OT: NASA Loses Moon Landing Video

[Turk]

intelligence was well aware of the impending attack on pearl harbor but it was allowed to happen so the u.s. could declare war on japan.

You seriously underestimate the idiots employed in military intelligence, or any intelligence service for that matter.

As for the craters, maybe it blew loads of surface sand and grit away to reveal...MORE sand and grit.

 

[617ricky]

1) When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. There is no wind on the Moon.

The flag is held up by a horizontal bar and simply moves when it is unfurled and as the pole is being fixed into position by the astronauts. The flagpole is light, flexible aluminium and continues to vibrate after the astronauts let go, giving the impression of blowing in the wind.

2) No stars are visible in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon.

The Apollo landing takes place during lunar mornings, with the Sun shining brightly. Exposure time on the cameras is set very rapid so as not to let in too much light and obscure detail. The stars, whilst being visible to the naked eye on the Moon, are not bright enough to be captured in the photographs.

3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.

The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull.

4) The landing module weighs 17 tons and yet sits on top of the sand making no impression. Next to it astronauts’ footprints can be seen in the sand.

The layer of lunar dust is fairly thin, so the landing module sits on the solid rock. The dust, whilst blown away by the blast from the descent engines, quickly settles back on the ground and is under the astronauts when they begin their moonwalk.

5) The footprints in the fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, as if made in wet sand.

The lack of wind on the moon means the footprints in fine, dry lunar dust aren’t blown away in the way they would be if made in a similar substance on Earth.

6) When the landing module takes off from the Moon’s surface there is no visible flame from the rocket.

The rockets in the landing module are powered by fuel containing a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, which burn with no visible flame.

7) If you speed up the film of the astronauts walking on the Moon’s surface they look like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down.

The best you can say is: yes, a bit, but not really.

8) The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt.

This claim is largely based on a claim from a Russian cosmonaut. The short time it takes to pass through the belt, combined with the protection from the spacecraft, means any exposure to radiation would be very low.

9) The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.

Some Moon rocks have been found on Earth, but they are all scorched and oxidised from their entry into the Earth’s atmosphere as asteroids. Geologists have confirmed with complete certainty that the Apollo rocks must have been brought from the Moon by man.

10) All six Moon landings happened during the Nixon administration. No other national leader has claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, despite 40 years of rapid technological development.

This is a favourite among conspiracy theorists because it needs no evidence but points the finger at the presidency of Richard Nixon. The fact is that after the Apollo landings, the race had been won and the money dried up. The USSR has no interest in coming second, and politicians on both side realised that lower-orbit missions had much greater commercial and military potential.

 

[whiteknucks]

ricky, do you have an answer for the six year old? my daughter was wondering.

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.

The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull.

4) The landing module weighs 17 tons and yet sits on top of the sand making no impression. Next to it astronauts’ footprints can be seen in the sand.

The layer of lunar dust is fairly thin, so the landing module sits on the solid rock. The dust, whilst blown away by the blast from the descent engines, quickly settles back on the ground and is under the astronauts when they begin their moonwalk.

.

Bro bro bro... come on man, You just stated the lunar landed on a big ass rock covered in dust and what not. Then you said it blew the dust away while landing.... only to have the dust settle back down after the lunar was still.
Ok.... number one - there are little tiny pebbles and sand and dust on the ground directly after the thing lands. The pics prove that. May i ask you how did little pebbles settle back down like dust? Pebbles blow away.. .not float around and settle back down. The dirt and rocks shown thrown by the rover prove that. Also, how does dust and pebbles and rocks settle directly back down after there is a big ass lunar Mod above it? Did they float through the lunar somehow and land under it? Did they curve around it and land under it?
Rocks and pebbles do not float around and then settle back to ground. They are thrown and land. Ok... have you noticed ALL the pics of the Luars landing pods? NONE OF THEM HAVE DUST ON THEM. NONE. HOW? If your theory is correct and all that dust settled back down then why didnt any land on the landing gear? Are they covered with some kind of 1960s rain-x ? Dust-x?Nothing could have flown and landed right back under a mega ton Lunar sitting right above it. Nothing did.
See... i can pick right through every other thing you posted just the same... but you will just argue to something even more ridiculous. Im telling you.... COMMON sense will answer this question. No this bla bla that bla bla... dust was there... pebbles where there because there was NOTHING to blast them away. Thats just how it is.
You know it... you just wont admit it.

