We never land on the Earth. We never land a probe on Mars. Hubble never send us pictures from the univers. The Moon is a huge spotlight in the sky came from Vegas. God is a hoax. LBJ commissioned the assassination of JFK. The 5th Symphony is a fake. Ludwig van Beethoven was a gay, born in Kenya and we dont care.
Prove to me it's actually Neil Armstrong in that suit. Man didn't walk down that latter. Neil walked down that latter. If you can't prove it's Neil in the photo than stop saying it is.
@kusumabudi -- If "NASA has been the lier" and Jaxa has "given the truth to us" then WHY are they the SAME?
... or did you not understand the point of this video?
The whole point is that NASA took high-resolution, detailed, up-close pictures by standing on the surface in 1960 - 1972 and the best efforts anyone has done since (or ever can do) is to confirm that yes, indeed, that IS exactly what those areas of the moon actually look like.
@kusumabudi -- "principle" can easilly get you buying into LIES and doing the wrong thing if you don't understand what you're seeing.
You may THINK you're standing up for "the truth" but how do you know?
You didn't even understand the point of this video.
So tell me: This video DOES, in fact, overlay Japanese images on top of Apollo images and show that they are the same. So if Apollo images were "fake" then why are they the exact same as the real ones taken 40 years later?
@MrExcathedra Some people still think the earth is flat despite science saying otherwise. I'm sure moon landing deniers can empathise with them. Youre the one who needs to wake up, maybe keep your fantasies restricted to Hollywood movies or computer games?
What we need to do is take all these conspiracy nuts, put them on a rocket and send them to the moon. Let them look out the window at the evidence left behind by previous visits then if they still don't believe, open the hatch and let them go see for themselves.
Two big things which still aren't explained well enough for me is, where are the stars, and who filmed the lunar lander taking off from the moons surface?
@davetattoorowlands 1. The stars are not visible due to the camera setup to take images of the bright lunar surface. A longer exposure time to get pictures of the stars would have the effect that the surface is an outwashed area.
2. The camera mounted on the Lunar Rover filmed the launch of the LM. It was controlled remotedly by Mission Control.
@CHSarahBs Yep heard all that, light from the stars travel light speed, so was the shutter speed faster than light? The camera was controlled by mission control - we had remote control then? - and over a distance of 130,000 miles? The lunar lander - where in the LEM was that stored and was in flat packed / self assmebly or already like that?
@davetattoorowlands The Rover was folded and stored outside of the LM. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes.
The controller at Mission Control was Ed Fendell. The procedure was known, they knew the location of LM and Rover (incl. the camera), they knew the angle and the time delay. It was only a question of calculation.
@CHSarahBs I have read the answers you have gave me before, but I am asking what you think - not what answers have been put up by NASA. For instance I asked about the stars, the answer was the shutter speed, why then when asked by Patrick Moore if they saw any star constellations, Buzz said he saw no stars at all and the other two astronauts agreed, one saying he didn't look out of the window! Its on youtube - thats why I doubt he offical answers.
@davetattoorowlands It is on youtube, so it must be true. I hope this sentence is not your own mantra. To do a proper research you have to watch original footage, original photos and original datas.
My suggestion is: Talk to a professional photographer who can inform you about shutter speed and the technology to get images of the faint starlight.
@CHSarahBs There is no need to lower the tone! I have the DVD of the full interview of the astronauts after they came back, it in itself is very interesting - I merely used You tube to point you to the i minute part of the hour and a half long video for your convenience rather than tell you to buy the DVD. My friend is a professional photographer should I need photographic advice - are you suggesting the video I tried to point you towards is fake? Do those things really happen?
@CHSarahBs Also - what is meant by 'faint starlight'? They were on the light side of the moon with temperatures hitting 105 c no atmosphere to reflect sun and starlight but you are suggesting their only light was 'faint starlight'? I saw an interesting interview with the maker of the cameras for apollo 11 and I really think you are getting your research a bit wrong if you thought the astronauts were adjsuting shutter speeds to compensate for starlight. Google it as i can't add links.
