Apollo Images

[King of the Americas]

This is by far the BEST link I've ever found for Apollo images:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

I've only viewed about a 3rd of them by thumbnail, less than a hundred in full screen mode, and fewer than 50 in the high resolution mode the site offers.

After seeing what I have, I can start to understand why some think the whole thing was faked. We may have set probes, set down laser reflectors, or otherwise left equipment...but the pictures featured feel like they are or were taken from a 'small' place.

The horizon seems to stop prematurely, and there is a lack of background...no mountains, the 'hills' look like they are a few hundred meters away at most.

Stars are not apparent or appear as 'blue', if at all. Star fields are 'incomplete', if they appear at all.

The photos ARE interesting. I mean you are either looking at a huge 'movie set', or the actual Moon's surface... The line blurs sometimes, as you thumb through.

If you haven't had the opportunity, I highly recommend giving this site a once over.

WARNING- anomalies abound

[Ernie M]

There are excellent images on the Apollo Image Gallery (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html), including this one.

But how can you say some of the images seem faked?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_227154a67cd670b641.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17025)
Photo credit: NASA AS11-40-5927
Scan credit: JSC scan
Special appearance by: James "The Amazing" Randi

[rjh01]

Yes, I mean anything supervised by James Randi must be real.

[sts60]

After seeing what I have, I can start to understand why some think the whole thing was faked. We may have set probes, set down laser reflectors, or otherwise left equipment...but the pictures featured feel like they are or were taken from a 'small' place.
That's because you're used to Earth-based cues.
The horizon seems to stop prematurely, and there is a lack of background...no mountains, the 'hills' look like they are a few hundred meters away at most.
Again, lack of familiar cues. I've seen the effect in an unfamiliar place (a glacier field). The pilot that set us down asked us how far we thought some certain mountain features were. None of our group guessed over 1/4 of the actual distance.
Stars are not apparent or appear as 'blue', if at all. Star fields are 'incomplete', if they appear at all.
There are no stars visible in lunar surface photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts; they are not visible at the exposure settings used for the daylight photography. If you're seeing anything that looks like a star, it's most likely a reproduction defect.
The photos ARE interesting. I mean you are either looking at a huge 'movie set', or the actual Moon's surface... The line blurs sometimes, as you thumb through.

If you haven't had the opportunity, I highly recommend giving this site a once over.

WARNING- anomalies abound
I've seen many so-called "anomalies" claimed. All of them to date are simply misinterpretations.

[dropzone]

(important points(If I may respond to several of them, what killed me was how clear the atmosphere was. You cannot get that on Earth.

However, regarding your avatar, your insistence on complying with The Law has left me downloading CGA clones elsewhere! ;)

[FramerDave]

This is by far the BEST link I've ever found for Apollo images:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

I've only viewed about a 3rd of them by thumbnail, less than a hundred in full screen mode, and fewer than 50 in the high resolution mode the site offers.

After seeing what I have, I can start to understand why some think the whole thing was faked. We may have set probes, set down laser reflectors, or otherwise left equipment...but the pictures featured feel like they are or were taken from a 'small' place.

The horizon seems to stop prematurely, and there is a lack of background...no mountains, the 'hills' look like they are a few hundred meters away at most.

Stars are not apparent or appear as 'blue', if at all. Star fields are 'incomplete', if they appear at all.

The photos ARE interesting. I mean you are either looking at a huge 'movie set', or the actual Moon's surface... The line blurs sometimes, as you thumb through.

If you haven't had the opportunity, I highly recommend giving this site a once over.

WARNING- anomalies abound

Well, yes, the pictures were taken from a small place. The moon. Its diameter is about 1/4 of Earth's, so the horizon appears much closer than it does here. The moon has no atmosphere, and therefore there is none of the usual hazing and blurring that we associate with distant objects, so they do appear closer. The cameras used were set to take exposures in a very bright environment; stars aren't going to show up in the photos.

Seriously, this is all very elementary stuff and has been hashed out ad nauseum. If you really think the whole thing was faked you're either colossaly stupid or willfully ignorant. Or maybe both.

[King of the Americas]

That's because you're used to Earth-based cues.

Agreed, but I have been at sea, in the desert, on the plains, and even in the Rockies.

Again, lack of familiar cues. I've seen the effect in an unfamiliar place (a glacier field). The pilot that set us down asked us how far we thought some certain mountain features were. None of our group guessed over 1/4 of the actual distance.

My fist time on a golf course, I suffered this problem. Everything looked really close. Without lines every 5 yards, everything looked like a yard. At sea, you can see a good 3 miles, at or near 5 feet above sea level.

There are no stars visible in lunar surface photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts; they are not visible at the exposure settings used for the daylight photography. If you're seeing anything that looks like a star, it's most likely a reproduction defect.

Possibly...it could be a planet, or possibly some of the brighter stars. Look through ALL the images, 'some' stars DO make the exposure requirements.

I've seen many so-called "anomalies" claimed. All of them to date are simply misinterpretations.

One 'anomaly' features what appears to be some slightly smeared across the lens, Apollo 16, I think, at the end of the real. There's no moisture there, what would cause a 'smear'?

[Ernie M]

King of the Americas, get some glasses.

(please log in to be able to see photo.)



http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=230&pictureid=1360
Photo credit: NASA JSC2002E01692
with alterations by Ernie M

[iiwo]

Just a couple things:

1). The horizon: it should indeed appear to be closer than you expect. The Moon is significantly smaller than the Earth. I'm not going to do the trig right now to figure out how much closer, but it should be very noticeably different. (Google may already have done this...go look it up if you're curious).

2). In addition to this forum, there are a few other very good resources on the internet with an absolute ton of information available in a well organized fashion. Please see:

Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) (hosted by Dr. Phil Plait), a collection of information regarding many of the 'anomalies' you mention above.

Moon Base Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) What might be called the encyclopedia of Moon landing information and dis information. The site author is deeply familiar with the Apollo missions.

Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums (http://www.bautforum.com/) A discussion board related to Universe Today and Bad Astronomy websites with countless threads regarding every point you hit on in your OP and more. I recommend the search function, or just scroll through the various topics. In addition to myself and a number of other plebians from this fora, there are more than a few extremely intelligent and knowledgeable scientists, engineers, and other such folk involved on that fora. (If memory serves, at least one astronaut is also a member).

Hope that helps, will post again if I remember any others.

[I Ratant]

KotA is as vigilant a hoax detector as any Holocaust denier on that subject, and equally immune to fact and reality.

[Ashles]

I've always thought the "You can't see any/all the stars in the background" criticism was one of the silliest of the very silly bunch.

Like they would create this colossal, elaborate hoax and then... forget to paint the background. :rolleyes:

[Greg_in_CO]

Not another "I'm just asking the questions. . ." denier

[Ashles]

WARNING- anomalies abound

Please list what you believe to the three 'most inexplicable' anomalies.

[leafman91]

KotA is as vigilant a hoax detector as any Holocaust denier on that subject, and equally immune to fact and reality.(emboldening by me)

Run the bit in bold by me again...

[Soapy Sam]

After seeing what I have, I can start to understand why some think the whole thing was faked. We may have set probes, set down laser reflectors, or otherwise left equipment...but the pictures featured feel like they are or were taken from a 'small' place.

The horizon seems to stop prematurely, and there is a lack of background...no mountains, the 'hills' look like they are a few hundred meters away at most.

Stars are not apparent or appear as 'blue', if at all. Star fields are 'incomplete', if they appear at all.

The photos ARE interesting. I mean you are either looking at a huge 'movie set', or the actual Moon's surface... The line blurs sometimes, as you thumb through.

If you haven't had the opportunity, I highly recommend giving this site a once over.

WARNING- anomalies abound

I see nothing in this post to suggest KotA accepts the "Moon hoax" CT.
The OP seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's exactly these features, misinterpreted by our lifelong expectations of terrestrial scale that led honest people to genuinely doubt the reality of the location. They DO "feel" wrong.
The failure of imagination and understanding - that photos on a smaller world obviously ought to "feel " wrong- was perhaps something NASA should have aticipated when they published the pictures.
Once that happened, others fell into line and the whole CT thing snowballed. The psychology is fascinating- and maybe in some ways as interesting as the moon flight itself.

[Hindmost]

This thread does not belong in the "General Skepticism and the Paranormal" section.

glenn

[Safe-Keeper]

Again, lack of familiar cues. I've seen the effect in an unfamiliar place (a glacier field). The pilot that set us down asked us how far we thought some certain mountain features were. None of our group guessed over 1/4 of the actual distance.Also, you can easily travel great distances without realizing it. I've been to the Norwegian tundra. It's basically hilly, without trees, and the only terrain features are small rocks and various kinds of small berry bushes and whatnot. This makes it very hard for newcomers to accurately judge distance, and you can easily walk for a few minutes at a brisk pace, turn around, and be astounded by how far away and tiny the cabin looks all of a sudden.

