. You could also see some of the things on the surface that we've sent up there.

Yes, we have really been to the moon........

2nd line.

given gravity and the 'leap' factor of [sting] walkin on da moon [/sting] they could well be footsteps..

reply to post by BigBruddah

Im guessing with a telescope and good timing/co-ordinates you could see them for yourself?

You're guessing wrong. The objects on the lunar surface are far to small to be resolved by any Earth based telescope.

So NASA took some more pictures of area 51?

Can anyone post one of these pictures maybe so we can all bask in the glory?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by BigBruddah

 

Im guessing with a telescope and good timing/co-ordinates you could see them for yourself?

With a nice enough telescope, probably. You could also see some of the things on the surface that we've sent up there.

Not even close.
From the Earth's surface, atmospheric effects will keep any optical system, no matter how powerful, from resolving fine detail at lunar distances.

From above atmosphere (since pointing the Hubble Space Telescope at the Apollo landing sites is a frequent suggestion), the problem is quite simply one of resolution. Even the Hubble isn't going to resolve something as small as one of the lunar rovers, or a LEM descent stage across a distance of a quarter million miles (give or take). The problem is further compounded by the well-known fact that the Moon is bright. Assuming that a telescope could be built with sufficient resolution to pick out the Apollo artifacts, it would have serious problems with having the very details you're looking for washed out by reflected light from the lunar surface. I can tell you from personal experience that looking at the Moon through a 20" Newtonian reflector, while really cool, doesn't let you see any man-made objects at the Apollo sites.

Originally posted by Gannicus
Its hilarious to me that so many of you are so skeptical. If someone posted those photos and said its footprints of aliens, you would all be nodding in agreement.

"which clearly show footprints left by astronauts"
What part of the picture is the word CLEARLY reffers to? Because i cant spot any "footprints" on those images...

If they showed pictures like this of "alien footprins" i would have asked same question. This proof is just a whole lot a bulls**t

Pictures or it didn't happen!


Well there's your pictures so give it up will ya!! We went to the moon get over it

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by BigBruddah

 

Im guessing with a telescope and good timing/co-ordinates you could see them for yourself?

With a nice enough telescope, probably. You could also see some of the things on the surface that we've sent up there.

Not even close.
From the Earth's surface, atmospheric effects will keep any optical system, no matter how powerful, from resolving fine detail at lunar distances.

From above atmosphere (since pointing the Hubble Space Telescope at the Apollo landing sites is a frequent suggestion), the problem is quite simply one of resolution. Even the Hubble isn't going to resolve something as small as one of the lunar rovers, or a LEM descent stage across a distance of a quarter million miles (give or take). The problem is further compounded by the well-known fact that the Moon is bright. Assuming that a telescope could be built with sufficient resolution to pick out the Apollo artifacts, it would have serious problems with having the very details you're looking for washed out by reflected light from the lunar surface. I can tell you from personal experience that looking at the Moon through a 20" Newtonian reflector, while really cool, doesn't let you see any man-made objects at the Apollo sites.

How come Hubble can make so clean pictures with decent clearness of a galaxies millions light years away.... heritage.stsci.edu... And cant make decent picture of Moon that is only ONE light second (~300000km) away from it? huh?

Originally posted by BigBruddah
Im guessing with a telescope and good timing/co-ordinates you could see them for yourself?

No, these details are far too small to be seen from here unfortunately.

Originally posted by John0Doe
How come Hubble can make so clean pictures with decent clearness of a galaxies millions light years away.... heritage.stsci.edu... And cant make decent picture of Moon that is only ONE light second (~300000km) away from it? huh?

10 seconds with Google would have saved you the embarrassment of eating your words. Here you go, enjoy:

Photos of the moon taken with the Hubble

And before you ask about the Hubble taking photos of the landing sights, read this:

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

Source

Their art department is very slow or backlogged if it took them all this time to get those out.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by BigBruddah
Im guessing with a telescope and good timing/co-ordinates you could see them for yourself?

No, these details are far too small to be seen from here unfortunately.

Originally posted by John0Doe
How come Hubble can make so clean pictures with decent clearness of a galaxies millions light years away.... heritage.stsci.edu... And cant make decent picture of Moon that is only ONE light second (~300000km) away from it? huh?

10 seconds with Google would have saved you the embarrassment of eating your words. Here you go, enjoy:

Photos of the moon taken with the Hubble

And before you ask about the Hubble taking photos of the landing sights, read this:

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

Source

That all just sounds like scientific drivvle to explain why we can't see the flag or the stuff left on the moon, when the real reason is we never went to the moon, we have seen what satelites and telescopes can see on further planets from the moon and there is no reason at all we wouldn't be able to see the stuff left from the apollo missions.

on all of those sources they go on and on about crap and anyone who believes a word of it is insane.

The Americans were going through a cold war with Russia, it was a very tense time and Americans were scared due to talk of Russia having attomic bombs, the president made a promise to get to the moon before the end of the decade, they were in a space race with Russia, whoever won, won the cold war so to speak, as the decade drew close to ending and they were no further forward they needed to show the Americans, Russians and the rest of the world they were force to be reckoned with so, they did the only thing Americans have ever been any good, they made a hollywood style movie, directed by stanley Kubrick.

The evidence that we never went to the moon is overwhelming, it was easy to fool people back then, but now people are more savvy about TV and films and photographic manipulation, because of stuff like camcorders, photoshop etc.. the rock with a C on it is evidence enough, or the cross hairs going behind some of the scenery, but with all the stuff added together it is a no brainer, we never went to the moon.

Strange that this (old) Photos (afir 2009-10) coming in Time with the start of the new Apollo 18 Movie!
(Blair Witch in Space, but a nice Conspiracy)

Here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by DEV1L79


I can't help but be amused when something like this happens. The question is asked "Why can't we do *insert some activity here*?". A few posts later, someone provides a concise, scientific explanation (with references) of why we can't do whatever-it-was, and the near-immediate response is "That sounds like a bunch of techno-babble! It doesn't prove anything!".

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance". When someone tries to provide you with facts, even if you don't agree with them, you might at least *consider* them. I get the really sinking feeling that most of the "We didn't go to the Moon" crowd aren't interested in facts, or in science, and wouldn't accept *any* form of proof. Any photograph will be a shop-job, any film will be the creation of a studio, any physical items will be created props, and any personal testimony will be the result of bribes and coercion.

If you want to honestly discuss whether or not we went to the Moon, then we need to set a few conditions for the debate/discussion. The first and most important is to fix the goalposts. If you want photos, and someone provides photos that fit your criteria, don't then move the goalposts and demand color photos, or video...only to move the goal once more when whatever you requested is provided. A close second to that would be to accept that some things simply are not possible...and failure to do the impossible does not, in itself, constitute proof for either side of an argument. If I sound a bit exasperated, it's because the whole Hubble-seeing-the-lunar-landing-site issue comes up with astounding regularity, and has been covered in depth not only on ATS, but on several other web sites. Do we really need to go through yet another iteration of Introduction to Optics - 201? I took that course twenty years ago in college, and don't really care to sit through it again.

Interesting comment from the article:

Makes no difference either way if they did land on the moon or they didn't as this all happened so long ago, however, one thing does spring to mind, where are the lunar rovers? They were supossedly left behind so shouldn't they be visible?

I would love to find out the answer too.