New NASA moon photos show landing sites, footprints etc

[PELHAM 10]

Apollo 17 LZ

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043

http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/M168000580R

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/454-Skimming-the-Moon.html

Remarkable new images of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon have been released by Nasa.

The pictures clearly show the hardware left on the lunar surface by American astronauts in the 1960s and 70s, including Apollo 17's "Moon buggy".

The images were acquired by the robotic Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which has been circling Earth's satellite since 2009.

Such shots have been returned before, but these are the best yet.

LRO has recently lowered its orbit from 50km above the Moon's surface to just 25km.

Looks like the conspiracy theories were nothing but.......

Edit: Also Apollo 12 site:

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/M168353795_25cm_ap12_area.png

Apollo 14 site:

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/M168319885_25cm_ap14_area.png

Edited September 6, 2011 by PELHAM

[dm 9]

Looks like the conspiracy theories were nothing but.......

As a firm believer that they actually did land on the moon, I'm gonna "inb4 OMG ITS PHOTOSHERPED!!1!11!!"

[PELHAM 10]

As a firm believer that they actually did land on the moon, I'm gonna "inb4 OMG ITS PHOTOSHERPED!!1!11!!"

Wait for it! Wait for it! :D

Nice big zoomable picture here:

http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/M168000580R

Edited September 6, 2011 by PELHAM

[soul_assassin 1750]

not saying one way or another but just to counter ur argument:

since LRO is a NASA mission, it would stand to reason that if they faked the moon landing, they could (and would) fake these images no?

also at 27 cm x 56 cm pixel size how in the hell did they see the footprint???

[PELHAM 10]

also at 27 cm x 56 cm pixel size how in the hell did they see the footprint???

Ummm it tells you under where it says 27x56cm pixel?

"What is visible in an image is not simply a matter of the size of a pixel projected onto the surface. Sun angle and direction are also important factors, as is the exposure level. When the Sun is high above the horizon differences in surface brightness are enhanced, and when the Sun is low, surface roughness is more obvious. Linear features are enhanced when they lie perpendicular to the direction of the Sun, and tend to disappear when parallel. When an image is underexposed or overexposed, contrast and detail suffer."

[icebreakr 3159]

This footprints and LRV as visible as a huge aircraft crashing into Pentagon :)

[Mr. Charles 22]

But the flag can't wave, as there is no wind on the moon! *rambleramble

[metalcraze 290]

Americans were 6 times on the moon. What's with some people and their retarded conspiracy theories?

But the flag can't wave, as there is no wind on the moon! *rambleramble

The lulzy bit is that the flag doesn't wave in the video

[Tonci87 163]

Whar speaks against the conspiracy theory: If they really would have faked the landing, then many people would be involved in this. The more people know a secret, the more unlikely it is to remain a secret. Sooner or later someone would talk. Moon landing conspiracy theory=impossible

[soul_assassin 1750]

Whar speaks against the conspiracy theory: If they really would have faked the landing, then many people would be involved in this. The more people know a secret, the more unlikely it is to remain a secret. Sooner or later someone would talk. Moon landing conspiracy theory=impossible

it doesnt matter, they all go in the looney bin. The retired NASA director of that time would now come forward and people would still laugh at him.

[JdB 151]

The more people know a secret, the more unlikely it is to remain a secret. Sooner or later someone would talk.

"Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead," Benjamin Franklin

I've read so many books recently that I can't remember which one it was that I read this in, but it basically said that:

Likeliness of a leak (percentage) = people involved² / 100

Which sounds about right. Having anything more than a dozen people working on a hoax of this magnitude creates an enormous risk of someone (inadvertently) shooting his mouth off to a wife, friend or co-worker. The average (non-Hollywood budget) movie set has dozens of people present at any time that are needed to create artwork, set it up, do lightning, special effects, costumes, make-up, operating cameras and microphones, directing, script-rewriting, aides etc. It's just not feasible to do all of this with just a handful of people and convince the vast majority of the public of the authenticity.

The retired NASA director of that time would now come forward and people would still laugh at him.