Pictures:
http://www.nord-aurdal.kommune.no/vestringsbygda/images/lyng.jpg
http://www.nord-aurdal.kommune.no/vestringsbygda/images/Image17.jpg

We're used to having houses, cars, lamp posts, trees and whatnot with which to measure the scale and distance of the terrain around us. Without them, we're so easily at a loss that it's funny.

I've always thought the "You can't see any/all the stars in the background" criticism was one of the silliest of the very silly bunch.

Like they would create this colossal, elaborate hoax and then... forget to paint the background.Rule #1 of Conspiracy Theories: They (there's always a they) are always at the same time ingenious, rich and ruthless enough to create a hoax of world historic proportions, and colossally stupid.

WARNING- anomalies aboundTranslation: "WARNING: conditions on other celestial bodies may differ from those on Earth."

Who knew:boggled:.

ETA: Ernie M, please make us a picture of the Moon and lander with a movie set worker in the background. You know, blue cap, rope over shoulder, etc. :D

[NobbyNobbs]

Originally Posted by sts60
That's because you're used to Earth-based cues. Agreed, but I have been at sea, in the desert, on the plains, and even in the Rockies.

Umm....which of those are not Earth-based cues?

[Dr. Galen]

Great site!

I love this one as bait for conspiracy theorists:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-51-7501.jpg

I had a momentary head scratch before I reread the caption and looked closely at the hi-res. :o

[Safe-Keeper]

What's the bait? That someone is out there taking pictures of the lunar lander?

[King of the Americas]

KotA is as vigilant a hoax detector as any Holocaust denier on that subject, and equally immune to fact and reality.

:O

I'm immune to facts and reality...???

When faced with 'facts' that counter my original argument, I thought I had a 'good' track record of changing my stance.

"I Ratant", I accuse you of falsifying the record!

[King of the Americas]

Please list what you believe to the three 'most inexplicable' anomalies.

First, I'd like to ask why are all the photos taken at the same time of day, Moon time.

Why isn't it ever high noon? Most of the shadows of rocks, the LEM, and the astronauts are 'relatively' similar...

Secondly, I didn't say I found ANY of the anomalies 'inexplicable', and I can't say I do now either.

Lastly, I am NOT a Moon Mission total denier, I just have some questions about some of the Apollo images.

[Safe-Keeper]

First, I'd like to ask why are all the photos taken at the same time of day, Moon time.They aren't, and I don't understand why you ask.

[Hokulele]

First, I'd like to ask why are all the photos taken at the same time of day, Moon time.


Because one Moon day equals 29+ Earth days.

[Dr. Galen]

What's the bait? That someone is out there taking pictures of the lunar lander?

No sorry, I meant that it's flying not grounded. When I first looked at that image (as a thumbnail) I thought it was supposed to be on the moon's surface and someone pasted it on (scale, no shadow etc.) but then realized it's flying or hovering or whatever the proper term is. I know, totally stupid perception which is why I thought it was kind of funny. "Bait" was probably not the best choice of words either. Sorry.

[Safe-Keeper]

No sorry, I meant that it's flying not grounded.Oh, but you're right, it is landed. You're looking at the scale model of the Moon that NASA built and used for test landings:).

Here you can see it perched atop its home mountain, securely bolted to the ground:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2006/11/06/0001217360/paranalMoonset_gillet_c.jpg

[I Ratant]

:O

I'm immune to facts and reality...???

When faced with 'facts' that counter my original argument, I thought I had a 'good' track record of changing my stance.

"I Ratant", I accuse you of falsifying the record!
.
All I've ever noticed from the many threads on imaginary coverups you start is a delving into the deeper and deeper sources of woo as your various hysterical claims get shot down.

[Dr. Galen]

Here you can see it perched atop its home mountain, securely bolted to the ground:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2006/11/06/0001217360/paranalMoonset_gillet_c.jpg

That must be Mt. Tamalpais since they rolled the moon model over the GG Bridge (http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/03/05/ba-144_moonshot_0499837437.jpg)?

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, thanks, I've been looking for that moon moving picture:)!

[King of the Americas]

Umm....which of those are not Earth-based cues?

I get it, we're looking at another world. EVERYTHING is going to appear different.

Even on Earth, mine eyes HAVE fooled me greatly when it comes to judging distances.

I guess I could argue that my 'sea-based' experience isn't terra-firma based, but it would still be an "Earthly-based" cue.

When I first viewed the images, what struck me most, was how 'small' everything appears. After reviewing most of them, I did some research on the Moon's size. For some reason, I had 1/3rd the Earth's size stuck in my head. Boy was I WRONG.

The Moon is 3,500 km in diameter. The Earth, by comparison, is 12,800 km wide, and has a mass 81 times as great.

Surface areas:

37,930,000 km²: Moon
510,065,600 km²: Earth

At sea on a clear day, the horizon is about 3 miles away, on Earth.

So, the Moon's horizon WOULD appear MUCH closer...several hundred yards possibly.

The other thing that struck me as I viewed the images, was how 'round' the horizon looks, rather than a straight line, as here. I known the Earth is a sphere, but you don't get that feeling, until you get over a mile up(?). The pilots I've consulted say at 40,000 ft, the curvature is VERY apparent.

The Moon's curvature is completely apparent, from ground level.

[King of the Americas]

They aren't, and I don't understand why you ask.

What "aren't"...?

The shadows cast by the LEM ARE the same length, even though they are different missions...so my guess is that they chose the 'same' Moon-time, to do all or most of the EVA work.

This isn't beyond belief that they'd do so. The temperature swings alone would almost demand the similar time slot for EVA's.

So, WERE the EVA's all planned for the same Moon-time?

[King of the Americas]

.
All I've ever noticed from the many threads on imaginary coverups you start is a delving into the deeper and deeper sources of woo as your various hysterical claims get shot down.

Maybe your perception is flawed... I've heard people often see what they 'want' to see.

[King of the Americas]

Because one Moon day equals 29+ Earth days.

WHAT???

Now THAT was surprising, although the accurate length is 27.32 Earth days. Remarkable, it is the same length for the Moon to complete one of its 'years'.

Thanks, that bit of info really cleared up a big question I had.

[Hokulele]

WHAT???

Now THAT was surprising, although the accurate length is 27.32 Earth days.


Whoops, you are right. I was thinking of the time between phases, which is a bit longer.

Remarkable, it is the same length for the Moon to complete one of its 'years'.


Depends what you mean by a year. If you mean the time it takes to circle the earth, then it is about the same. If you mean the time it takes to circle the Sun, it is pretty much the same as an Earth year (being gravitationally bound with the Earth and all).

Thanks, that bit of info really cleared up a big question I had.


:)

[King of the Americas]

Check out image # AS14-68-9472, from the Apollo 14 mission.

Now THAT is an inexplicable anomaly.

The high res. mode offered 'me' no explanation, and it is quite 'different' than any of the other things captured. NOT the rock on the ground, look at the sky...

[Safe-Keeper]

OK, that one is weird. Anyone?

[DogB]

The shadows cast by the LEM ARE the same length, even though they are different missions...so my guess is that they chose the 'same' Moon-time, to do all or most of the EVA work.

This isn't beyond belief that they'd do so. The temperature swings alone would almost demand the similar time slot for EVA's.

So, WERE the EVA's all planned for the same Moon-time?

Absolutely. Basically as early in the 'morning' as they could arrange.

One of the later missions (16?) had a delay in getting started on the descent. The later missions EVA’s showed quite detectable heat load increases.

Now THAT is an inexplicable anomaly.

What, the little bit of muck on the negative? Remember these are scans of the originals. There are lots of examples of stuff being introduced during the photo scanning process including the infamous C rock (http://www.clavius.org/rover1.html).

[Óðinn]

Depends what you mean by a year. If you mean the time it takes to circle the earth, then it is about the same. If you mean the time it takes to circle the Sun, it is pretty much the same as an Earth year (being gravitationally bound with the Earth and all).

:)

Yes, one side of the moon always faces the earth. Many moons ago, the moon was much closer to the earth and it rotated on its axis like the earth. The gravitational forces acting between the earth and moon has slowed their rotations until the moon stopped completely. Eventually the earth will lock orbits with the moon and we will have the same length days.

As the moon lost rotational energy, it got transferred to extend its orbit from the earth in a slow spiral. It stopped drifting from the earth when it ran out of spin. Which is why we can never see the far side of the moon. The moon was very large in the night sky when the earth was young.

[Hokulele]

Yes, one side of the moon always faces the earth. Many moons ago, the moon was much closer to the earth and it rotated on its axis like the earth. The gravitational forces acting between the earth and moon has slowed their rotations until the moon stopped completely. Eventually the earth will lock orbits with the moon and we will have the same length days.


Technically, the moon hasn't stopped rotating completely. It does still rotate about its axis, but due to the tidal lock, its rotation period is the same as its revolution period (I think I got those term right). You can try this at home. Use a basketball for the earth and a tennis ball for the moon. If you do not let it rotate, you cannot keep the same side facing the earth as it revolves. Other than that, you are correct regarding the separation and the fact that todal locking is due to gravity.

