NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites

NASA ^ | 9/6/11

[JoeProBono]

[ctdonath2]

If you run the pictures thru Adobe and separate the layers it’s obvious that they’ve been faked in Photoshop, combining different images at different resolutions and font depths. I can tell because of the pixels; those colors didn’t exist in 1972.

/s

[aquila48]

Where are the golf balls?

[beebuster2000]

awesome post. thanks

[lormand]

Every black kid in my 6th grade class in Houston Texas at the time believed that it was faked.

[Logic n' Reason]

Ping

[crosshairs]

Gee, thought it was all faked in a studio.

Don't let Buzz hear that. He'll bust ya in the chops.

[cuban leaf]

It was Ender’s Game in reverse. They were in a building with no windows and just believed that they were in on a real moon landing when the astronauts were in the other room behind one way glass trying not to giggle.

[Psycho_Bunny]

lololololololololol!

[Johnny B.]

Maybe I missed something, but, why did they leave the buggy so far from the Lander? Looks like they drove it off a ways and then walked back to the landing site for some reason.

I assume it was because the video camera was mounted to the buggy, and they wanted to position the buggy so it could get a good shot of the Lunar Module Ascent Stage taking off. The camera could be controlled from Earth, and on the last few landings, they managed to get some good shots of the astronauts taking off.

[Erik Latranyi]

As a friend of mine said, it is nice that we now have the technology to take a photograph of a place we actually visited 42 years ago!

[21twelve]

I thought that odd as well leaving the buggy far away. My first thought it might have an instrument package to be seperate from the others? (Triangulations, etc.)

How about so it wouldn’t get damaged and debris hit the lander on takeoff?

Or perhaps “It’s such a nice evening - why don’t we walk home?”

Speaking of walks - the paths are interesting - very business like. Obviously with an air-pack one’s time is limited. But if it were me on the moon, I would have wandered around a bit just looking and exploring.

“Oh look, another grey rock! And what is that over there? Oh - another grey rock!!”

[LifePath]

So are you suggesting there is merit to this analysis? Has the secret, so thoroughly kept hidden by 400,000 space program workers for more than 40 years, at last been revealed?

[Cyber Liberty]

Obvious fakes. (/laughable s/)

[Windflier]

It was Ender’s Game in reverse. They were in a building with no windows and just believed that they were in on a real moon landing when the astronauts were in the other room behind one way glass trying not to giggle.

I guess they locked in all of the Air Force personnel who monitored the launches and all of the hundreds of private contractors who built the equipment, too. And the reporters....maybe they were just told to shut up and read the script.

I've talked to people who really do believe that the moon landings were hoaxed. You cannot penetrate their beliefs with logic or reason. Like liberalism, it's an article of faith with some people.

[LifePath]

And the Russians. Don’t forget the Russians. Their radar followed our spacecraft to the Moon and back, just like we did. Course, being really great guys and all, when they saw we were faking it, they decided to keep their mouths shut.

[BallyBill]

Thought the same thing about the Buggy, must’ve gotten a flat tire and they forgot the spare. Had to walk home.

[cuban leaf]

Yeah, they didn’t know that the rocket actually was just shot harmlessly into the sea while the astronauts were hidden in a special blast-proof room at the top of the tower. Only the very small tower support crew was aware of the ruse. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

The problem with all these conspiracy theory folks is that they offer either no evidence or a laughable and complete missreading of existing evidence to make their point. A good example is the two photos in a previous post. The author ignores the simple fact that a LOT of walking around was happening in the area in the foreground in the 24 hours between the photos.

They seem to think the guys went outside to snap a photo, ran back in where it was warm and then, 24 hours later, ran back out to snap a quick color photo.

Jeez.

[cuban leaf]

That's because, truth be told, the Bilderburgers actually run BOTH countries.

It's a conspiracy, man!

[chimera]

The rover TV camera was part of what was called the Ground-Commanded Television Assembly. On Apollo 15, the TV camera developed clutch problems. The camera would fall to a full-downward position at times and it was decided not to pan the camera as the LM upper stage took off. So on Apollo 15 videos you see the upper stage break free of the lower stage and vanish quickly upward out of frame.

On 16, the camera was in better shape but the ground operator didn't have the "feel" for the ground-to-air time delay and so did not pan the camera upward rapidly enough to follow the LM ascent, so it too kind of vanishes quickly from the image.

The best image of the takeoff and ascent was on 17 where the operator was able to track the LM ascent stage for quite a long distance. The camera was fully functional for a long time after the LM left the moon, until the rover batteries died.

Not a lot of people know it, but the lunar rover initial design called for a feature that would allow it to be controlled remotely from Earth after the astronauts left. The ground controllers would then be able to drive and steer the rover into places deemed too dangerous for the crew to explore. For example, on Apollo 15, they could have driven the rover down to the bottom of Hadley Rille. On Apollo 16, they likely would have tried to drive it up the steep slope of Stone Mountain. Alas, the remote operation feature was never incorporated in the as-built models, so once parked, the rovers remained stationary, and are still there today.