They could go back to the moon in a live broadcast, encounter an alien who first eats the cameraman in front of his own camera, after which ten of his friends show up to shove their extraterrestrial genitals in the remains to fornicate with them, and people would still be blaming NASA for the p*ss poor animating, cheap sound effects, badly researched sci-fi linguistics and ancient graphics "they should have hired DreamWorks instead".

You can't convince someone who hasn't got the intellectual capacity to accept anything other than his own beliefs. Just a waste of breath, time, money and effort.

Edited September 7, 2011 by JdB

[PELHAM 10]

Whar speaks against the conspiracy theory: If they really would have faked the landing, then many people would be involved in this. The more people know a secret, the more unlikely it is to remain a secret. Sooner or later someone would talk. Moon landing conspiracy theory=impossible

The rivals to the US in the space race were the USSR. If the moon landings were faked, the USSR would know about it and they would have told everyone to embarrass the US. That's the best evidence there is, you don't even have to look at a moon photo.

When the US beat them to 1st manned lunar orbit and 1st manned lunar landing the USSR cancelled their manned lunar space program and told everyone they weren't interested in going there in the first place. If it was faked they could have screamed fake, they didn't.

[Rovka 14]

I think this is quite an over-expensive holiday-greetingcard to send home..

Edited September 7, 2011 by Thani '82

[soul_assassin 1750]

When the US beat them to 1st manned lunar orbit and 1st manned lunar landing the USSR cancelled their manned lunar space program and told everyone they weren't interested in going there in the first place. If it was faked they could have screamed fake, they didn't.

actually the Soviets kept trying to launch a moon mission rocket (N1, without success) all the way up to 1972, well after the 1st lunar orbit and manned landing.

The rivals to the US in the space race were the USSR. If the moon landings were faked, the USSR would know about it and they would have told everyone to embarrass the US. That's the best evidence there is, you don't even have to look at a moon photo.

90% of politics is behind closed doors. What the public is shown is just a charade. Noone can know for certain. Until you and me fly to the moon together and see the lander and footprints by ourselves it will always remain a Schrödinger's cat to people like you and me.

Interestingly, the biggest conspiracy theories always have some people with the right background asking questions. Most of them aren't even arguing one way or another just saying "well hold on a second, something doesnt make sense". Perhaps it would be a better world if we were all like that.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Soul_Assassin

[That guy 10]

for some conspiracy theorists physically taking them to the moon and showing them the landing sites is not good enough proof :p

some people just need something to believe in. and honestly they could do a hell of alot worse than this

edit: i should also mention that those are some pretty cool pictures. its amazing just how small each of these expeditions were.its quite amazing

Edited September 7, 2011 by That guy

[jblackrupert 14]

The biggest conspiracy theories also just happen to have a DVD and Book on sale on Amazon.

[HyperU2 11]

ZOo6aHSY8hU

[Flash Thunder 10]

The moon landing has already been irrefutably proven to be a hoax.

This was all shot on a Hollywood set back in 1962.

To all you believers....

FPDR

[katipo66 94]

What you all on about? America would never lie about anything!

[jagheterjan 10]

The moon in its entirety is a fake.

/story

[[frl]myke 15]

About "flag moving":

hMBCfuKs9i8

[NoRailgunner 0]

Isn't it easier to believe in conspiracy theories or occultism instead of learning something?

[PELHAM 10]

@ [GLT] Myke

Great video - I have not seen that one. But what happens when you put a conspiracy theorist in a vacuum? lol Maybe without air pressure you would not be able to hear them talking nonsense?

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------

The Buzz Aldrin punch video

Bart Winfield Sibrel is a rather distasteful attention seeker. It's shameful that a man like Buzz Aldrin could be insulted like that.

http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

Edited September 7, 2011 by PELHAM

[dmarkwick 261]

also at 27 cm x 56 cm pixel size how in the hell did they see the footprint???

Not footprint, but footprints. As in, the accumulated effect of many footprints.

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

Buzz Aldrin punch video.

That was great :) I guess that asshole thought he was safe calling an old guy a liar & a coward (irony? ;)) but I guess Buzz is old-school :)

[b101_uk 10]

If the image scale is correct then the wheel track of the moon buggy is ~1.98m (~6'6") which is about right and what you would expect.