As the moon lost rotational energy, it got transferred to extend its orbit from the earth in a slow spiral. It stopped drifting from the earth when it ran out of spin. Which is why we can never see the far side of the moon. The moon was very large in the night sky when the earth was young.


Well, it is still drifting away from the earth. Eventually, we will not have any more total eclipses of the sun, as the apparent diameter of the moon will be too small. We will still have plenty of annular eclipses.

[CORed]

This is by far the BEST link I've ever found for Apollo images:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

I've only viewed about a 3rd of them by thumbnail, less than a hundred in full screen mode, and fewer than 50 in the high resolution mode the site offers.

After seeing what I have, I can start to understand why some think the whole thing was faked. We may have set probes, set down laser reflectors, or otherwise left equipment...but the pictures featured feel like they are or were taken from a 'small' place.

The horizon seems to stop prematurely, and there is a lack of background...no mountains, the 'hills' look like they are a few hundred meters away at most.
Almost as if they were taken on a body with a smaller diameter than earth and no aiir

Stars are not apparent or appear as 'blue', if at all. Star fields are 'incomplete', if they appear at all.

You don't actually know anything at all about photography, do you?

The photos ARE interesting. I mean you are either looking at a huge 'movie set', or the actual Moon's surface... The line blurs sometimes, as you thumb through.

If you haven't had the opportunity, I highly recommend giving this site a once over.

WARNING- anomalies abound

[iiwo]

{snip}
Secondly, I didn't say I found ANY of the anomalies 'inexplicable', and I can't say I do now either.

Lastly, I am NOT a Moon Mission total denier, I just have some questions about some of the Apollo images.

Fair enough.

While I am somewhat certain most of your questions will be answered here...have you checked out the resources I linked you too earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4932879&postcount=9)?

On that anomaly photo you mentioned, that is a new one to me. Initially I would go with a processing artifact such as a scratched negative, or something involving the scanning...there are people much more informed on such matters, however, and I will defer to them. If no one in this thread gives you a decent answer on it, check out those links I posted previously.

Also...with as many posts as you have you should be well aware by now that unless you make your stand explicitly clear in triplicate on carbon paper it will most likely be taken as something else--and even then at least some people will assume you are defending the idea that spawned your question. Based on at least one of the responses you well may do such things anyway...so while your initial question may indeed be innocent, it's time to step up to the plate again--particularly if you've done shenanigans like I ratant describes in other threads.

[shadron]

No sorry, I meant that it's flying not grounded. When I first looked at that image (as a thumbnail) I thought it was supposed to be on the moon's surface and someone pasted it on (scale, no shadow etc.) but then realized it's flying or hovering or whatever the proper term is. I know, totally stupid perception which is why I thought it was kind of funny. "Bait" was probably not the best choice of words either. Sorry.

It was just released from the command/service module and pushed away with a spring, and the command module pilot took the picture. It is still in orbit; it doesn't fire it's retrorocket until it is well away from the command module. Note the entire LEM is there, both the lander and the ascent stage (which has no legs). Sunlight terminator in upper left; moon horizon curved at top. They're about 70 miles above the moon. There's a better pic of the lander itself here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Apollo_11_Lunar_Module_Eagle_in_landing_configurat ion_in_lunar_orbit_from_the_Command_and_Service_Mo dule_Columbia.jpg

[shadron]

Technically, the moon hasn't stopped rotating completely. It does still rotate about its axis, but due to the tidal lock, its rotation period is the same as its revolution period (I think I got those term right). You can try this at home. Use a basketball for the earth and a tennis ball for the moon. If you do not let it rotate, you cannot keep the same side facing the earth as it revolves. Other than that, you are correct regarding the separation and the fact that todal locking is due to gravity.

Well, it is still drifting away from the earth. Eventually, we will not have any more total eclipses of the sun, as the apparent diameter of the moon will be too small. We will still have plenty of annular eclipses.

Hoke is correct. The coupling between the moon and the Earth's ocean tides is causing rotational momentum to shift from the Earth (slowing it's rotation) to the moon (increasing it's velocity around Earth, which necessarily increases it's orbital radius). The process will stop when the Earth's rotation equals the moon's rotation time - the tides will stop braking the rotation. The coupling will cease, and the moon will have its final orbital radius, and our day/month will be 47 current days long. It would take 50 billion years for this to completely play out; unfortunately, the sun will go red giant in about 5. Don't wait up for it.

[rjh01]

shadron has made a small error in his post. Rotational momentum is being transfered from the Earth to the moon (as per above) however this actually REDUCES the velocity of the moon not increases the velocity as per above.

The reason is that the moon moves further away from the earth. The further away a moon or a planet is to what it is orbiting the lower the velocity it has. I just checked the velocities of the planets. The fastest is Mercury at 179,500 kpm compared with Neptune at 19,560 kph.

[MRC_Hans]

Check out image # AS14-68-9472, from the Apollo 14 mission.

Now THAT is an inexplicable anomaly.

The high res. mode offered 'me' no explanation, and it is quite 'different' than any of the other things captured. NOT the rock on the ground, look at the sky...This is a scanned image. Thus, it has been photographed, devloped, copied to paper, and, many years later, scanned (they didn't have no digital camaras back then).

So the thing in the sky is either a scratch or some stuff stuck to the paper picture.

Hans

[Salerio]

Check out image # AS14-68-9472, from the Apollo 14 mission.

Now THAT is an inexplicable anomaly.

The high res. mode offered 'me' no explanation, and it is quite 'different' than any of the other things captured. NOT the rock on the ground, look at the sky...

That's what we in the trade call a tear in the backdrop. Don't worry, the person responsible will be dealt with.

Either that or (to me) it looks like a damaged negative, I've had similar when looking through old negs that haven't been stored correctly and part of the picture has been torn off.

[c4llum]

That's what we in the trade call a tear in the backdrop. Don't worry, the person responsible will be dealt with.

Either that or (to me) it looks like a damaged negative, I've had similar when looking through old negs that haven't been stored correctly and part of the picture has been torn off.
That sounds like a good explanation. And to be fair, to assume that the moon landing was faked because there's a slight irregularity in the sky is rather far fetched.

Great website btw. I've had a look at a few pics now, but the pics that confuse me most are the ones where the ''crosses'' ontop of the photo are somtimes seen behind an object. I haven't been able to find any on this perticular linked website. Does anyone have more information about these images?

[EHocking]

That sounds like a good explanation. And to be fair, to assume that the moon landing was faked because there's a slight irregularity in the sky is rather far fetched.

Great website btw. I've had a look at a few pics now, but the pics that confuse me most are the ones where the ''crosses'' ontop of the photo are somtimes seen behind an object. I haven't been able to find any on this perticular linked website. Does anyone have more information about these images?This an pretty much everything else is explained at Bad Astronomy as linked to above. Here's the section on crosshairs (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crosshairs). Basically it's due to overexposure and contrast in the photograph.

[Ashles]

Check out image # AS14-68-9472, from the Apollo 14 mission.

Now THAT is an inexplicable anomaly.

The high res. mode offered 'me' no explanation, and it is quite 'different' than any of the other things captured. NOT the rock on the ground, look at the sky...


Oh for the love of God.:rolleyes:
If it was something interesting to NASA don't you think they might have mentioned it?
If it was something they wanted kept secret do you know how long it would take to remove it from the image?

Is there anything you ever look at, watch, read or hear about without seeing something mysterious and inexplicable in it?

Does that not in itself tell you anything about yourself?

[King of the Americas]

Is there anything you ever look at, watch, read or hear about without seeing something mysterious and inexplicable in it?

Does that not in itself tell you anything about yourself?

Possibly. But by NO MEANS do I claim to be able to fully explain 'everything' I watch, read, or hear about. That's why I ask questions.

And what that tells 'me' about myself, is that I don't know/understand 'everything'.

I always thought that to not understand something, and pose questions in an attempt TO understand something was a GOOD THING...

What does it say about 'you', that you would attempt to demean someone for seeming less than fully informed and trying to remedy it?

[King of the Americas]

Fair enough.

While I am somewhat certain most of your questions will be answered here...have you checked out the resources I linked you too earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4932879&postcount=9)?

On that anomaly photo you mentioned, that is a new one to me. Initially I would go with a processing artifact such as a scratched negative, or something involving the scanning...there are people much more informed on such matters, however, and I will defer to them. If no one in this thread gives you a decent answer on it, check out those links I posted previously.

Also...with as many posts as you have you should be well aware by now that unless you make your stand explicitly clear in triplicate on carbon paper it will most likely be taken as something else--and even then at least some people will assume you are defending the idea that spawned your question. Based on at least one of the responses you well may do such things anyway...so while your initial question may indeed be innocent, it's time to step up to the plate again--particularly if you've done shenanigans like I ratant describes in other threads.

I can accept the 'scratched negative image', or a reproduction defect, as a viable explanation.