@davetattoorowlands I think you have understood me wrong. There were two light sources: the sun and the reflecting lunar surface. This light was too bright, the starlight was faint.
The camera setup was adjusted to take photos of the bright lunar surface. To take pictures of the faint stars, they would have to adjust the shutter.
@CHSarahBs I did, but cameras rely on light - the light from the stars is constant, no atmosphere so bettter visibility. what shutter speed could be used so a camera won't pick up direct light sources, a shutter speed can eliminate glare and haze but would therefore make the other light sources crisper, meaning the stars hould have been much more visable than on earth, Could a photographer on Earth take a pic of the sky and show no stars using only shutter speed? I just have a curious mind.;)
@CHSarahBs Also the lunar surface can produce a glare but cannot truely reflect light. The Astronauts would be facing away from the sun to take photographs and the light wouldn't be able to reflect or bounce off the surface and into the lense, so the surface should have had very bright parts where the light hit rocks etc, and bounced back to the camera lense - a glare. Yes there are reflective properties in the surface but they produce the glare as the are not uniform, a reflective surface is.
@CHSarahBs The moon surface is not reflective, the earths surface is three times more reflective, I understand that there is no atmosphere to diffuse light so some distant stars will be difficult to see but the Astronauts said they saw no stars - as I mentioned before.
@davetattoorowlands You can't see stars because this is a brightly lit scene - the Sun is 50% brighter on the Moon than in any Earth desert, due to no atmosphere. Look at any picture of a well-lit sports game at night, for example - no stars in evidence. The astronauts had the same problem - keep in mind that the gold sun visor on the helmet serves the same purpose as a pair of sunglasses. Put on a pair of sunglasses in a brightly-lit parking lot and try to pick out stars - not going to happen.
@CHSarahBs I have read the answers you have gave me before, but I am asking what you think - not what answers have been put up by NASA. For instance I asked about the stars, the answer was the shutter speed, why then when asked by Patrick Moore if they saw any star constellations, Buzz said he saw no stars at all and the other two astronauts agreed, one saying he didn't look out of the window! Its on youtube - thats why I doubt he offical answers.
judging from your fighter planes, your radar can only detect 150km nowadays . If you could do better why aren't you using it? We are talking about just identifying a dot on a radar not 3D imaging.
how did they get the the angle of the terrain exactly the same? And where the hell is the American flag? don't tell me the wind blew it away. 50 years later they can't get a clear picture and back then they could? Nixon and Kubrick did all this shit man. Just accpet it. Wait for the Chinese to send someone there. They promised to rewrite history. Oh yea and Columbus didn't find shit neither.
so everyone who thinks we never went to the moon keeps asking...how did nasa do this or how did nasa do that..... ill answer them all for you! nasa knows a whole lot more than you...end of story. give our country some credit for being the best and if you cant get the f&ck out!!!
How did NASA get accurate high-resolution pictures of tiny craters from multiple angles? I'm thinking they took multiple pictures, using a high-resolution camera, from multiple angles. I think you should be more straightforward about the mystery here, I can't figure it out. The Jap pictures match the Apollo ones, so something fishy is going on?
Just because a camera isn't digital doesn't mean it doesn't have high resolution. They used specialized cameras that could photograph a pack of cigarettes from 40,000 feet, and that was in the mid-1960s. I know because I was in the Air Force back then (1967 to 1971) and saw these cameras. We had the technology but it wasn't available to the general public. It's the same today.
@BurnsDillon We didn't have the technology. I was an Electronics Design Engineer at the time working on very basic radar imaging using fractal theory and Bayesian Inferential techniques...........for space projects and avionics application.....
@BurnsDillon How did the still photo cameras get such pristine details of both objects very close and terrain very far away? You can buy a nearly identical camera and take a pic of someone standing in front of a mountain, if you focus on the person, can you see the background clearly?
