|
|
 |
| |
|
esskay
Rookie
offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293
|
I have seen a number of photographs and intriguiing collections of facts that support the ideas that either:
A) We never went to the moon, it was all a cold-war sham to intimidate the Russians in the Race for Space; or
B) We went to the moon, but some of the photographs have been altered and some information may be incorrect
There are a number of photographs that have CLEARLY and UNARGUABLY been doctored / altered from their original form. For what reason? Was it for improved composition, to appear more patriotic somehow? Or was it to cover up some horrifying facts that were discovered there? Or was it a completely staged event that never occurred?
Take this photo for example, linked directly from NASA's site. This is an OFFICIAL photograph from the Apollo 11 mission. Take it in and look it over carefully:
Original Source is Here - check out the higher resolution JPEG version too! And Here! - sorry, there are a couple of varying scan qualities.. I embeddeded the clearest lowres one above.
Now you skeptics consider this: where are the flag & flagpole's shadows? There are VERY long shadows in that image from the low position of the sun on the horizon - geometrically determined, the shadow should extend off the right side of the image, yet there's none to be seen at all. Don't make up some nonsense about a slight rise in the terrain that obscures it from view, that's just nonsense - that terrain is perfectly flat enough to have seen something.
And then look closer still: why isn't the ground at the base of the pole disturbed at all? If it was so difficult to get the pole even 6-8 inches into the soil, why is there no sign of packing or disturbance? There are merely a few footprints crossing by..? This is admittedly not as solid as the shadow, but the two add together to indicate the idea that the flag and pole were planted into the photo after the fact.
There are more questionable photos like this, I'll see what else I can find..
|
02-27-2003 11:04 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
esskay
Rookie
offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293
|
I don't think you can see the flag thru an earth-based telescope. As I understand it, earth-based scoped cannot resolve details less than a few meters across.. much less half an inch by 36 inches across. Keep in mind that observing from Earth you would be looking straight down on top of the flag pole.. not a nice side-profile shot showing the starts and stripes.
However, I have heard of laser-based gear being left behind on the moon so that with a laser we can accurately measure the distanc and position of the moon (since the distance DOES vary, believe it or not: it's not a perfectly circular orbit, hence the moon's axial "wobble". So being able to reflect an earth-based laser off this surface would, indeed, seem to be evidence that supports that we did, in fact land on the moon.
Let me also clarify MY position on this: I think we DID land on the moon, but that some photographs, for whatever reason, may have been falsified. They may have been falsified for reasons of international politics, or perhaps for generating improved public & government support for funding purposes, etc - but regardless some photos have definitely been falsified. More will follow. The nature of the falsified images may range from completely staged studio shots to slightly altered images actually shot on the surface of the moon.
Why despite this evidence do I think we landed on the moon? Aside from what I mentioned above, it's simple: there's no reason not to have. It's too easy to reach the moon. The physics, math, resources, everything that went into it - they're all fundamental elements of what drives an increasingly high technology & highly scientific society that we enjoy today. Concepts and discoveries made along the way for those Apollo missions live on in every day society today. If you doubt the Apollo program, then you have to doubt the space shuttle program in the same light: they use all the same principles!
Many who doubt that we ever even made it to the moon tend to doubt it because they don't think we're capable. To me that just highlights their ignorance of exactly what capabilities are required to make it to the moon...
|
02-27-2003 11:28 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
esskay
Rookie
offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293
|
This image represents the typical mounting of a camera to the center of the chest on th astronaut's space suit:
Nasa Source
Now THIS image shows a shot that should be an impossible vantage point to achieve from the moon:
NASA Source
The shot was NOT taken from the ladder of the lander. In the reflection of the mask, you can see the photographer standing on the ground. The ground is FLAT - that's why they landed there: landers LIKE flat landing spots. So if the photographer was standing on flat ground with a camera mounted in the center of his chest, "how on Earth" is it possible to take a photo that appears to be angled down from above the head of the subject? Or could it be that, indeed, the photo was taken on Earth..?
The following caption accompanies the bottom image on NASA's website:
"Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., lunar module pilot, walks on the surface of the Moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" during the Apollo 11 exravehicular activity (EVA). Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, took this photograph with a 70mm lunar surface camera. While astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" to explore the Sea of Tranquility region of the Moon, astronaut Michael Collins, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia" in lunar orbit."
|
02-27-2003 11:47 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
esskay
Rookie
offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293
|
Another point of contention:
NASA Source
This is the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander, lovingly christened the "Eagle". Note how placidly it sits in the cold-hearted grip of the moon's gravity. Funny - to look at the image, one might not guess that perhaps only minutes, certainly no more than hours ago, that lander was firing a powerful retro-rocket down at the surface of the moon in order to decelerate and perform a nice "gentle" landing. Sure, nice and gentle for the two passengers, but the moon itself would have been blasted all to hell by a liquid-fueled rocket - so why is there no indication of a blast area? In fact, there's no indication that the soild beneath the lander has been disturbed in the slightest. How is this possible? There are DOZENS of lunar lander photos that replicate this phenomenon..
