You are correct, Clementine did photograph the landing sites, though it had nowhere near the required resolution to clearly see LM descent stages or LRVs.
There are some planned missions in the coming years that will map the moon in much more detail.
What Clementine did show however, was signs of recent disturbance at landing sites where the LMs are reported to have landed.
This is by no means proof that an LM landed there, but it is quite strong evidence.
RDChemist
Unregistered User
(10/2/02 12:30 pm) Reply
HB's don't accept photos as proof
An Apollo lunar landing is one possible explanation for the clementine photograph. It can help to persuade some people like Raydeen who seem to be open to the evidence so far. However, the main staple of the hoax argument is that the photos have anomolies in them that seems to prove they've been faked (they don't). If they don't accept the Apollo photo's as proof already, how can we expect them to accept a photo taken from orbit to be proof (even if the apollo hardware were visible). I'm afraid it would fall on blind eyes and deaf ears.
the boss
Unregistered User
(10/2/02 3:17 pm) Reply
moon haox
when nasa looked at earth there data came back that it was unihabitable enough said ']
the boss
Unregistered User
(10/4/02 2:17 pm) Reply
appolo hoax
the point is there not as clever as they think they are
the boss
Unregistered User
(10/4/02 2:27 pm) Reply
clementine landing photos
never seen so much rubbish if we can take photos on mars down to a few meters and in a few years time down to 3 inches then why cant we take photos of the moon ?which show proper detail of the landing areas in stead of a blurred picture which could be anything and they even have to put arrows to show you where to look just in case you think it was a rock so lets get some proper pictures instead of all these mock up rubbish
I'm not going to dignify the rubbish that you just wrote with any kind of response, but I'll tell you to go back and actually read the thread.
Dave:
NASA will release news mid-October that they will be working on a new mission to return to the Moon....
Is this a manned mission or an unmanned?
Guess all you guys who kept telling me that they just didn't have the budget were completely wrong huh?
Depends whether it is unmanned or manned. If it is unmanned, I could counter that NASA has already been back to the moon since Apollo. Twice. Even if it is manned, it does not necessarily mean I am wrong.
Anyway, You asked the question of why they're not going back and why it would take so much money, I answered. You brought it up. Not me. This new point you bring up counters your own arguments, not mine.
Also, If you ask me that, I reckon it begs the question of just why the hell you asked why it would cost so much money and time to go back to the moon in first place.
BTW, Dave, about the title of your website: There is no "S" in Comic.
RDChemist
Unregistered User
(10/4/02 6:55 pm) Reply
Clementine photos
Boss,
Who's to say that NASA can't send a probe to take pictures of the moon at sufficient resolution to see the Apollo landing sites? Why would they? The moon has been extensively mapped from previous missions already (manned and unmanned). We haven't completed our exploration of Mars yet. I'm not sure why you're so concerned about seeing a picture of the landing from orbit anyway. None of the hoax believers will even accept Apollo photos taken from the surface of the moon as evidence. Why would NASA send a mission to the moon just to try and prove that the Apollo landings happened to a world that already knows it to be true? Talk about a waste of money.
the boss
Unregistered User
(10/8/02 6:11 pm) Reply
budget
here we go again the budget isnt 25 billion budget enough + what ever else they get for black projects why does everyone keep making excuses like we cant afford to go we dont have the budget we dont have the technolgy we need to look at mars what the hells going on weve been to the moon only a hand full of times and taken a few photos why wasnt the space station built on the moon ? whats the reason tell me its cheaper to build in the middle of space why didnt nasa allow tito to go into space with them all though he was a qualified astronaught we were told he may interfear with the mission what a crock of s@*t things are begining to get interesting with japan and other people getting ready to head to the moon or will they be warned off well we will have to see but ill almost guarantee they wont get there there craft will be got to
RDChemist
Unregistered User
(10/8/02 6:50 pm) Reply
About the budget
Boss, re-read my posts and consider them in light of the following points:
1) I never claimed that NASA wouldn't have the money to send a probe to take photos of the moon. I said it would be a WASTE of money.
2) Weight is still at a premium for space travel. Tito was not mission essential to constructing the space station, bringing it on line and a number of other duties and was not allowed to go by NASA. The Russian Space Agency was willing to overlook this in light of the large sum of money that Tito would bring to their program. He was far from qualified as an astronaut and needed to be trained for the joy ride.
3) To my knowledge, NASA has no black projects. If you strongly feel there are, you'll need to be more specific so we can investigate the relevant sources.
4) Building a station on the moon is technically and economically infeasible. This requires more structure, equipment, manpower and supplies than all the Apollo missions ever brought with them. This is expensive. An orbiting space station near earth can achieve similar objectives as a moon base would at a fraction of the cost to NASA. I hope moon bases are in the near future, but it would require more infrastructure. An orbiting space station is a step in the right direction.