Admittedly, I am NOT a "skeptic". I no longer have that luxury. I have seen, and made it known here, "U.F.O.'s". In a sea of skeptics, I am the chum that causes the feeders to begin churning and nibbling around the edges. Because I have seen something I can't explain, there are some here who deem me a "woo chaser". "Shenanigans" or not, I am just searching for the truth, regardless of where it leads.

"I Ratant" can say what he likes, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

[Checkmite]

Oh for the love of God.:rolleyes:
If it was something interesting to NASA don't you think they might have mentioned it?
If it was something they wanted kept secret do you know how long it would take to remove it from the image?

Is there anything you ever look at, watch, read or hear about without seeing something mysterious and inexplicable in it?

Does that not in itself tell you anything about yourself?

Now, now - no need for all that. The big spot in the photo DOES look weird, and it IS an anomaly. Fairly easy to explain; but that doesn't make it stop looking weird. Simply finding a photo and pointing out something weird on it isn't a reason to get bent out of shape.

[King of the Americas]

This is a scanned image. Thus, it has been photographed, devloped, copied to paper, and, many years later, scanned (they didn't have no digital camaras back then).

So the thing in the sky is either a scratch or some stuff stuck to the paper picture.

Hans

Indeed, this image in insufficient in determining what that is. It could very well be a reproduction defect. We'd need the original negative to confirm.

[dasmiller]

So I was curious about this 'AS14-68-9472', so I did a quick Google search rather than going back to the OP for the link. Google led me to http://www.spacearchive.net/pages/AS14-68-9472.html

I studied the picture but had no idea what everyone was talking about.
So I went back to the OP, used that link, dug through the archive, and saw the picture that you guys were looking at, complete with the odd pixelated blob in the sky.

For whatever reason, it's not on the version of the image in the link I posted.

So I'm voting for an artifact of the scanning process - either the original was damaged, there was something on the scanner, etc.

OR - and let's not be too hasty here - it's an alien ship, and the aliens realized that they'd been photographed, and used their advanced technology to retouch all copies of the photo, but they missed the one copy that was scanned for the OP's archive. And we'll know this is true if the archive picture gets updated with a 'cleaner' scan that lacks the artifact. Oh, sure, there may be some note about how there was a bit of Kleenex stuck to the picture, and they re-scanned without it, but we'll all know the truth. I know these aliens. They periodically hide my car keys. They're the ones that got Futurama cancelled, and I suspect that they were behind the whole 'new Coke' thing.

[Corsair 115]

Again, lack of familiar cues. I've seen the effect in an unfamiliar place (a glacier field). The pilot that set us down asked us how far we thought some certain mountain features were. None of our group guessed over 1/4 of the actual distance.


That sort of thing happened on one of the later Apollo missions (16?). The astronauts were out on the lunar surface, and spotted an interesting rock that they thought was of good size not too far away. So they start walking over to it. And walking. And walking. It turned out to be a huge, house-sized boulder that had been a large distance away.

[I Ratant]

Possibly. But by NO MEANS do I claim to be able to fully explain 'everything' I watch, read, or hear about. That's why I ask questions.

And what that tells 'me' about myself, is that I don't know/understand 'everything'.

I always thought that to not understand something, and pose questions in an attempt TO understand something was a GOOD THING...

What does it say about 'you', that you would attempt to demean someone for seeming less than fully informed and trying to remedy it?
.
You ask question after question, of insignificant trivia that has been explained for decades, won't look to any online sources, and keep at it in every thread you begin.
One is -expected- to be able to -learn- from the answers, both those direct here on the forum and those included in the way-too-often ignored references.
The triviality of your approach to these long-ago insignificant problems is quite annoying, there apparently being no way to get through that -you- have to do some of the work, and remember what you might possibly have gleaned from all the information that has been supplied.

[King of the Americas]

.
You ask question after question, of insignificant trivia that has been explained for decades, won't look to any online sources, and keep at it in every thread you begin.
One is -expected- to be able to -learn- from the answers, both those direct here on the forum and those included in the way-too-often ignored references.
The triviality of your approach to these long-ago insignificant problems is quite annoying, there apparently being no way to get through that -you- have to do some of the work, and remember what you might possibly have gleaned from all the information that has been supplied.

Edited for rule 12.

And this thread is evidence that you are indeed WRONG.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

[I Ratant]

Quote of modded post removed.

And this thread is evidence that you are indeed WRONG.
.
Oh, burn!
I might recommend Zechariah Sitchin's "The 12th Planet".
There's more than enough stuff in there to feed your insecurities and fantasies for a long period of time.
See if you can finger out all the problems he has with reality.

[Marduk]

.
Oh, burn!
I might recommend Zechariah Sitchin's "The 12th Planet".
There's more than enough stuff in there to feed your insecurities and fantasies for a long period of time.
See if you can finger out all the problems he has with reality.
Awesome
:D

don't forget to check
http://www.sitchin.com/

;)

[Ernie M]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_227154a6a4d96b70ef.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17058)
Photo credit: NASA S69-33875
Slightly altered to include James "The Amazing" Randi: Ernie M

[I Ratant]

Awesome
:D

don't forget to check
http://www.sitchin.com/

;)
.
Hey, your namesake is a prime mover in the formation of the early solar system!
The details alone of his interference are totally awesome, fer shure!

[dropzone]

I've done some photography, and what I first thought was that the astronauts were darned good, as far as composition was concerned, than your typical Sunday snapshooter. Then I looked closer and compared the photos with the best photos taken down here and realized there was no atmosphere reflecting and refracting and supporting tiny bits of dust. They were obviously taken with (practically) no atmosphere at all. Compare them with terrestrial photos taken with a black backdrop and you will see that not only the background is clearer, but so is the foreground.

ETA: The quality came from them using 120 film instead of 35mm. As anybody who has compared digital photos has realized, the more megapixels you shoot, the more you can crop while still having a good photo.

[iiwo]

On top of what drop zone said, a lot of the photos released for PR, coffee-table books, and magazine covers were cropped somewhat. The cameras were (as I understand it) attached to the astronauts chests 'permanently'. The focus, aperture, shutter speed, and film speed were all preset for general purpose lunar surface shooting. Such things have been discussed ad nae sum at BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/) and probably at Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) as well.

That said...

@King of the Americas: Asking questions about things you don't understand is indeed the correct place to start. But after asking the questions, it is vital to consider the information presented directly (in this case, in the thread) and referred to (linked to here, in textbooks/library irl). There is no law saying you must accept every detail of it--but for conversations where you are trying to figure something out, it is extremely helpful to others (and ultimately yourself) if you at least show you have read the information and considered it critically. For example, after raising several questions relating to hoax possibilities I might say:

Oh nice, I wasn't aware (or forgot, or whatever) information regarding the Moon landing [or other subject of interest] was compiled in so many places on and offline. I checked a couple of the relevant areas, but I'll need more time to test these ideas in a darkroom/ask a photographer friend/readup another source/[whatever]. I think I'm on track for this question (at least at the moment), so now for the next stumper--and I did look while I was at [insert reference]--but lack the background to track down the answer. The question is [insert question].

Something like that does wonders for (1) facilitating conversation about potentially confusing topics--especially if they are outside your area of expertise, and (2) reduces people's "look! a loony troll!" reaction (pun intended).

[Akhenaten]

First, I'd like to ask why are all the photos taken at the same time of day, Moon time.

Why isn't it ever high noon? Most of the shadows of rocks, the LEM, and the astronauts are 'relatively' similar...

Secondly, I didn't say I found ANY of the anomalies 'inexplicable', and I can't say I do now either.

Lastly, I am NOT a Moon Mission total denier, I just have some questions about some of the Apollo images.


Check out image # AS14-68-9472, from the Apollo 14 mission.

Now THAT is an inexplicable anomaly.

The high res. mode offered 'me' no explanation, and it is quite 'different' than any of the other things captured. NOT the rock on the ground, look at the sky...


I can accept the 'scratched negative image', or a reproduction defect, as a viable explanation.

Admittedly, I am NOT a "skeptic". I no longer have that luxury. I have seen, and made it known here, "U.F.O.'s". In a sea of skeptics, I am the chum that causes the feeders to begin churning and nibbling around the edges. Because I have seen something I can't explain, there are some here who deem me a "woo chaser". "Shenanigans" or not, I am just searching for the truth, regardless of where it leads.

"I Ratant" can say what he likes, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.


Perhaps you need to pick ONE position and stick with it. You might still be wrong, but the other posters will at least give you extra points for consistency.

[MattusMaximus]

One 'anomaly' features what appears to be some slightly smeared across the lens, Apollo 16, I think, at the end of the real. There's no moisture there, what would cause a 'smear'?

Mmmm, I don't know. Dust, perhaps? Nah, there's no dust on the Moon :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

OR - and let's not be too hasty here - it's an alien ship, and the aliens realized that they'd been photographed, and used their advanced technology to retouch all copies of the photo, but they missed the one copy that was scanned for the OP's archive. And we'll know this is true if the archive picture gets updated with a 'cleaner' scan that lacks the artifact. Oh, sure, there may be some note about how there was a bit of Kleenex stuck to the picture, and they re-scanned without it, but we'll all know the truth. I know these aliens. They periodically hide my car keys. They're the ones that got Futurama cancelled, and I suspect that they were behind the whole 'new Coke' thing.