More nice, fluffy moon-dirt, also Apollo 11:
NASA Source
Captioned, "First EVA picture. Neil's first frame in a pan taken west of the ladder. Jettison bag under the Descent Stage, south footpad, bent probe, strut supports. The view is more or less up-Sun, so we are seeing the shadowed faces of boulders. There is a fair-sized crater ESE of the footpad which is probably East Crater which Neil will visit at the end of the EVA. 20 July 1969."
Even better:
Same source as above
Captioned, "Shows the area under the Descent Stage, including the jettison bag. Neil turned to his right to take this photo while waiting for Buzz to get farther out of the cabin."
How kind of Neil to so clearly demonstrate the point here for us.
|
02-28-2003 12:07 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
[7]
Veteran
offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location: Inside the Matrix
Posts: 475
|
I googled this topic up and ran across some interesting sites. This is a list of problems documented from the website http://www.santabanta.com/newsmaker...Read&select=772
1. Temperature: When Neil Armstrong took his small step for man, it would have been around 130 degrees celsuis in the sunlit places and -40 degree in the shadows. Would the photo film which captured his giant leap have survived without snapping or melting? And wouldn?t the visor have cracked if they had been partly in the sun and partly in the shadows?
2. Landscape: The Moon landscape, as seen in the pictures, darkens towards infinity. This would happen on Earth. But how can it happen on the Moon which doesn?t boast of an atmosphere?
3. Flag: Most pictures and other filmed footage, which NASA has released, seem to show the American flag fluttering. How was this possible when there`s no atmosphere or wind on the Moon?
4. Shadows: Although the only source of light was supposed to be the Sun, many Moon photos show shadows which are not parallel. This suggests a much closer light source. Some photos show two light sources. In fact, all the photos look very much as though they were taken in the dark using very bright spotlights.
5. Stars: No stars are visible in the NASA pictures. Stars are not visible on Earth during daytime because sunlight is scattered by particles in the atmosphere. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, so why don?t we see the stars?
6. Sun Angle: The angle at which the Sun is seen vis-a-vis the horizon has come in for question. For instance, in this example from Apollo 11, the Sun was shown to be at 10 degrees above the horizon but the shadows depict 30 degrees or so.
7. Rocks: Does the Moon boast of no other kind of rock than those that are already available on Earth, or that which can be generated here? If it does, why hasn?t NASA produced them ?
8. Footprints: The Lunar dust is totally dry. Yet the footprints look much like footprints on Earth. The moisture in the soil holds it together. On the Moon, however, the dust would not cling together, and any footprints would surely be much less well-defined?
9. Dust: There is no dust on the rocks in the Moon pictures. Since there is no air on the Moon, shouldn?t there be just as much dust on the rocks as on the rest of the surface, since there is nothing to blow it away?
10. Visor: One of the Apollo 11 pictures shows the reflection of two astronauts in the visor of a third astronaut. Was there ever supposed to be more than two people on the Moon at the same time?
11. Under The Module: There is no crater or sign of disturbance under the Lunar Module. Wouldn?t the rockets have blown the dust and rocks away and produced a crater?
12. Gravity: There is six times less gravity on the Moon than on Earth. Amstrong & Co would have had to stamp six times harder while walking. Yet, no photo supports this.
|
06-15-2003 10:27 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
[7]
Veteran
offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location: Inside the Matrix
Posts: 475
|
and the official nasa responses:
1. The space suits were water-cooled and were made using aerosol spray techniques.
2. The exposures were set to work with the brightly-lit surface and astronauts only.
3. Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. Astronauts twisted the pole back and forth in order to stick it into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag to flutter.
4. If there was more than one light source because spotlights were used, then why do we not see more than one shadow on everything?
5. Sunlight was so strong it overpowered the light from the stars.
6. On flat ground the shadow`s length and direction depends on the position of the sun alone. But once there is a slope on the ground the shadow gets longer. Also, if the slope was at an angle towards us, the shadow would extend that way too.
7. Of course they are diffrent than Earth rocks. They do not have any moisture in them.
8. Dust particles are smaller and much more irregular and don`t have any weathering to smooth them off. When compressed, say by a boot, the dust particles will grip with each other very readily, and retain the shape.
9. Due to lack of air, dust falls down quicker on the moon than on Earth in spite of less gravity.
10. The Hasselblad cameras were mounted on the chest pack on the space suit. You can easily see the camera reflection in the visor.
11. The lander`s rocket was not at full thrust when it landed, Armstrong throttled it back all the way down as the lander approached the surface. Secondly they did not land vertically, the module skidded for some distance gently.
12. Space suits were extremely heavy, didn?t allow them to jump in spite of less gravity.
|
06-15-2003 10:27 AM
|
|
|
| |
<
>
Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.08657789 seconds (91.01% PHP - 8.99% MySQL) with 48 queries.
|
|
|
|
?!?! i'd rather live in denial thinking that only the pictures were a crock, and everything else was fine. 