@zenphil ... Of course you can. I was on a vacation in Portland just a couple of weeks ago and someone took a picture of me with Mount Hood in the background - both I and the mountain could be discerned clearly. (Now, mountain pictures taken from far away have a bluish haze in front of them, but that's from atmosphere, which is not in effect on the Moon.)
I have a lunar conspiracy theory of my own. Mine is that the US government blew 20 billion dollars over 10+ years and pushed the aerospace, computing, electronics, metallurgy and bio-medicine industries of that country so far forward that they have maintained a lead which they largely hold to this day, and in the process achieved the single greatest feat of mankind and international kudos whilst making their opponents look like amateurs.
Theres your conspiracy, simple isnt it. Dickheads.
@NASAvsPETE Pete and I have discussed that orbiter program. He fails to mention that it had a resolution of 60 meters. IOW, much worse than Selene, and not even in the same ballpark as LRO, which has imaged features that ALL match Apollo ascent and descent films and EVA photography.
So no, we did NOT have the data necessary to fake the resolution of Selene or LRO at the time of Apollo -- except from Apollo itself.
@NASAvsPETE "That's inaccurate a spy satellite can see a nose hair"
Speaking of inaccurate... The best spy satellites have a resolution of 10cm. Now, they could get a really nice look at the landers, rovers, etc, but do you really want them to spend $1b plus the cost of getting it there just for that? Serious waste of money. (Thought it would be cool.)
@419Films The US already sent a spy satellite to the Moon, look up the Clementine Mission. Funny how they won't show any pictures from that satellite to the public.
@akirafactor The Clementine mission was not a spy satellite, that's ludicrous to suggest. But even more ludicrous is the idea that no pictures are available to the public. Google "Clementine lunar image browser" - the entire raw data set is available to the public. You're lying or you're laughably misinformed - either way you're hardly credible on the subject.
Continuing in the vein of you being completely incorrect in everything you say, landers are visible in new moon pictures.
@akirafactor Well, the images from Clementine's HIRES camera can be found in the NASA's World Wind software. Also, Clementine was not a spy satellite, and it's HIRES camera only had a resolution (depending on altitude) of 7m-20m. Given that the LM was only 4.3m wide, it would only appear as 1 pixel, anyway.
@akirafactor muppet. Im guessing you think hubble is a spy satellite as well? I this the level of moron the american school system is generating today. or did you parents have no children that lived?
@datzfast Nope, certainly not anything on this size. They had lunar soil simulations and they had perhaps some terrain models but nothing that would capture relatively tiny craters like these.
@NASAvsPETE You are, of course, well aware that JAXA did not have the spatial resolution and was not trying to find the LEM, yet you lie about it anyway. Out of everything, that's the part about the hoaxer that I find most fascinating - you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, yet you do it anyway like you're showing off your dishonesty.
As for a court, since you have no evidence, are openly dishonest, and refuse to provide any consistent theory, I think I'm pretty safe. Blocked.
@NASAvsPETE lol, and that's a hoax pusher in a nutshell. You say something, I respond to that, and you tell me I'm shoving my beliefs down your throat. You literally openly refuse to be logically consistent.
And of course, just to prove it, you then claim JAXA tried to confirm it and had nothing... when the very video you're posting on proves you a liar.
If you have anything of substance to say, other than snarky comments, say it, otherwise I think this is the end of this conversation.
@NASAvsPETE I know what you believe because you said it. I love how you don't even try to deny it. I know you don't believe there are LEMs on the surface, and yet at the same time I know you do believe they're there - so obviously you don't really believe in either of your theories.
As for 3rd parties, first off, pointing out that NASA can do it doesn't say anything about 3rd parties, who are few and far between. And why would another nation spend millions confirming what they already know?
@NASAvsPETE That's exactly what I'm saying, Pete. You happily tell me the Chinese wouldn't find any LEMs, even as you say that there are LEMs down there. None of this is real for you, you're just arguing for argument's sake. You don't believe any of this. You don't have any "theory" - that would require a rational narrative in which LEMs either are or are not on the surface of the Moon. You just have responses to existing evidence and snarky comments.