Nah, it wasn't an alien ship, don't be dense!

It was leprechauns...

[King of the Americas]

Perhaps you need to pick ONE position and stick with it. You might still be wrong, but the other posters will at least give you extra points for consistency.

My 'position' is LIKELY to change as I receive new information...

Sticking with ONE stance, when presented with new/contrary information, seems to me...a "DUMB IDEA".

[King of the Americas]

On top of what drop zone said, a lot of the photos released for PR, coffee-table books, and magazine covers were cropped somewhat. The cameras were (as I understand it) attached to the astronauts chests 'permanently'. The focus, aperture, shutter speed, and film speed were all preset for general purpose lunar surface shooting. Such things have been discussed ad nae sum at BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/) and probably at Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) as well.

That said...

@King of the Americas: Asking questions about things you don't understand is indeed the correct place to start. But after asking the questions, it is vital to consider the information presented directly (in this case, in the thread) and referred to (linked to here, in textbooks/library irl). There is no law saying you must accept every detail of it--but for conversations where you are trying to figure something out, it is extremely helpful to others (and ultimately yourself) if you at least show you have read the information and considered it critically. For example, after raising several questions relating to hoax possibilities I might say:

Something like that does wonders for (1) facilitating conversation about potentially confusing topics--especially if they are outside your area of expertise, and (2) reduces people's "look! a loony troll!" reaction (pun intended).

Agreed.

That said, I think I did exactly this, in this thread.

I've presented as many 'facts' as I have asked for.

"I Ratant" accused me of: "asking questions of insignificant trivia", not "looking to any online sources", "ignoring references", and then concluding that I can't be gotten through to...

ALL of which is inaccurate.

We are in a sad state of affairs when merely asking questions about status quo understandings and its evidence gets you repeatedly attacked.

[Ernie M]

King of the Americas,
I wasn't sure, so I'm just asking: do you believe the moon landings were real, or do you think they were faked?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_227154a688d16214f4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17042)
Photo credit: NASA JSC2002E01692
with alterations by Ernie M

Other Forum posters brought up valid points as to why some of the moon landing photos might appear to throw off one's perceptions of what's "real."

Also, have you seen the MythBusters (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html) "NASA Moon Landing Hoax" episode, which describes the most popular myths and explains the reality behind them? That episode should be required viewing, as it clearly explains how and why people could misunderstand what they saw.

[Marduk]

My 'position' is LIKELY to change as I receive new information...

Sticking with ONE stance, when presented with new/contrary information, seems to me...a "DUMB IDEA".

like you did with the glowing ufo cloud of God then, and are still doing despite not having any solid evidence with which to support your belief

[Marduk]

King of the Americas,
I wasn't sure, so I'm just asking: do you believe the moon landings were real, or do you think they were faked?.

he thinks they are real but also believes that some of the photos contain pictures of alien spaceships

I am waiting to hear how the U.S. govt who is supposedly covering up the fact that the Apollo missions were observed by aliens in spaceships neglected to delete all the aliens from any photos released, can't have it both ways yanno
:D

[King of the Americas]

King of the Americas,
I wasn't sure, so I'm just asking: do you believe the moon landings were real, or do you think they were faked?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_227154a688d16214f4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17042)
Photo credit: NASA JSC2002E01692
with alterations by Ernie M

Other Forum posters brought up valid points as to why some of the moon landing photos might appear to throw off one's perceptions of what's "real."

Also, have you seen the MythBusters (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html) "NASA Moon Landing Hoax" episode, which describes the most popular myths and explains the reality behind them? That episode should be required viewing, as it clearly explains how and why people could misunderstand what they saw.

'I' also presented information about how the size of the Moon compared to Earth, would cause dramatically different views of the horizon.

I can't say that I've ever been a "denier". Although upon hearing someone who does "not believe" present their case to me, some weeks ago, I wanted to see all of the Apollo images for myself.

Upon seeing them, I could indeed start to understand some of the doubters concerns, but after combining the relevant facts and figures, along with a dose of photographic explanation...the photos clearly ARE what one would expect to capture while shooting on the Moon.

N. Armstrong did indeed take "One small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind."

[dasmiller]

Nah, it wasn't an alien ship, don't be dense!

It was leprechauns...

And I suppose you think leprechauns are native to Earth?

[Ernie M]

No alien UFOs present.

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt212/ToBeSure_photo/AS11-40-5874capt.jpg

Photo credit: NASA, AS11-40-5874
JSC scan
Alterations by: Ernie M

[King of the Americas]

This has nothing to do with the images, but I always wondered how much 'Moon dust' the astronauts breathed in...?

Their EVA suits were covered in the stuff. To my knowledge they took their helmets and suits 'off' for the ride home, and were held in quarantine. There was no 'clean room' aboard, right?

[Akhenaten]

My 'position' is LIKELY to change as I receive new information...


That's reasonable and my criticism was poorly stated.

I might better have pointed out that you seem to me to be receiving and analysing new information in too-small chunks. I think if you'd studied ALL the pictures and formed an opinion on the entire body of evidence before adopting any postion at all, I wouldn't have (mis)perceived you as "flip-flopping".

In any case, no offence was intended; I was being too nitpicky perhaps.


Sticking with ONE stance, when presented with new/contrary information, seems to me...a "DUMB IDEA".


I'll wholeheartedly agree if you'll grant me the proviso that SOME new information can and must be rejected as noise, lest we be overwhelmed by it.

You've handily reminded me that we all define "noise" differently and I need to avoid being it. :)


Cheers,

Dave

[shadron]

This has nothing to do with the images, but I always wondered how much 'Moon dust' the astronauts breathed in...?

Their EVA suits were covered in the stuff. To my knowledge they took their helmets and suits 'off' for the ride home, and were held in quarantine. There was no 'clean room' aboard, right?

Correct. The ERV suits were their standard Apollo space suits, they kept them. The backpacks, the boots, one of the cameras, a bag of memorial items and assorted flotsam was left on the lunar surface right outside their door. Obviously their suits weren't "covered" in the dust, but there was considerable klinginess due to static electricity, and some amount stuck.

After they slept in the LEM and then ascended to orbit again, they transferred to the command module and the LEM was left in lunar orbit, soon to decay and crash back on the moon. Presumably most of the lunar dust they tracked in went with it.

I would presume, and applaud, a fence being placed around the site sometime in the future, to keep their steps untouched into the far future. I believe in hubris.

[Akhenaten]

This has nothing to do with the images, but I always wondered how much 'Moon dust' the astronauts breathed in...?

Their EVA suits were covered in the stuff. To my knowledge they took their helmets and suits 'off' for the ride home, and were held in quarantine. There was no 'clean room' aboard, right?


Correct. The ERV suits were their standard Apollo space suits, they kept them. The backpacks, the boots, one of the cameras, a bag of memorial items and assorted flotsam was left on the lunar surface right outside their door. Obviously their suits weren't "covered" in the dust, but there was considerable klinginess due to static electricity, and some amount stuck.

After they slept in the LEM and then ascended to orbit again, they transferred to the command module and the LEM was left in lunar orbit, soon to decay and crash back on the moon. Presumably most of the lunar dust they tracked in went with it.

I would presume, and applaud, a fence being placed around the site sometime in the future, to keep their steps untouched into the far future. I believe in hubris.


Now that WAS an interesting question, well answered. Thanks both.

So, we might all be made of star-stuff, but the astronauts have a little extra. Cool.


Cheers,

Dave

[steve s]

WARNING- anomalies abound

No. Ignorance abounds. All your questions show an ignorance of basic science, whether it be astronomy, photography, or atmospheric science. The same is true of every other type of conspiracy theory, from JFK nuts to the 9-11 deniers.

We are in a sad state of affairs when merely asking questions about status quo understandings and its evidence gets you repeatedly attacked.

When those questions have been asked and answered thousands of times over the last 40 years, you have to expect that the people providing the answers are going to get a bit frustrated.

Steve S,

[steve s]

This has nothing to do with the images, but I always wondered how much 'Moon dust' the astronauts breathed in...?

Their EVA suits were covered in the stuff. To my knowledge they took their helmets and suits 'off' for the ride home, and were held in quarantine. There was no 'clean room' aboard, right?

Which is why the new suits they're designing will remain outside the living quarters. The suit will have a hatch on the back which will allow the astronaut to back up to a hatch on the outer wall of the living module. The hatch on his suit will be opened by someone inside the building and the astronaut will be able to climb out of his suit. The suit remains outside at all times.

Steve S.

[Safe-Keeper]

We are in a sad state of affairs when merely asking questions about status quo understandings and its evidence gets you repeatedly attacked. You have to realize that this is simply because of the fact that 99% of the times someone is "just asking questions", they're really already 100% convinced they're right and just looking to convert everyone else.