 

[Bilbo]

Ok... have you noticed ALL the pics of the Luars landing pods? NONE OF THEM HAVE DUST ON THEM. NONE. HOW?

Dust would need atmosphere, moisture, and more gravity to get stuck on the equipment. Some dust would no doubtedly have landed directly on the equipment and stayed. Just because its not visible doesn't mean its not there. Conditions are different on the moon. Its not like earth at all, and pictures don't show you everything.

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

Dust would need atmosphere, moisture, and more gravity to get stuck on the equipment. Some dust would no doubtedly have landed directly on the equipment and stayed. Just because its not visible doesn't mean its not there. Conditions are different on the moon. Its not like earth at all, and pictures don't show you everything.

Yeah i know the pictures do not show everything.... like the wires that suspended the astronauts on the set.... the film producers behind the scenes. The scripts the astronauts read from. The lift that set the Lunar down in the movie set so it wouldnt get all dirty for the pictures. The photographers that took the pics because there is no way chest mounted cams took those quality photos. Yeah bro, i agree .... the pics dont show everything.

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

Ok...i have some questions about the History channels full coverage of the Apollo 11 mission.
First... if you watched it... you will know exactly what im talking about.
It shows Buzz and Armstrong getting off the lunar Mod.... while they are running around filming... there is only light in one place! It looks exactly like a spot light just to the left of the screen. None of the back ground is lit and none to the right and none to the left. Just one big light source that is shining directly on the Lunar Mod and ONLY the places they filmed.
How is this possible?

Also, they got off the Lunar at 10:41pm. The didnt get back on until 22 hours later yet the shadows are EXACTLY the same place... 22 hours later. No movement. How is that possible? If you stand out side for more then 5 minutes the shadow will move. Why not on the moon? Did they forget to move the studio spotlight accordingly?

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

A direct quote from Neil Armstrong during a public speech in 1994 with President Clinton .... at the end of his speech was says -

“There are wonders beyond belief, there are truths to be reveled if one can remove ones protective layers”

Wtf are the "truths" to be reveled? Who is the protective layers that hold that truth back?

Hmmmm i for one know exatly what he meant.

Also at the first of the speech he says the astronauts compared the "birds".. parrots to be exact, and he said parrots dont fly very well... but what else.... they REPEAT what they are told.
Ha ha ha.. seems ol Armstrong is about to break.

I cant wait.

 

[Newman]

Dust would need atmosphere, moisture, and more gravity to get stuck on the equipment. Some dust would no doubtedly have landed directly on the equipment and stayed. Just because its not visible doesn't mean its not there. Conditions are MAGICALLY different on the moon. Its not like earth at all (it's made of green cheese), and pictures don't show you everything.Movie sets don't show you everything either...

That's silly.

Why would the dust need moisture & atmosphere to stick to stuff?

Granted that earths' deserts have atmospheres, but dust settles on dry surfaces...

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

Dust would need atmosphere, moisture, and more gravity to get stuck on the equipment. Some dust would no doubtedly have landed directly on the equipment and stayed. Just because its not visible doesn't mean its not there. Conditions are different on the moon. Its not like earth at all, and pictures don't show you everything.

If thats your answer... then explain all the video of Houston asking Armstrong to show them his boots.... and guess what? There is dust/dirt caked all over them. How can it stick to him running around everywhere but nothing sticks to the LM?

 

[617ricky]

If thats your answer... then explain all the video of Houston asking Armstrong to show them his boots.... and guess what? There is dust/dirt caked all over them. How can it stick to him running around everywhere but nothing sticks to the LM?

I think you just answered your own question.. He was "running around everywhere", and took 1000's of steps, pushing his boots into the dust and pulling them back out with each step, giving the dust a chance to coat the portions of his boots that were continually pressed into the ground.. The LM gently plopped down onto the surface ONE time and stayed in the same position.. There were no parts of the lander that went down into the sand and came back out, in the manner a person's boot would as they take steps..

No matter how hard you look, you are not gonna find any concrete fact that proves we didn't go to the moon, cuz those facts do not exist.. What's funny tho is the multiple IRREFUTABLE facts supporting that we did land on the moon..

 

[VanR__]

8) The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt.