@NASAvsPETE I would further like to point out that your sudden change only confirms what I said earlier: "You guys would not be convinced by those pictures anyway, you're only using this argument because you know the pictures don't exist. If they did you'd make up some other argument." If China had taken pictures of the rover and LEM you would have said that the LEM landed unmanned. As such you are clearly arguing for argument's sake, not because you actually want to find out the truth.
@NASAvsPETE You claimed the Chinese would bring back pictures of missing LEMs. I point out that the Soviets would have had a lot easier time noticing that, and you shoot back that there are LEMs down there? You literally took two posts to entirely change your theory. You are simply making things up on the spot.
Your idea is ludicrous - landing unmanned LEMs would be far MORE risky than a manned mission. You're literally trying to say NASA perpetrated treason for no good reason whatsoever.
@NASAvsPETE I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a country to bring back proof the Moon landing didn't happen either. The Soviets were watching us very carefully in 1969 - they had a satellite in orbit around the Moon when we landed. If we faked it well enough to fool people watching at the time, it's a bit hard to believe that anyone will find anything new years later. All the satellite imagery so far has been completely consistent with moon landings.
Why are the cameras mounted on the LRO or Kaguya so crappy? These things were orbiting the moon 100 meters above its surface and we can barely see anything related to the Apollo landings. I mean google earth has better pictures taken from a satelite way way higher than that where we can see cars buildings even people! What kind of camera do they take up there? Cell phone camera?
@Thebeavir First off, "100 meters" is about a thousand times too low. Second, keep in mind that the Google Earth satellites are FAR lower than the lunar satellites with respect to Earth's gravity well. The lunar satellites have to be boosted 240,000 miles straight up, a little less than a thousand times as far as Google Earth satellites have to be boosted. Third, they take up the kind of cameras they need... and they don't need cameras that can see cars or people on the Moon.
@Thebeavir Oh, also, you might be thinking of only the LRO's early images before it had settled down into its final parking spot. Newer LRO pictures clearly show the lander, the rover, and foot and rover tracks. Try Googling "LRO images bostonglobe" for an article with some really beautiful pictures.
@NASAvsPETE You're absolutely right. If China, or indeed any country or private agency anywhere in the world, had any solid evidence whatsoever that the Moon landings weren't real, such as missing rovers, I'm sure more people will be asking questions too, because I would be one of them.
But until there is some actual evidence that the Moon landings were faked, I and the vast majority of other people, as rational human beings, will have to go on believing in the reliable evidence that exists.
@NASAvsPETE Again, you're simply insisting, based on nothing, that NASA should spend millions of dollars to send a satellite to the Moon with a camera whose only function would be to take pictures of the rover, to confirm something that every knowledgeable person in the world believes anyway. It is absolutely silly. You guys would not be convinced by those pictures anyway, you're only using this argument because you know the pictures don't exist. If they did you'd make up some other argument.
One? ...Wears the rovers, the flag and other such part's left behind in the 1st moon landing...Japan has found nothing of the sort?????If it happened thou's things should still be there in the same spot they were left...Yet there's nothing "?Did people from Mar's steel all the left behind stuff ???
@CommanderThsh Kaguya's camera is 10 meters per pixel - no artifact of the mission is 30 feet by 30 feet, which would show up as a single black pixel.
Even on the LRO, with a resolution of 1.5 meters per pixel, the landers only show up as a small smudge of different-colored pixels.
Kaguya was able to see the shadow of the lander (shadows can be very long when the sun is at the right angle) as well as discolored dust around it.
@NASAvsPETE You have been found out? for the liar you are, again. The original USSR photos did not show stars, you just zoomed in, and manipulated the poor quality images until some imperfections appeared, and you called them stars.
Why did you not also put the original pics in your YT video? Because they lack stars?