In fact, this is the first thread in which I've ever seen anyone use the phrase "I'm just asking questions" honestly.

[dasmiller]

No. Ignorance abounds. All your questions show an ignorance of basic science, whether it be astronomy, photography, or atmospheric science. The same is true of every other type of conspiracy theory, from JFK nuts to the 9-11 deniers.
Steve S,

In all fairness, I'd like to say that I interpreted 'anomalies' in a much broader and less suggestive manner. To me, 'anomalies' would include flaws in the film, lens flare, errors introduced by the scanning process, etc etc. For example, I'd consider blob in the sky of that Apollo 14 picture (discussed earlier in this thread) to be an 'anomaly,' but for several reasons (starting with the fact that it doesn't show up in older versions of the picture), I wouldn't consider it evidence anything but a error somewhere in the picture's reproduction history.

ETA (to finish the thought) - in that context, there was nothing wrong with saying "anomalies abound." Though, in turn, I saw a lot fewer 'anomalies' than I would have expected. I'm a little boggled by the overall quality of the images.

[jimtron]

:DHere NASA gives away the hoax:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=39&imageID=

[shadron]

In all fairness, I'd like to say that I interpreted 'anomalies' in a much broader and less suggestive manner. To me, 'anomalies' would include flaws in the film, lens flare, errors introduced by the scanning process, etc etc. For example, I'd consider blob in the sky of that Apollo 14 picture (discussed earlier in this thread) to be an 'anomaly,' but for several reasons (starting with the fact that it doesn't show up in older versions of the picture), I wouldn't consider it evidence anything but a error somewhere in the picture's reproduction history.

ETA (to finish the thought) - in that context, there was nothing wrong with saying "anomalies abound." Though, in turn, I saw a lot fewer 'anomalies' than I would have expected. I'm a little boggled by the overall quality of the images.

As a UFO skeptic once remarked, "I certainly do believe in UFOs. What I don't understand, and what I disagree with, is this need to go about identifying them." Same goes for these anomalies.

[King of the Americas]

As a UFO skeptic once remarked, "I certainly do believe in UFOs. What I don't understand, and what I disagree with, is this need to go about identifying them." Same goes for these anomalies.

How scientific of you...

"Hey look, there's something growing on that cheese, what is it?"

Shadron responds, "Well it looks like 'something', but I see no need to go about identifying it."

The result, is that penicillin doesn't get discovered.

When we see something that we can't identify, something inside us 'demands' to know more...and whatever that thing is, it represents the very best in us.

[King of the Americas]

You have to realize that this is simply because of the fact that 99% of the times someone is "just asking questions", they're really already 100% convinced they're right and just looking to convert everyone else.

In fact, this is the first thread in which I've ever seen anyone use the phrase "I'm just asking questions" honestly.

But isn't that the best way to be convinced of something?

Rather than telling someone that they are wrong and just start preaching at them.

Questions lead to answers, string enough together and you get an exchange. Bingo bango bongo, people get more information and the learning process is spurred.

I consider myself merely a seeker of knowledge, and this place is one of my favorite bookmarks because the community can answer almost any question I pose, or they at least can point me in the direction of quality answers. What really bothers me is anyone who chastise someone for asking a question that's already been answered a thousand times... Maybe this person wasn't 'here' to see it answered!? Maybe they're a newbie, or maybe they just want to discuss another aspect of the question and its answer. And even if there were 100 threads on the matter, there be no need to 'disparage' someone for asking another question on the matter. Simply 'referring' them to THE best thread where the material they seek lies, is better than attacking them for querying for knowledge or discussion.

"Questions", regardless of their nature or origin, are GOOD.

Thank you for your response "Safe Keeper".

Be well.

[King of the Americas]

Edited for rule 12.

And this thread is evidence that you are indeed WRONG.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Can you call someone a "LIAR", then?

[King of the Americas]

Correct. The ERV suits were their standard Apollo space suits, they kept them. The backpacks, the boots, one of the cameras, a bag of memorial items and assorted flotsam was left on the lunar surface right outside their door. Obviously their suits weren't "covered" in the dust, but there was considerable klinginess due to static electricity, and some amount stuck.

After they slept in the LEM and then ascended to orbit again, they transferred to the command module and the LEM was left in lunar orbit, soon to decay and crash back on the moon. Presumably most of the lunar dust they tracked in went with it.

I would presume, and applaud, a fence being placed around the site sometime in the future, to keep their steps untouched into the far future. I believe in hubris.

The later missions' explorers were 'dirtier' than the 1st, I'm sure. Pictures show it.

I found it interesting that they didn't fear "Moon germs", enough to make the LEM a scrub room, before re-entering the command module. OR, did they? I've haven't heard discussed the procedures for pre-redocking with the CM.

Was the Moon found to be 100% devoid of all life, bacterially microbial or otherwise?

The vacuum wipes out a lot, but there's stuff that lives inside rocks...

I've never 'handled' a Moon rock 'barehanded'...is it normal to do so?

[King of the Americas]

like you did with the glowing ufo cloud of God then, and are still doing despite not having any solid evidence with which to support your belief

My "belief" is a conclusion reached based on a different assimilation of data, than 'you' have suffered. We reached a different conclusion, as to the identity of a 'something' featured 'in the heavens'...in paintings throughout recorded time...

We were talking Art interpretation...differences are gonna happen.

---

*I just came up with his wacky theory. WHAT IF the 'salute', is proof that at least "god" exists. Go with me for a second.

As an artist, I stink. Seriously, my stick figures look ill-portioned. But if I 'were' going to try to draw what I saw, I'd make my stick figure's arm make a "C", connecting to or slightly passing the head of the figure. Like the figure is looking "up"...just like over 90% of ALL the people featured in the renderings we reviewed...

They were looking UP...but to 'what', a God/god(s), an 'authority'...something of superior 'rank'...

...?

Sounds good, don't you think?

[Marduk]

My "belief" is a conclusion reached based on a different assimilation of data, than 'you' have suffered.


your belief was formed before you saw any data, you based it on your modern interpretation of something you had no clue about

We reached a different conclusion, as to the identity of a 'something' featured 'in the heavens'...in paintings throughout recorded time...

you didn't form a conclusion after you saw the evidence, you stayed with the one you had before you saw the evidence, any right thinking individual that saw the evidence I showed to you would have accepted it for what it was
i.e. reality

We were talking Art interpretation...differences are gonna happen.

we are talking known artistic devices in known religious based art that are perfectly explained by people who have studied them and who are qualified to comment



*I just came up with his wacky theory. WHAT IF the 'salute', is proof of at least "god" exists. Go with me for a second.

As an artist, I stink. Seriously, my stick figures look ill portioned. But if I 'were' going to draw what I saw, I'd make my stick figure's arm make a "C", connecting to or slightly passing the head of the figure. Like the figure is looking "up"...

Up to 'what', a God, an 'authority'...something of superior 'rank'...

...?

Sounds good, don't you think?

again you will have to accept that god didn't go into outer space until after the advent of monotheism, this was to solidify the basis of a new type of religion where god was beyond the reach of earthly intrigue allowing priests to wield religious power This is the same religion says nothing about ufos or anything like them in any of its scripture.

[King of the Americas]

your belief was formed before you saw any data, you based it on your modern interpretation of something you had no clue about

you didn't form a conclusion after you saw the evidence, you stayed with the one you had before you saw the evidence, any right thinking individual that saw the evidence I showed to you would have accepted it for what it was
i.e. reality

we are talking known artistic devices in known religious based art that are perfectly explained by people who have studied them and who are qualified to comment



again you will have to accept that god didn't go into outer space until after the advent of monotheism, this was to solidify the basis of a new type of religion where god was beyond the reach of earthly intrigue allowing priests to wield religious power This is the same religion says nothing about ufos or anything like them in any of its scripture.

I accept that yours IS one interpretation. :)

People 'salute'.

Don't they?

What do they salute?

What are people doing in most of those paintings???

[Marduk]

showing they don't have a weapon
:rolleyes:

[I Ratant]

He is gonna be Sitchin's bestest mostest favoritest disciple!

[Marduk]

nope, that would require that he read something for himself
never gonna happen
:D

[Beerina]

There are excellent images on the Apollo Image Gallery (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html), including this one.

But how can you say some of the images seem faked?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_227154a67cd670b641.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17025)
Photo credit: NASA AS11-40-5927
Scan credit: JSC scan
Special appearance by: James "The Amazing" Randi


It's fake because that lander model is far too detailed, duh.

[shadron]

How scientific of you...

"Hey look, there's something growing on that cheese, what is it?"

Shadron responds, "Well it looks like 'something', but I see no need to go about identifying it."

The result, is that penicillin doesn't get discovered.

When we see something that we can't identify, something inside us 'demands' to know more...and whatever that thing is, it represents the very best in us.