Huh?
It's only partially a financial issue. The projects NASA chooses to spend money on have to be approved as being worthy of receiving that money. No approval, no money. NASA could send a spacecraft to the moon specifically to photograph Apollo remnants. That doesn't mean it will do so. Similarly, you could go and spend all of your money (or a significant proportion of it) on paper clips. Why haven't you done so? That's the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard.
As for putting a base on the moon, this would far exceed NASA's budgetary means. The US Government could perhaps afford to do so, but how much criticism would they receive if they announced that they were going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a programme to put a manned colony on the moon? Do you think they'd be so willing to just spend all of that money with very little public support? The situation is similar with your proposed mission to photograph Apollo remnants. It would just be foolish to spend several hundred million dollars and several years of development time on such a venture of little value.
Anyway, there are several upcoming missions that are going to photograph Apollo remnants. What's best of all about these missions is that they're not from NASA. In light of these circumstances, your point about NASA not having devised a mission capable of photographing Apollo remnants with enough optical resolution to satisfy you, is irrelevant. Why perform a mission that others are about to perform for you?
Why do you believe in the moon hoax?
the boss
Unregistered User
(10/9/02 8:20 pm) Reply
lol
well i heard nasa toilet roll budget was 20 million lol now theres a black project as for tito wieghing to much now ive heard it all you should be on stage your so funny
{1}why do i think the moon footage was faked well several reasons as soon as the come out of the lunar module the footage is fuzzy { this i beleive is the original footage} with a bit of radiation fogging then the fun begins same backgrounds different locations ohh sorry got the spools mudled i dont think so as things would be logged logged and logged again
{2} why is there only one single photo of the first step on the moon after all who has just one wedding photo {a} were they that confident that the phto would come out {b} just forgot to mock up a few more shots ']
{3} why is the american flag so prominant in all dark shadow shots magic illuminous flag may be
{4}what about the shaddows shadows are shadows from one light source wether candle torch moon or sun light cant bend so shadows all ways run paralel and before you say earth shine it would be minimal less than 20% on a reflected surface about the same as ashfelt {tarmac}
{5} every tried changing a tyre in boxing gloves well this would be the same as using space gloves so would make some things impossible also how were all photos in dead center with no view finder very clever {i am a proffestional photographer and even with to days slr lenses not all pics are dead centre
{6} how come some croos hairs appear behind the object when the crosshairs are on the lens impossible
And the debate continues...
Quite a heated little debate this is turning out to be.
Seeming that there is two threads to this debate, I'm going to try and answer the questions asked in this one post.
Andrew recently asked The Boss how the US Government would not spend money without the general publics support. Perhaps Andrew could keep an eye on the news as it is happening today! Lets put into perspective your question here... What about the current state in Iraq, where both the US and UK Governments are doing their damndest to try and pursued the voting public to believe the Government propoganda about chemical weapons and that we should all allow them to bomb the crap out of Iraq. Did the US Government get the publics vote to send troops to Iraq? NO! Is it just George Bush trying to clear up the mess that his father couldn't 10 years ago? YES Was the last US election fixed...YES! Has the US Government sent in troops to Iraq anyway in preparation for an attack... YES!
So your belief that the Government doesn't waste money without consulting the voters is utter rubbish.
Secondly, and now were back on topic! I agree that I was told that the blue sky filmed from the Apollo 13 module at a distance of 200,000 miles from Earth was explained by someone on the BA site. But I also have to bring to your attention that no evidence was shown me to prove this! Surely if this is a common occurence then one of your expert friends could forward me a photo showing the same phenomenon?
To put down in black and white what I believe as it stands today about the Apollo project....
I do not believe that the Apollo photos or movie footage are genuine for several reasons.
1. Backdrops seem to have been used as the same mountain ranges are in pictures allegedly taken at sites several Km away from each other.
2. As Boss said, why is there only one shot of Armstrong in existence?
3. NASA has the technology to send a probe to Mars which lands on the surface and takes soil samples (after many failed attempts), but cannot send a simple satellite to photograph our nearest planet?
4. People have said to me after I asked why haven't we been back that it is because of budget restraints. NASA has just announced that they are indeed going back to the Moon (a public release of this info will be made soon). So either the guys on BA are ill-informed or NASA has got a black budget in operation and thats where the money for this new project is being subsidized from!
5. Andrew believes that a Moonbase would not be viable within NASA's budget. Does he know that a moonbase was one of the original reasons for NASA constructing the Apollo project in the first place?
6. All I hear is excuses, excuses, excuses about why NASA cannot provide information to prove they went. You proved yourself, unwittingly that NASA aren't prepared and supposedly have not got the funds to go and photograph the Apollo artefacts, and yet your also saying that private companies can and are willing to do so! Tell me... whos richer than NASA? Who gets more funding? I'd be interested to know?