This claim is largely based on a claim from a Russian cosmonaut. The short time it takes to pass through the belt, combined with the protection from the spacecraft, means any exposure to radiation would be very low.

So the spacecraft had a lead layer built into it?
And the Van Allen belt is well known of and it's dangers by the entire scientific community, not just one Russian. The 'claim' is who discovered it first. The US or USSR.

 

[tkav1980]

please read. Info on van allen belt radiation.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_apollo_astronauts_get_past_the_van_allen_belt

 

[tkav1980]

So the spacecraft had a lead layer built into it?
And the Van Allen belt is well known of and it's dangers by the entire scientific community, not just one Russian. The 'claim' is who discovered it first. The US or USSR.

Prior to the Space Age, the possibility of trapped charged particles had been investigated by Kristian Birkeland, Carl Størmer, and Nicholas Christofilos.[1] The existence of the belt was confirmed by the Explorer 1 and Explorer 3 missions in early 1958, under Dr James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. The trapped radiation was first mapped out by Sputnik 3, Explorer 4, Pioneer 3 and Luna 1.

 

[617ricky]

So the spacecraft had a lead layer built into it?

So you're saying that solid lead is the only thing that can shield against radiation? You should go research that one again, as plain old WATER will shield from radiation, which I think was used with Apollo, since I read something stating "250 lbs radiation protection water" for the command module.. Regardless of what they used, they knew radiation was a threat, and they accounted for it, making the craft safe accordingly..

And the Van Allen belt is well known of and it's dangers by the entire scientific community, not just one Russian. The 'claim' is who discovered it first. The US or USSR.

Yes the dangers were known to the entire scientific community, but it says the CLAIM that radiation would have been deadly can be attributed to the Russian.. And it's a bogus claim at that.. Go read all about the radiation risks with Apollo, and the protection taken..

The link is here - **broken link removed**
Here's an excerpt - Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions.

 

[Bilbo]

That's silly.

Why would the dust need moisture & atmosphere to stick to stuff?

Granted that earths' deserts have atmospheres, but dust settles on dry surfaces...

Its silly that you should have to ask that.
Theres often an electrical exchange required for things to stick to one another. If not that, then moisture. For either two you need atmosphere. Yes dust will settle on top of a surface, as long as it is directly on top. This makes gravity the only thing holding the dust to the surface. A slight decline or movement and the dust goes.

Also, conditions are not MAGICALLY different on the moon when compared to earth. They are VASTLY different. Everyone knows this.

 

[Bilbo]

Bro bro bro... come on man, You just stated the lunar landed on a big ass rock covered in dust and what not. Then you said it blew the dust away while landing.... only to have the dust settle back down after the lunar was still.
Ok.... number one - there are little tiny pebbles and sand and dust on the ground directly after the thing lands. The pics prove that. May i ask you how did little pebbles settle back down like dust? Pebbles blow away.. .not float around and settle back down. The dirt and rocks shown thrown by the rover prove that. Also, how does dust and pebbles and rocks settle directly back down after there is a big ass lunar Mod above it? Did they float through the lunar somehow and land under it? Did they curve around it and land under it?
Rocks and pebbles do not float around and then settle back to ground. They are thrown and land. Ok... have you noticed ALL the pics of the Luars landing pods? NONE OF THEM HAVE DUST ON THEM. NONE. HOW? If your theory is correct and all that dust settled back down then why didnt any land on the landing gear? Are they covered with some kind of 1960s rain-x ? Dust-x?Nothing could have flown and landed right back under a mega ton Lunar sitting right above it. Nothing did.
See... i can pick right through every other thing you posted just the same... but you will just argue to something even more ridiculous. Im telling you.... COMMON sense will answer this question. No this bla bla that bla bla... dust was there... pebbles where there because there was NOTHING to blast them away. Thats just how it is.
You know it... you just wont admit it.

The powerful engine of the Lunar Module should have produced a blast crater, yet there is no evidence of a blast crater in any of the Apollo photographs.
Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle.

When one considers these facts the truth becomes obvious - The exhaust stream was not powerful enough or centralized enough to displace the regolith and blast out a crater. In this Apollo 11 photograph [see photo] one can see some discoloration and a general lack of dust, which was mostly blown away. After the dust was removed a hard surface was exposed.