Oh, my, my. Your claim, then, is that to attach some unproven meaning to a UFO, such as it must be an intelligent alien's spaceship, is scientific? That to look at "anomalies", certainly a unbiased term, and to hold suspicions that they prove the photo was photographed in a studio on Earth is scientific? That's some stretch of the scientific method.

I don't give a damn about what inside you needs to know. If that something inside you starts attaching unevidenced labels, then that label is not scientific, it is imaginary. It is not unscientific to insist on a neutral label for something until it has been identified and evidence presented for such. Undisciplined curiosity will not assist you in your quest to understand mother nature, and what you misunderstand will come around to bite you in right in your "very best".

The very best in us, IMO, is our hard-won scientific knowledge, not unbridled curiosity.

[shadron]

The later missions' explorers were 'dirtier' than the 1st, I'm sure. Pictures show it.

I found it interesting that they didn't fear "Moon germs", enough to make the LEM a scrub room, before re-entering the command module. OR, did they? I've haven't heard discussed the procedures for pre-redocking with the CM.

Well, yeah, there was a weight limit on, and the LEM was somewhat cramped, you know. Like, Armstrong went dirtside first while Aldrin was supposed to, mainly because his seat was at the door, while Aldrin could not possibly have crawled over him. There was also some rank-pulling going on, I understand, but the other argument is one without an answer.

Was the Moon found to be 100% devoid of all life, bacterially microbial or otherwise?

They never found any - no symptoms of contamination, no non-terrestrial anythings viewed in a microscope.

The vacuum wipes out a lot, but there's stuff that lives inside rocks...

Most of those rocks have lived there on the moon since it was molten without ever having seen an atmosphere, so it's difficult to imagine how anything could have gotten into them. They are probably as sterile as anything pulled from an autoclave. While some places on Earth may resemble a moonscape, they are still crawling with bacterial, fungal and yeasty life, brought to them by our atmosphere, so it is not hard to understand how life can have worked its way into minute crevasses over tens of thousands of years, if not more.

I've never 'handled' a Moon rock 'barehanded'...is it normal to do so?

No. All moon rocks from the Apollo program are the property of NASA regardless of where they are or who has custody of them. With very few exceptions, they are held for research, and it is rare for anyone to have handled one.

The thing they are worried about is not that any life might have grown up on the moon. Panspermia is still a possible theory for life on Earth, and therefore it's life from somewhere from outer space, as minor as threat possibility might be, that they were worried about.

[King of the Americas]

The very best in us, IMO, is our hard-won scientific knowledge, not unbridled curiosity.

Our hard-won scientific knowledge is a 'product' of our unbridled curiosity...

[King of the Americas]

Well, yeah, there was a weight limit on, and the LEM was somewhat cramped, you know. Like, Armstrong went dirtside first while Aldrin was supposed to, mainly because his seat was at the door, while Aldrin could not possibly have crawled over him. There was also some rank-pulling going on, I understand, but the other argument is one without an answer.

They never found any - no symptoms of contamination, no non-terrestrial anythings viewed in a microscope.

Most of those rocks have lived there on the moon since it was molten without ever having seen an atmosphere, so it's difficult to imagine how anything could have gotten into them. They are probably as sterile as anything pulled from an autoclave. While some places on Earth may resemble a moonscape, they are still crawling with bacterial, fungal and yeasty life, brought to them by our atmosphere, so it is not hard to understand how life can have worked its way into minute crevasses over tens of thousands of years, if not more.

No. All moon rocks from the Apollo program are the property of NASA regardless of where they are or who has custody of them. With very few exceptions, they are held for research, and it is rare for anyone to have handled one.

The thing they are worried about is not that any life might have grown up on the moon. Panspermia is still a possible theory for life on Earth, and therefore it's life from somewhere from outer space, as minor as threat possibility might be, that they were worried about.

Interesting, thanks for the data.

"Panspermia"...?

The hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies?

---

Moon-

"...no life, but still cool..."

http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/jul/20/no-signs-of-life-but-still-cool/

[shadron]

Yeah, Panspermia. http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=295

It's a theory that's not going to go away until we get to sample life on one or two other places and see if there is a common basis for it. In fact, it could well still be viable until we get to another solar system.

[godless dave]

How scientific of you...

"Hey look, there's something growing on that cheese, what is it?"

Shadron responds, "Well it looks like 'something', but I see no need to go about identifying it."

Except most of the "anomalies" you mentioned in your first post weren't anomalies at all. Having a close horizon on the moon isn't an anomaly, it's expected. Same for not seeing stars in photos taken while the sun is up. Why investigate something that has an obvious explanation?

[King of the Americas]

Except most of the "anomalies" you mentioned in your first post weren't anomalies at all. Having a close horizon on the moon isn't an anomaly, it's expected. Same for not seeing stars in photos taken while the sun is up. Why investigate something that has an obvious explanation?

Shadron originally wrote:

As a UFO skeptic once remarked, "I certainly do believe in UFOs. What I don't understand, and what I disagree with, is this need to go about identifying them." Same goes for these anomalies.

The 'blob' featured in the images I linked, for example, SHOULD be identified once found.

As should the 'reason' why the Moon's horizon is so close, or why there are few/sparse star fields.

I can't help but understand the reason why so many doubt the Moon Landing, is the lack of understanding and knowledge about the Moon, photography, and the environment there.

I think it IS the work of Science to..."go about identifying"...those things that remain unidentified and or unknown.

[godless dave]

As should the 'reason' why the Moon's horizon is so close, or why there are few/sparse star fields.

But we already know the reasons, and knew them before anyone ever landed on the moon.

[King of the Americas]

But we already know the reasons, and knew them before anyone ever landed on the moon.

Agreed, BUT...as I said after that: "I can't help but understand the reason why so many doubt the Moon Landing, is the lack of understanding and knowledge about the Moon, photography, and the environment there."

Well informed people 'know' these reasons, but those who doubt, do so because 'they' DON'T...

[FramerDave]

snip...
I found it interesting that they didn't fear "Moon germs", enough to make the LEM a scrub room, before re-entering the command module. OR, did they? I've haven't heard discussed the procedures for pre-redocking with the CM. ...

No, they did have some "concern" over the possibility of "Moon germs." However weight was at a premium in all aspects of the missions, as others have pointed out. A scrub room of some sort on board the LM would have been quite impractical.

So, they docked with the CSM and joined Michael Collins who had been orbiting the moon. When they all three arrived back on Earth they were quarantined inside of a big sealed trailer home (essentially) for I believe three weeks. I could be wrong, I'd have to look it up. When they showed no symptoms of any moon sickness it was decided that this precaution was not needed for subsequent missions.

Now, with all due respect Mr. King, this is why a lot of people are having trouble taking your questions seriously. I knew all this off the top of my head because I've been following the space program since I was a kid. But everything I wrote and much more is literally at your fingertips with a quick Google search. Typing in "Apollo 11 quarantine" returned 68,200 hits in 0.26 seconds. The first and second hits would have given you the answers you need. If you're so very curious do a little homework on your own.

[godless dave]

Agreed, BUT...as I said after that: "I can't help but understand the reason why so many doubt the Moon Landing, is the lack of understanding and knowledge about the Moon, photography, and the environment there."

Well informed people 'know' these reasons, but those who doubt, do so because 'they' DON'T...

I understand that a lot of people are ignorant about basic science (and the horizon thing is very basic, I mean grade school level), but I don't understand why adults in a first world country are that ignorant, nor do I understand why they jump to ridiculous conclusions without doing any investigation of their own.

[Corsair 115]

he thinks they are real but also believes that some of the photos contain pictures of alien spaceships


The book Somebody Else is on the Moon by George Leonard comes to mind here. The author looked at photos of the lunar surface and claimed to see in some of them objects which could not be natural phenomena but had to be alien artifacts of some sort.

[Molinaro]

I've always thought the "You can't see any/all the stars in the background" criticism was one of the silliest of the very silly bunch.

Like they would create this colossal, elaborate hoax and then... forget to paint the background. :rolleyes:

In another forum I carefully explained the whole exposure time issue and thought was certain to win them over.

They continued to repeat their case that the stars should be visible.

I then asked, "Are you just going to ignore the fact that the camera exposure wasn't long enough to see the stars?"

Their reply, "But what do you we look at the picture with? Our eyes! Dummy!" :eye-poppi

[I Ratant]

I'm surprised our keen observer hasn't stumbled on Hoagland's massive transparent structures on the Moon.

[King of the Americas]

Now, with all due respect Mr. King, this is why a lot of people are having trouble taking your questions seriously. I knew all this off the top of my head because I've been following the space program since I was a kid. But everything I wrote and much more is literally at your fingertips with a quick Google search. Typing in "Apollo 11 quarantine" returned 68,200 hits in 0.26 seconds. The first and second hits would have given you the answers you need. If you're so very curious do a little homework on your own.

I knew some of those facts too, as I noted the 2-week "quarantine" further into the thread.

My question was more of a statement: "...to make the LEM a scrub room, before re-entering the command module. OR, did they? I've haven't heard discussed the procedures for pre-redocking with the CM..."