7. Whenever people such as myself find evidence such as the original LEM blueprints being destroyed (and this has been confirmed by members on BA) I'm told that they were not need. When I ask about why was there only a single photo of the first man on the Moon taken on the lunar surface, I'm told that 'it doesn't matter because Armstrong was the better photographer'. When I ask why the US flag shows up on a completely black side of the LEM which is totally covered in shadow I'm told 'it's reflective light'. Do you ever sit back and think how stupid these replies are?
What I'm trying to say is... you come onto a board like this and criticize my beliefs, but in reality people in your own camp come up with the stupidest of answers to try and cover NASA's back.
RD Chemists and Andrews belief that I wouldnt believe new pictures of the LEM and flag if they were taken today is complete guesswork. I've said before and I'll say it again... I'll believe the photos if they are clear enough and can be proven to be genuine. Its a bit like UFO pics... I dont believe everyone one of them just because they show a UFO!
Re:lol well i heard nasa toilet roll budget was 20 million lol now theres a black project as for tito wieghing to much now ive heard it all you should be on stage your so funny
I cannot decipher this sentence. Perhaps you could re-state it (them?) using proper punctuation.
{1}why do i think the moon footage was faked well several reasons as soon as the come out of the lunar module the footage is fuzzy { this i beleive is the original footage} with a bit of radiation fogging then the fun begins same backgrounds different locations ohh sorry got the spools mudled i dont think so as things would be logged logged and logged again
I don't know what you mean by "radiation fogging". I haven't noticed any radiation fogging in any Apollo film footage. Most of the footage is TV footage. Which means it was beamed back live to earth and would have been recorded on magnetic tape.
The footage was only really terrible for Apollo 11. After that it quickly improved as they were able to use a larger bandwidth and hence a higher quality signal. For example, the footage from the J-missions (Apollos 15-17) is fantastic.
{2} why is there only one single photo of the first step on the moon after all who has just one wedding photo {a} were they that confident that the phto would come out {b} just forgot to mock up a few more shots ']
There are no photos of the first step on the moon. The picture that is commonly cited as "The First Step" is infact Buzz Aldrin's footprint that he took as a soil mechanics experiment. There is at least two photos of this footprint. One of them has the footprint partially obscured by Buzz Aldrin's boot. This photo was taken well into the EVA, and quite a way from the lunar module.
{3} why is the american flag so prominant in all dark shadow shots magic illuminous flag may be
{4}what about the shaddows shadows are shadows from one light source wether candle torch moon or sun light cant bend so shadows all ways run paralel and before you say earth shine it would be minimal less than 20% on a reflected surface about the same as ashfelt {tarmac}
Shadows always run parallel, yes. However, they do not always appear to run parallel. Especially through a wide angled lens. Also, surface undulations affect the apparent directions in which shadows are cast.
Here's an analysis of some "non-parallel" shadows in Apollo lunar surface photography.
{5} every tried changing a tyre in boxing gloves well this would be the same as using space gloves so would make some things impossible also how were all photos in dead center with no view finder very clever {i am a proffestional photographer and even with to days slr lenses not all pics are dead centr
The point about space gloves: That is a completely ignorant thing to say. Have you not seen astronauts making repairs in orbit? You know, footage from the Space Shuttle? If fine motor control were impossible, how do you suggest that astronauts are capable of repairing the HST? Or building the ISS?
About the photos all being correctly framed: That is an utter fabrication. Some of the are correctly framed, but when you take 20,000 photos, some of them are bound to be. Some of them have been cropped to appear correctly framed. There exist many examples of poorly framed Apollo lunar surface photographs.
{6} how come some croos hairs appear behind the object when the crosshairs are on the lens impossible
Re:And the debate continues... Do you ever sit back and think how stupid these replies are?
What idiot asks "How could the rover's TV camera beam pictures back to the earth whilst it was moving" when in his "proof" video the TV camera is in the god-damn f***ing picture!!???
What moron makes the claim that NASA were able to maintain a geostationary low earth orbit?!
Who's the genius that claims that "...the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962.."?!
Operation Starfish Prime
Andrew,
Before you start accusing people of getting the facts wrong, perhaps you'd like to type in 'operation starfish prime' into your search engine. Then you could perhaps get a little educated about the nuclear explosion which the US Goverment carried out high up in Earths atmosphere!
I think what Boss is trying to explain is how the quality of picture during the first few minutes of the first EVA on Apollo 11 is really poor quality, foggy footage, which suddenly improves into a clear picture.
That was a very nice page you linked to about the US flag, but since when was light selective on which objects it lit up? are we talking about laser beams or sunshine?
Its apparent to me that Boss has brought up some good arguements, even if his grammer is not 100%. Its also apparent that both Andrew and RDChemist are starting to plead ignorance or claim to not understand his question when in reality they probably know very well what he's saying, but don't have an answer!