Theres a big difference between someone on the ground taking photo's and a orbiting satellite. Look at Google Earth. We cant see footprints on our own fucking planet from overhead camera shots. how the fuck are they supposed to see it on the moon?? The cameras used on the moon landings were chemical and naturally has better quality or comparitive resolution than most digital cameras today. This video proves to me once again that they were really their.
@NASAvsPETE You're just looking for a fight, not making any sort of reasonable argument. Of course Apollo cost a lot - because it got twelve men to the Moon. Heck, the Apollo missions have plenty of pictures of the LEM - all of which you insist don't count. You're insisting that NASA should have then spent millions of dollars to send up a specialized camera with no other purpose than to take far-away pictures of equipment that they already have better pictures of. It makes no sense.
@NASAvsPETE Until the LRO, no nation had put up a satellite with sufficient resolution to view the LEMs - a six-meter object is not that large in the grand scale of things. The LRO indeed returned pictures of the LEMs and their shadows on the surface of the Moon.
It costs millions of dollars to get a camera to the Moon. No one's going to send a camera just to take crisp photos of the LEMs. And the super-narrow-field camera you'd need to get the pics would be useless for almost everything else.
@BoundInChains There's no real photography jargon - this is simply research from the Japanese showing that the pictures we took on Apollo are indeed highly accurate to the Moon's surface, to a much greater extent than we had the capability to do back in the 1960s, thus showing clearly that Apollo actually happened.
The Apollo 11 mission was in shambles just 2 years before launch and many astronauts died in the experiments and virtually all equipment was experimental and prone to failure. What was the mission's probability of success according to NASA scientists? Why did President Nixon allow the mission to be broadcast live for the world to see when the odds of success were so low? Failure would have led to instant humiliation with no ability to cover it up. Seems quite odd to me.
@felicity5155 None of your assertions are correct. The equipment was not overly prone to failure, the mission was certainly not in "shambles", and there was only one incident which resulted in astronaut loss of life.
As for your question about why they broadcast it live, I leave that up to you. Why do *you* think they unquestionably lifted off the largest rocket ever to take off from planet Earth in front of everyone? Shouldn't they have kept it away from everyone if it was fake?
@ImTheSecretSquare - My assertions? I am paraphrasing comments from NASA employees themselves. I like the quote from Gus Grissom "How do you expect us to go to the moon when we can communicate between two buildings?" before he and three others died in an accident. Apollo 11 was the first mission to land on moon. Virtually everything was experimental and one-off designs which are always prone to failure. Inventors know this.
@ImTheSecretSquare - During the cold war space race one would never take a gamble like that especially when odds were way against you. If anything went wrong live on TV it would be instant world humiliation. If it's not live at least you can cover up accidents and do damage control. There is no way the President would make a decision like that unless he was certain the mission would be successful. Only an engineered hoax would guarantee success.
@felicity5155 lol, how would an engineered hoax guarantee success? They launched a dozen football-field-high rockets without a doubt - the launches were visible for hundreds of miles. The Soviets were completely unable to do so. You have clearly never seen a rocket launch in person - they're impossible to cover up, and impossible to guarantee.
Furthermore, the fact that they went public with Apollo 1 makes your thesis that they could not tolerate any embarrassment patently incorrect.
@ImTheSecretSquare - Nope, my theory stands. Too much was riding on this mission to risk global humiliation during the cold war. You still have not shown me the NASA radiation studies. Imagine if NASA calculated wrong and the astronauts ended up burnt to a crisp on live TV. You think Nixon would risk that happening? Not a chance.
@felicity5155 You have failed to find any evidence that there was too much radiation. You attempted to make some sort of point regarding humiliation but utterly failed to even spit out a cogent and reasonable point in that regard, since they publicly launched the largest rocket in the world over and over and over.
In short, your argument is nothing but "I refuse to look up anything, please find evidence for me that Apollo was a hoax." You literally have no actual argument whatsoever.
Do you have links to the studies that NASA did regarding radiation and VA belts prior to the mission? They certainly must have done many studies and came to firm conclusions prior to designing the space suits and equipment. I doubt NASA would just roll the dice and see what happens. They must have been absolutely certain the level of radiation in order to design the capsule and space suits properly. Where are the studies? I'd like to see them.
I guess it will be years down the line when we are exploring and settling the moon and actually come across one of the landing sites that we will say " looks like we really did come here before".
@TheJomogogo I guess I'm too old and set in my ways to question any of this. But I thank you for your reply. The world is a mess right now, but I have to believe in this "miracle exploration" that I witnessed in my youth because it gives me hope before I pass that Humanity can overcome the problems of today.... for my grandchildren's sake.
hi, listen, there are some statements and opinions that make people eligible to be ignored and dismissed like a 5 year old, and saying the moon landing was a hoax is one of them. There is nothing to question about that great achievement, I envy that you got to witness it. these nuts don't deserve a response ;-)
@TheJomogogo - One thing for certain is that your government lies cheats and steals from you. They always have and always will. If you believe anything your government tells you without questioning it then you are a complete fool my friend.
@zzzcherryzzz This is direct evidence that the Apollo landings are real - your "crap connected with the moon landings" are simply innuendo used by people who can't make a real scientific argument to save their lives.
@zzzcherryzzz -- "Massive amounts of total crap connected with the moon landings?"
Oh, wow.
You're another real believer in the hoax-"proofs" aren't you?
I've seen a ton of supposed hoax-evidence. Every piece of it I have seen has been just as much "crap" as the original "there should have been a blast crater" argument which can only be promoted by people who can't (or don't bother to, which is worse) do simple arithmetic.
I've been looking for months. So far, there is NO evidence of a hoax.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together and for the links to the original source. Congrats to the Japanese scientists who made these pictures possible! Another nail in the hoaxer's coffin (but then, their conspiracy theory was braindead to begin with...)
@WackyAmoebatrons Nail in the coffin, huh? Neither JAXA nor NASA are making such audacious claims. Believers are curious beings; you give them ancient myths, they make a gospel out of it. You give them a few topographical image, they make a proof out of it. You give them an official story, they make a fact out it. The truth of the matter is, believers needed neither gospel, proof nor facts to believe. They are a special kind of people, albeit annoying at times.
@xxoooOFxx Right, JAXA doesn't make this claim. I do. Many more join me, as can be seen by the abundance of hoax debunkers on YT. Funny that hoax believers like to point out their skills in "critical thinking" but never question their own gullibilty. All the idiocy about flags, craters, shadows, stars. If only they understood one bit of the scientific method, they'd become hoax debunkers right away. It's never too late to learn! See the light! YES WE DID LAND ON THE MOON.
@WackyAmoebatrons The caps did it for me...I am a believer! I have seen the light! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
BTW, I hold 2 advanced degrees in science. If you can assign any kind of common trait to 'hoaxers', 'conspiracy theorists', etc, it is that a good number of them have problems with authority. No one likes to think they're gullible, and as such we stick to critical thinking to avoid falling in that trap. Despite such effort, we all fall in such trap from time to time. Cont.
@xxoooOFxx Yes, conspiracy theorists have problems with authority. But so do many scientists! That's why theories are accepted only after independent testing, not by appeals to authority.
Unfortunately, the conspiracists simply do not understand this; they erroneously believe that science is by authoritative fiat. If they understood how science works, they could do their own checks and realize that no government could fake this.
@WackyAmoebatrons Cont. But those who lack arguments and rely on beliefs quickly become defensive and start attacking the person. Beliefs are great things, when they're kept private. The minute you try to espouse your belief as a fact, you find yourself in trouble. Reason and logic, we can share. Beliefs, not a chance.
@xxoooOFxx Thanks for your reply. You seem to be one of the more reasonable people and you seem to understand the distinction between belief and factual knowledge. Me, I consider moon rocks, retro reflectors, independent voice recordings in real time as facts, not beliefs. On the other hand, conspiracy theorists present nothing but beliefs. The Apollo program is the best documented technical endeavor in modern times. None of the hoaxers "arguments" survives one bit of scrutiny. They *did* land.