I'll concede that I could get these answers elsewhere. Forgive me for asking.

THAT SAID, if 'I' know the answer to a question, you can ask me and I'll tell you- free of charge. I will also likely send you to my source and probably even include another. I don't mind at all, being asked questions.

[King of the Americas]

I understand that a lot of people are ignorant about basic science (and the horizon thing is very basic, I mean grade school level), but I don't understand why adults in a first world country are that ignorant, nor do I understand why they jump to ridiculous conclusions without doing any investigation of their own.

15% of Americans don't believe the President is a U.S. citizen.

Unless you take a close look at the evidence for yourself, and get a full understanding of the scientific facts, it is easy to be swayed by the very questions I initially posed.

We are an apathetic people, barely willing to march to the polls on election day.

It is much easier to believe a claim, rather than do the research to know the complete truth.

Unless it effects your life directly, people don't usually get involved.

[TjW]

Well, as to ignorance and apathy, I don't know and I don't care.

[King of the Americas]

Well, as to ignorance and apathy, I don't know and I don't care.

:)

Exactly.

[leafman91]

Oh, my, my. Your claim, then, is that to attach some unproven meaning to a UFO, such as it must be an intelligent alien's spaceship, is scientific? That to look at "anomalies", certainly a unbiased term, and to hold suspicions that they prove the photo was photographed in a studio on Earth is scientific? That's some stretch of the scientific method.

I don't give a damn about what inside you needs to know. If that something inside you starts attaching unevidenced labels, then that label is not scientific, it is imaginary. It is not unscientific to insist on a neutral label for something until it has been identified and evidence presented for such. Undisciplined curiosity will not assist you in your quest to understand mother nature, and what you misunderstand will come around to bite you in right in your "very best".

The very best in us, IMO, is our hard-won scientific knowledge, not unbridled curiosity.

I'm going to take this comment apart, piece by piece.
Oh, my, my. Your claim, then, is that to attach some unproven meaning to a UFO, such as it must be an intelligent alien's spaceship, is scientific? That to look at "anomalies", certainly a unbiased term, and to hold suspicions that they prove the photo was photographed in a studio on Earth is scientific? That's some stretch of the scientific method. No, not really. It is investigating phenomena and making predictions. Those predictions aren't very good, but they are still predictions nonetheless. Scientific method, at the very least ideologically.

I don't give a damn about what inside you needs to know. If that something inside you starts attaching unevidenced labels, then that label is not scientific, it is imaginary. It is not unscientific to insist on a neutral label for something until it has been identified and evidence presented for such. Undisciplined curiosity will not assist you in your quest to understand mother nature, and what you misunderstand will come around to bite you in right in your "very best" Quite right, and quite wrong too. Of course, jumping to conclusions is silly, which is why at first you rule nothing in and nothing out. But don't mistake labelling for wishful thinking or you might be the one to be bitten
The very best in us, IMO, is our hard-won scientific knowledge, not unbridled curiosity This the one most annoying line in the whole thread. It's as if to say, 'Let's stop investigating. We don't know what it is, and we are absolutely fine with that.' It's that sort of logic that really doesn't make sense. How did we manage our hard won scientific knowledge? I think you may find it is through unbridled curiosity. Isaac Newton the scientist heavily investigates gravity. Isaac Newton the skeptic, it seems, sees the apple fall and just accepts it. Or have I got that wrong?
You are mistaking unbridled imagination for unbridled curiosity.

[leafman91]

Well, as to ignorance and apathy, I don't know and I don't care.

Well said.:)

[shadron]

The very best in us, IMO, is our hard-won scientific knowledge, not unbridled curiosity
This the one most annoying line in the whole thread. It's as if to say, 'Let's stop investigating. We don't know what it is, and we are absolutely fine with that.' It's that sort of logic that really doesn't make sense. How did we manage our hard won scientific knowledge? I think you may find it is through unbridled curiosity. Isaac Newton the scientist heavily investigates gravity. Isaac Newton the skeptic, it seems, sees the apple fall and just accepts it. Or have I got that wrong?
You are mistaking unbridled imagination for unbridled curiosity.

OK, I was trying to place a border between curiosity and "filling in the blanks" with imagination. You seem to have gotten my meaning even if my words were not the best chosen ones. Thank you.

I think curiosity is great, but it is a personal characteristic, available to people on an individual basis, and it's great when one has it. It would not be worth very much (beyond the negative "killing the cat" worth) without the ability to combine our hard earned, dangerously used curiosity driven knowledge with others'. That, I think, was the motivation of my priorities.

[Soapy Sam]

Always bear in mind the lurkers. The Great Oort Crowd.

This is a good thread. KotA provided a link to a data source and expressed some of his concerns. Others responded to those concerns in a way that corrected much of his misunderstanding, to which he responded by learning things he didn't know before.

I watched Apollo as a kid. I'm a geologist and an amateur photographer. I know - at least vaguely- quite a lot about project Apollo, the Moon and the likely distortions in photographs when viewed by Earth-based humans. Which is all of us, last I looked.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world do not have any of these facets in their past and have no interest in acquiring them. Many of those people are, or will be, in positions of power in society.
They badly need informing and they don't know it.

It would never have entered my head that someone as evidently intelligent as KotA would be unaware that a lunar day is a month long- because I knew that when I was ten. But maybe I'm a bit wierd huh? Maybe many of us here are ?

Does Obama know? Or the President of General Motors? Or the editor-in-chief of the New York Times?
Do all the lurkers on JREFF know?

Well, they just had a chance to learn.

[EHocking]

...It would never have entered my head that someone as evidently intelligent as KotA would be unaware that a lunar day is a month long- because I knew that when I was ten. But maybe I'm a bit wierd huh? Maybe many of us here are ?Don't underestimate the general ignorance of people. That's not aimed at anyone here, but at the "general" populace.

A recent poll by the Washington Post, found that 30% of Americans could not remember the year of the Sept 11 attacks.

I watched an Aussie satire, "Chaser's War on Everything (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/)", where they took to the streets of New York to test this poll result. They found a number of respondents that couldn't name the MONTH, let alone the year, and some that even got the DAY incorrect. Some, given the a multiple choice of 3,000, 30,000 or 3 million, chose 30k or 3M as the number of deaths that occurred and most did not know that an attack also occurred outside of NY.

ETA:. Link 9/11 segment on show (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/#/videoarchive/S02E11911poll/).

OK, so the most ill-informed would have been shown in that 5mins of the show for humourous impact, but still, it's sobering to find out just how much basic information people don't know - and worst still, don't seem to care that they don't know.

[King of the Americas]

Always bear in mind the lurkers. The Great Oort Crowd.

This is a good thread. KotA provided a link to a data source and expressed some of his concerns. Others responded to those concerns in a way that corrected much of his misunderstanding, to which he responded by learning things he didn't know before.

I watched Apollo as a kid. I'm a geologist and an amateur photographer. I know - at least vaguely- quite a lot about project Apollo, the Moon and the likely distortions in photographs when viewed by Earth-based humans. Which is all of us, last I looked.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world do not have any of these facets in their past and have no interest in acquiring them. Many of those people are, or will be, in positions of power in society.
They badly need informing and they don't know it.

It would never have entered my head that someone as evidently intelligent as KotA would be unaware that a lunar day is a month long- because I knew that when I was ten. But maybe I'm a bit wierd huh? Maybe many of us here are ?

Does Obama know? Or the President of General Motors? Or the editor-in-chief of the New York Times?
Do all the lurkers on JREFF know?

Well, they just had a chance to learn.

I've been a fan of the space program, since I was about 8, maybe. I just loved planes, and the shuttle was a big space plane! That said, I wish I'd been more of a 'student' of manned space flight.

My initial information about the Moon was WAY off. I don't know where I picked it up, but in my head, the Moon was about 1/3rd the size of Earth. 'Learning' to true size, made a HUGE difference in interpreting the images.

Unless it has a direct impact on YOUR life, most people just don't care about the details...

I blame the "Impressionist" movement.

[dafydd]

Don't underestimate the general ignorance of people. That's not aimed at anyone here, but at the "general" populace.

A recent poll by the Washington Post, found that 30% of Americans could not remember the year of the Sept 11 attacks.

I watched an Aussie satire, "Chaser's War on Everything (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/)", where they took to the streets of New York to test this poll result. They found a number of respondents that couldn't name the MONTH, let alone the year, and some that even got the DAY incorrect. Some, given the a multiple choice of 3,000, 30,000 or 3 million, chose 30k or 3M as the number of deaths that occurred and most did not know that an attack also occurred outside of NY.

ETA:. Link 9/11 segment on show (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/#/videoarchive/S02E11911poll/).

OK, so the most ill-informed would have been shown in that 5mins of the show for humourous impact, but still, it's sobering to find out just how much basic information people don't know - and worst still, don't seem to care that they don't know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=related

[EHocking]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=related
I like the fact that there are at least four spelling mistakes in the subtitles in the first 90s of that vid.