Please tell me where I said that the Apollo was in geostational orbit? I think your confusing this with a debate on BS - er BA about a spy satellite over Japan?
I agree that the ISS work has meant that astronauts have had to work outside with machinery and gloves. But, are they working with camera lenses or changing films in dusty surroundings? NO! The conditions on the Moon are completely different to those experienced whilst floating in space, so as you both like to say 'this scenario is irrelevant'.
BTW... Has that guy on BA managed to find Area 51 yet? enough said!
Cheers
Dave
RDChemist
Unregistered User
(10/10/02 1:23 pm) Reply
Point of clarification
I don't plead ignorance with your arguments. I've heard the arguments hundreds of times before and they have been addressed. If you feel that your arguments are still valid, you need to explain why. Primarily the photographic anomolies that are hyped up on this board have been explained and aren't really anomolies at all. The shadows and lighting have even been duplicated to prove this point in photographs taken on earth. The blue sky seen in Apollo 13 photos has been explained as light scattering. Light does this when in travels through a different medium (such as from vaccuum to glass) depending on the incidence angle (basic physics). Comparing a suit glove to a boxing glove is just plain ridiculous. Neither one of you have even looked into the design of the suit glove. Its obvious from your argument. It is also true that some of the LM blueprints have been destroyed. Not by NASA, but by Grumman most likely. All we have are the LM's that weren't launched and some schematic diagrams that illustrate the LM's design. This is where you might have benefited from some design experience. Each part has to be designed, approved, tested, validated, certified, etc, etc. This generates a lot of paper work which no longer needed to be kept around after Apollo was canceled due to budget cuts. I'm not sure why you're even concerned about the blue prints anyway. You obviously won't look at them. Even if you do you wouldn't understand them since you aren't a trained engineer. (There is a photographer posting here that doesn't even understand how to interpret photographs.) No this isn't guess work. This has been suggested by your previous behavior.
Your lack of research is even more suggestive with your interpretation of current and historical events. In reality the 2000 presidential election wasn't rigged. The voting process worked like it was suppose to. Just because some people in Miami-Dade aren't literate enough to follow the directions doesn't mean the whole system is flawed. There is majority support for a preemptive strike in Iraq, also. A democratic republic like the Unites States can't wage war effectively without public support (ie: Vietnam). It's not like Bush is going there because his father couldn't finish the job. The UN resolutions only called for Kuwait's liberation. Bush was in the perfect position to destroy Iraq's military and government. This is reality, but you would have us believe that NASA is cooking up black projects at Area 51. When I ask for evidence of this, the best thing I get is toilet paper. I use a lot of toilet paper also, maybe I'm in on the conspiracy.
--- Before you start accusing people of getting the facts wrong, perhaps you'd like to type in 'operation starfish prime' into your search engine. Then you could perhaps get a little educated about the nuclear explosion which the US Goverment carried out high up in Earths atmosphere!
Yes, I know what Starfish Prime was. It had nothing to do with "blowing a hole in the Van Allen Belt". Which is what you claim. Starfish prime was a 1.45 megaton device detonated at 248 miles altitude for the purposes of evaluating "....the capabilities of an antiballistic missile to operate in a nuclear environment and the vulnerability of a U.S. reentry vehicle to survive a nearby nuclear blast. It also provided information on the ability of a U.S. radar system to detect and track reentry vehicles. Another goal was to discern the effects of a high-altitude blast on command and control systems, which were shown to be vulnerable in earlier high-altitude tests. The final goal was to obtain information on the feasibility of testing in outer space."
Your characterisation of it is completely incorrect.
Its also apparent that both Andrew and RDChemist are starting to plead ignorance or claim to not understand his question when in reality they probably know very well what he's saying, but don't have an answer!
No, I genuinely could not understand the first sentence of Boss's last post. Notice that I responded to the rest of it.
Please tell me where I said that the Apollo was in geostational orbit? I think your confusing this with a debate on BS - er BA about a spy satellite over Japan?
Over on BA. You claimed that the TETR-A could have been used to fool mission controllers that they were receiving live telemetry from a moon bound spacecraft. Or was it that the Apollo spacecraft in low earth orbit could have done that? You were then told that it was impossible for that to happen because of the very infallibility of the laws of orbital mechanics. You then tried to point out that the person-who-pointed-this-out-to-you 's expertise was deficient by giving the alleged account of a "spy satellite" over Japan. You were also arguing at the same time that it was impossible for the Apollo craft to have been in geostationary orbit because the required altitiude is smack bang in the middle of the Van Allen Belt. What you argued is lethal to astronauts who dare venture into them.
If I am misrepresenting your arguments, forgive me. Perhaps you could gain some appreciation now of just how annoying it is to have your arguments misrepresented.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies