The Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site --Now Seen in Unprecedented Detail

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


Well...thanks....

...but, I've been debunking the so-called "Apollo hoax" nonsense for a long, long time.....

reply to post by audiopackrat


Which physics? There is nothing outside the standard model to indicate that Apollo couldn't go to, or from the moon...unless they discovered a corollary to Newton's Laws I haven't heard about.

Originally posted by audiopackrat
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

The delay. It takes a signal a little over a second to reach the moon, and vice versa. So, let's say the camera operator sees the module blasting off on his monitor (which occurred over a second prior), take his little NASA joystick in hand and proceeds to pan. This takes another second or so for the signal to go back to the camera on the moon. I think the total round trip for a signal to go to the moon and back is 2.5 seconds. He would've MISSED the launch completely. As you notice, the instant the module launches, the camera starts panning. I call BS for that reason, but more-so, the power that would've been required to beam live action back to earth. The whole world was mooned on July 20th, 1969, and every other time astro-nots flew a couple hundred thousand miles in a tin can to walk on the moon.

As Phage, Proudbird, and their sources and links mentioned above, camera operator Ed Fendell knew of the time delay and tried to compensate for it. They knew what time the LEM was lifting off, and they could calculate where it should be during its ascent, and then move the camera (basically blindly) in anticipation of those things.

Here is a video from the very fine series called "Moon Machines" in which Fendell explains this. This video iis the third part of the episode on the Lunar Rover (the camera used to film the LEM ascent was on the lunar rover). By the way, they only got one "good shot" of the LEM ascent, and that was their last attempt with Apollo 17. On the other missions that used the rovers (Apollo 15 and 16), they failed to successfully follow the LEM on its ascent.

The part describing the filming of Apollo 17's ascent starts at the 11:43 mark.



By the way, The series this video is from -- "Moon Machines" -- is a terrific series. It gives a very detailed and realistic account of exactly what it took to design the various pieces of hardware that was required by the Apollo missions. There are individual episodes dedicated to the Saturn V launch vehicle, the Command Module, the LEM, the Lunar Rover, Space suits, and the Guidance Computers/software. You can watch them all on YouTube, of you can see them on TV on the "Science Channel" from time-to-time.

I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in the Apollo program, or in engineering in general. The show is basically a homage to engineering and ingenuity.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos

For the reasons I've already mentioned; the delay (video and audio too), the power source for television transmission to earth. And if I may add more, the photos are too perfect coming from a chest mounted camera operated by a spaceman/photographer with thick gloves. They sure knew how to set the ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and focus just right, huh?

This whole scam played to peoples' fantasies for political and cultural gain. Boy, it was a great distraction from the other lie called VIETNAM, as well. Convenient how the moon landings stopped around the same time the Vietnam war came to an end.

reply to post by audiopackrat


First of all, they practiced taking pictures from their chest mounted cameras. They practiced a lot.

Secondly, there were many, many pictures taken, and some of them were bad pictures. Most of the famous ones you see (in textbooks, history books, or wherever) are the best ones -- which is understandable. I mean, why would the history books print a non-centered picture when there were also centered ones?

Here is a link that shows all of the Hasselblad camera pictures -- the good and the bad.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

and a link to an example of one of the film magazines:
www.lpi.usra.edu...


...and I'm not too sure what your issue is concerning the power supplies for the cameras. The lunar rover obviously carried a decent power supply to run the rover itself. This camera was part of the rover.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


BEAUTIFUL.......BEAUTIFUL...

Thanks for finding that video!!!!

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

BEAUTIFUL.......BEAUTIFUL...

Thanks for finding that video!!!!

Thanks. As I said, I suggest you watch that whole video and the rest of the series. I know that whole series is on YouTube. I can't say enough how great that series -- "Moon Machines" -- is. I come from a background where I worked closely with engineers (I'm a building design professional, but have worked alongside mechanical engineers from Lockheed Martin), so maybe I'm a bit biased about my feelings toward engineering ingenuity.

I actually found a DVD box set of the entire "Moon Machines" series at Borders Books during their "going out of business" sale last year. I picked up my copy for $7.

reply to post by audiopackrat


How much power do you think it takes to send a video uplink to/from the moon? I want to know your answer.

As for the Apollo missions being a distraction from Vietnam, there is absolutely no validity to the claim. Do you know what a bigger distraction was during that time? Social upheaval, drugs, rock and roll, assassinations of great leaders, and the machinations of LBJ, Tricky Dick, and all the associated criminals involved in that bloody period of our history...and the war ended in 1975, Apollo 1973-which no one seemed to be paying attention to anyway.

reply to post by pcuser


Um, Earth's magnetic field extends beyond the orbit of the moon.

This is from the journal Nature, all they publish has strict peer review.


Here's a link from the ESA if you can't believe NASA!
El-linky.

So what exactly are you talking about?

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


No offense, and I mean that, Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, July 1975. Unofficially slanged as Apollo 18.

reply to post by audiopackrat


A lot of camera settings were auto. Apollo 12 lost a film cartridge because it inadvertently took a shot facing the sun by mistake. Its not like they could run back into the lander to reload. Things aren't as perfect in reality as hoax sites imply.

reply to post by bicnarok


hoax believers are busy moving the goal posts as we discuss this

reply to post by Illustronic


Oops...always forget that one.

Originally posted by audiopackrat
reply to post by NuminousCosmos

 

For the reasons I've already mentioned; the delay (video and audio too), the power source for television transmission to earth. And if I may add more, the photos are too perfect coming from a chest mounted camera operated by a spaceman/photographer with thick gloves. They sure knew how to set the ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and focus just right, huh?

This whole scam played to peoples' fantasies for political and cultural gain. Boy, it was a great distraction from the other lie called VIETNAM, as well. Convenient how the moon landings stopped around the same time the Vietnam war came to an end.

I swear, you have the most ridiculous arguments (if you want to call them that) I have ever seen from a moon hoax believer.

You're really desperate, aren't you? I notice you keep moving the goal posts as each and every one of your arguments is torn apart.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by audiopackrat

 

A lot of camera settings were auto. Apollo 12 lost a film cartridge because it inadvertently took a shot facing the sun by mistake. Its not like they could run back into the lander to reload. Things aren't as perfect in reality as hoax sites imply.

edit on 18-3-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

Hi Ill
sup bro
With all the MISTAKES,oops and the like, How the heck could a mission of that difficulty be accomplished?????
A few pages back you said you had an arsenal of sourses and wern't afraid to use them. Remember?
Sorce me this if you can. (The risk assessment of Apollo 11) NASA did do one correct? I have asked them for it but they won't deliver.
thanks buddy

reply to post by paradox


Moving the goal posts, ay? Explain this: Earth-Moon delay The fraudsters got a little sloppy. Didn't think of it back then. Overlapping audio on transmission that took 1.23 seconds each way. Of course, the 'new improved' audio from the footage has this problem corrected.


Call it 'moving the goal posts' or whatever you prefer. No one here has kicked the ball through it yet. Over four decades have passed. That's alot of time for back stories to be made, text books to be written, television shows to be produced, and photos to be manipulated. Repeat a lie often and long enough and it becomes fact to the indoctrinated. That goes for soooooo many things.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Here's is a picture with craters fully lit it happens all the time you seem to have your eyes constantly shut
Due to possible eye problems got a nice big image for you!!!!! JUST CLICK ON IT FOR A NICE BIG IMAGE!



As you requested not enhanced MILLIONS of images like that on the net if you actually BOTHER to look instead spouting constant BS

You said this

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

My ansswer is HE*L yes. The shadows within the perimeter. Darker than what the surrounding perimiter is. Within the CENTER of the crater my natty friend.
Your point is only twisted thinking like the mirror image that you posted. Seems to me that you see the whole world that way. (moon to boot)you need more than ocular attention.

edit on 18-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: adding forgiveness

The shadow will not be the same all around the perimeter the sunlight is from one direction one side in darkness the other lit by the sun and between those areas a transition depending on reflected light, BASIC SCHOOL SCIENCE!!!

How a crater looks depends on lots of things size,depth and the angle of the sunlight to it, now maybe YOU cant undestand that but even YOU must know an objects shadow changes during the day depending on how the light hits it OR do you think the objects change SIZE

Originally posted by audiopackrat
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

The delay. It takes a signal a little over a second to reach the moon, and vice versa. So, let's say the camera operator sees the module blasting off on his monitor (which occurred over a second prior), take his little NASA joystick in hand and proceeds to pan. This takes another second or so for the signal to go back to the camera on the moon. I think the total round trip for a signal to go to the moon and back is 2.5 seconds. He would've MISSED the launch completely. As you notice, the instant the module launches, the camera starts panning. I call BS for that reason, but more-so, the power that would've been required to beam live action back to earth. The whole world was mooned on July 20th, 1969, and every other time astro-nots flew a couple hundred thousand miles in a tin can to walk on the moon.

It was timed they knew the delay and if you actually watch the video its not tracked perfectly but Apollo 17 is keep in the field of view.

What makes me on this site is all the conspiracy guys claim to be great thinkers and anyone one else is closed minded YET the most mundane day to day things seem to escape this great thinking process YOU have.
(I mean remote control didn't occur to you strange!)

One person on here posted a shot of an astronaut on the moon and had arrows all over the place claiming each shadow was caused by light from a different direction I wont name him but its easy to find.

Now he didn't seem to relise that a shadow can only follow the terrain it lands on I asked if he had never seen his OWN shadow on a sunny day as he was walking along if it hit say a wall or a car body it would go from horizontal on the ground to vertical.

It's the simple most basic school science that stumps many on here!!! that just goes to show how easy it is to use a computer

The moto of many on here as they keep shouting about is think outside the box, well look inside the box first if the answer is there you save yourself some work but more importantly..YOU DENY IGNORANCE I am sure I have read that somewhere on here

Originally posted by audiopackrat
reply to post by NuminousCosmos

 

For the reasons I've already mentioned; the delay (video and audio too), the power source for television transmission to earth. And if I may add more, the photos are too perfect coming from a chest mounted camera operated by a spaceman/photographer with thick gloves. They sure knew how to set the ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and focus just right, huh?

This whole scam played to peoples' fantasies for political and cultural gain. Boy, it was a great distraction from the other lie called VIETNAM, as well. Convenient how the moon landings stopped around the same time the Vietnam war came to an end.

Well as an amatuer photographer for 30+ years and we have a few semi pro and proffesional ones on here as well look up the following on google.

Depth of field how to control whats in focus and the sunny 16 rule to start with if you dont undestand post back and I can explain, I see some simple science has confused you already!!!!

Here is one link for you if you dont undestand just post. ( any photographer would)