A large amount of dust was generated during the landings, yet no dust can be seen on the Lunar Module footpads.
This thinking draws on our common experience from Earth but, as we all know, the Moon is not the Earth. If wind picks up dust on Earth we get billowing clouds that tend to settle all over everything. This occurs because the Earth has an atmosphere. The Moon has no atmosphere so any dust that was blown by engine exhaust would follow a simple ballistic trajectory and fall immediately back to the surface. The dust would be blown outward away from the LM, thus the lack of dust on the footpads is exactly what we would expect to see.

 

[Bilbo]

The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.

Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.

This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene's assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.

The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.
Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the Lunar Module's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.

Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennae. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.

There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.

The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.

Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.

The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly underexposed example [see photo]. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, and practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prepared for a job than the Apollo astronauts.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.

Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.

There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.

This Apollo 17 photograph [see photo] is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.

Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

This photograph [see photo], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

Apollo 11 footage shows the astronauts' shadows increasing and decreasing in length as they move about. This is because they are in close proximity to a large artificial light source that causes their shadows to change as they move toward or away from the light.

This claim comes from David Percy, who displays this image [see photo] on his Web site. A brief examination reveals that Percy's explanation cannot possibly account for the shadows. If the shadows were produced as described, then the closer an astronaut is to the light source, the shorter his shadow will be, which is just the opposite of what we see. Percy claims ground slope cannot explain the shadows because the terrain is essentially flat. On a large scale the Apollo 11 site was essentially flat, however there were local undulations in the ground surface. Since we are looking at a two-dimensional image we cannot see the slope of the ground, but we can infer it from the shadows. It appears the ground is sloping upward and away from left astronaut either to the top-left, the bottom-right, or a combination of both. Remember, shadows cast on a downward slope are lengthened, while those cast on an upward slope are shortened. It seems that a change in ground slope is the only feasible explanation for the shadows we see.

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example [see photo] of Heiligenschein.

Some Apollo photographs show mysterious lights in the shadowy background that appear to be studio spotlights.

The hoax advocates usually reference this photograph [see photo] because the lights bare a vague resemblance to studio spotlights, however there are many photographs, such as this one [see photo], where the same lights seem to contradict this hoax claim. There is no mystery as to the origin of these lights; they are lens flares. A lens flare is an image of the Sun reflecting back and forth between the lens elements of the camera. If you examine the photographs in which lens flares are found you will notice they all have a couple things in common. First, they are all taken with the camera pointing in the general direction of the Sun and, secondly, if you were to draw a line from the center of the photograph through the flares (they usually occur in pairs), the line will point in the direction of the Sun, which lies just outside the frame.


much much more here...
**broken link removed**

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

**broken link removed**

You know... this is getting no where as usual. Instead of posting things for you to explain (which i can pick apart everything posted and when i do, you will again pick apart everything i post and it never ends...)

Please just do one single thing - PROVE THEY LANDED ON THE MOON! PROVE IT! Everyone keep telling me to prove they didnt... Someone... ANYONE please show me PROOF we did land on the moon. There are a million things that point to the fact they didnt. Give me some things BESIDES "NASA SAID SO" .... or "NASA this... NASA that".
The video is NOT proof. I can replicate that video my self with a good amount of money and a studio to work in. The pics are no different. The rocks they brought back are not PROOF because you can go get them up north just like they did. Prove to me BEYOND anything to do with NASA and the junk they gave you as proof.

 

[Bilbo]

You know... this is getting no where as usual. Instead of posting things for you to explain (which i can pick apart everything posted and when i do, you will again pick apart everything i post and it never ends...)

Please just do one single thing - PROVE THEY LANDED ON THE MOON! PROVE IT! Everyone keep telling me to prove they didnt... Someone... ANYONE please show me PROOF we did land on the moon. There are a million things that point to the fact they didnt. Give me some things BESIDES "NASA SAID SO" .... or "NASA this... NASA that".
The video is NOT proof. I can replicate that video my self with a good amount of money and a studio to work in. The pics are no different. The rocks they brought back are not PROOF because you can go get them up north just like they did. Prove to me BEYOND anything to do with NASA and the junk they gave you as proof.

Exactly. Good point. Also, prove we didn't. Prove we did not land on the moon. You can't, all you can do is present the evidence that you chose to believe. And all I can do is present the evidence that I chose to believe. The only way to prove it is for all of us here to get together and take a trip to the moon. lol.

Want me to give NASA a call?