Ah...so close that they have a shot from the same spot the lunar module supposedly landed and where the astronauts erected the American flag, but the Kaguya has not image of the lunar module that was left behind nor the image of the American flag. How could it be? Or is that the Japanese were not looking for these artifacts as they are inconsequential?
Yeah, go ahead and ban me. How do I dare question orthodoxy!
@xxoooOFxx I'm not going to ban you - they didn't actually get that close, it's a 3D projection based on altimeter data and satellite imagery. You're not "questioning orthodoxy", you just don't get what's going on.
@xxoooOFxx You don't get exactly what I just said - that this is a 3D projection based on altimeter data and satellite imagery. They did not actually take a picture from the same place. The satellite imagery did not have anywhere close to the resolution necessary to take pictures of the lunar module.
@ImTheSecretSquare Ok...you presupposed that I'd not get what you said before I even responded. I am following your logic now. Anyway, why are you and more importantly JAXA using topographic data/images to make identification of the Apollo 15 landing site and the 'halo' the landing module formed. Curiously, there was another 'halo' right next to it that looked just like the one 'created' by the landing module. If the images are not clear enough, why make any IDs?
@xxoooOFxx You're going to have to explain your post. They're identifying it as the Apollo 15 halo because it's in the right spot. See, the problem with you hoax pushers is that you think they're trying to prove Apollo true. These guys are space scientists - they know Apollo happened. They're using Apollo data to show that their work is correct, not the other way around.
@ImTheSecretSquare The old trick in the book....when you run out of arguments start associating people to nefarious groups so you can easily dismiss them. Stick to the argument friend. If the halo they identified was that of Apollo 15's lunar landing module, what are the other halos right around it that are eerily similar?
@xxoooOFxx You clearly don't understand this work, do you? From orbit, Kaguya could not see objects as small as the LM. But it saw the same LARGER objects (like these craters) that Apollo photographed from the surface. Remapping Kaguya's pictures to a surface perspective didn't increase their resolution, but it did put those large craters in the same locations as they were seen by Apollo.
There was no way to produce such pictures during Apollo, so Apollo's must have been real.
@ApolloWasReal If I did, I wouldn't be asking questions. Don't you think that's futile? That would have been a decent circumstantial evidence argument, had the premise 'there was no way to produce such pictures during [sic] Apollo...' was true. Before Apollo, NASA has sent at least one unmanned orbiter to take images of the moon surface to determine a landing site for Apollo 11. Such effort produced similar resolution images as Kauguya did in 2007
@mrwhitemanvideo That wouldn't be such a far-fetched idea. Japan is joined at the hip with the U.S. with the latter's military-industrial complex. The Japanese government continues to ignore demands by its citizens to get rid of the U.S. military based on their soil.
@xxoooOFxx What a convenient argument! Any space-faring nation with the ability to send a spacecraft to the moon is necessarily "joined at the hip" to the US military-industrial complex and thus would, I guess, never reveal the Apollo "hoax".
What about the Russians? They watched and listened to Apollo as it happened, but no one would say they were joined at the hip to the US military. Yet they fully accepted Apollo as real. Why?
@ApolloWasReal What a convenient rebuttal! Look, we have no way in hell proving and/or disproving why national governments behave in a manner they behave at any given time. Motives for geopolitical maneuvers are very complex. We're better of sticking to the science of Apollo. We have a much better chance there.
I would like a hoaxer to explain to me why I should expect a rocket engine performing a soft landing to produce the exact same kind of surface artifact (crater) as the uncontrolled impact of a object traveling several km/sec.
The landing of a LM was not a hypervelocity impact. Is it so unreasonable to expect that it'd affect the surface differently?
The landings DID scour out the surface, as seen in many still images. They simply don't resemble impact craters. And why should they?
@billman92509 There was nothing "secret" about Kodak's film. They may have made a product specially for the government, but the only special need NASA had for Apollo film was to cram more pictures on each roll. So Apollo used the standard emulsions on an extra-thin backing. Same performance as the standard commercial products, just more pictures on each roll (and probably quite a bit more expensive too).
So, the lunar satellite can take pictures showing details of craters but can't take pictures of, oh I don't know, the USA flag, moon buggies, base structures of the lunar landers ? After all, aren't the afforementioned items standing above the surface that was so accurately pictured ? Anyone digging my drift ?
@Frankly747 OMG you cracked the code! That's something that no one, including NASA, the Japanese scientists taking these pictures, and all the hoax pushers, EVER thought about! Well done! You proved the moon landing a hoax! What a genius!
ORRRR maybe it's that the Kaguya satellite did not have the resolution to take pictures of them - something that would take a simple Google search to find out.
Think you can guess which one it is? Hint - it's not the one where you're a genius.
The resolution has been available on spy satellites to photograph a packet of cigarettes on the ground on Earth for a long time. It's not hard or expensive and this was a perfect opportunity to see how the objects left behind by the missions have faired in almost fifty years. Everything could have been proved legitimate and kosha in an instant.
So in your view, NASA should waste millions and millions of dollars to send some spy satellite to the moon in order to appease some small population of Hoax Believing Nut-bars??
I'll humor you for a minute and let's assume NASA did this. You and all of your Hoax Believing buddies wouldn't just say,"Oh.. Those photos they just took are all fake too!! They're just trying to fool us all!!" ???
Ummmm... Sure. Let's take some more moon photos ...Spare me!!
"The optics and digital technology have been available cheaply for years"
You make it sound as if NASA can just go to the local Hardware store and purchase a spy satellite and booster rocket for $67.95. It's a little more complicated than that wouldn't you agree?
It would still cost at least millions to do so, and for what purpose? So arrogant numb-skulls like yourself can just view the new photos from this satellite, fold your arms and state, "Sorry... I still don't believe it"
"Everything else you've written there is mental illness"
And I concur! Believing that Apollo was hoax with all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is most likely a sign of mental deficiency! And on that note...
"Forty years. Why not?"
Thank you for completely proving my point!
Yes segedunum, why don't you contact some of these Geologists and tell them what moronic, brain-dead fools they have all been. I'm sure they'll greatly value your in-depth analysis. They await your call!
@segedunum Yes, one might ask what the point was. The answer would be that the point was not to photograph the Apollo lunar landers - why you thought it was, I haven't a clue.
By the way, on your "spy satellites" point, ever notice how we don't have a manned space station in orbit around the Moon either? The Moon is a thousand times as far away, straight up - you might as well say since you can leap two feet in the air, bounding to the top of the Burj al Khalifa should be just as easy.
"the point was not to photograph the Apollo lunar landers"
I didn't say that it was. The point was that if you're going to take yet more pictures of the moon's surface it would be sensible to do it better than before, especially now that there seems to be a hunt for water on the moon, no?
"ever notice how we don't have a manned space station in orbit around the Moon either?"
The optics have been available and cheap enough for years to do it. I can't see your point.
@segedunum Yes, the optics have been available. Naturally, you completely ignore the actual argument, which is that the Moon is a thousand times farther away than LEO, straight up. Please note that if you continue to ignore arguments, you will be blocked from this channel. This is a channel for discussion, not for simply spreading your false propaganda.
"which is that the Moon is a thousand times farther away than LEO, straight up."
It's irrelevant. The optics are there to do it and it doesn't explain why we got no corresponding increase in detail from Kaguya. This bogus distance argument gets wheeled out every time as to why we have no detailed photos.
"Please note that if you continue to ignore arguments, you will be blocked from this channel."
Since your 'arguments' are being embarrassingly debunked every time, I'm not suprised frankly.
NO!!! Please don't block him!! Are you kidding! Every day, I grab a cup of coffee, read segedunum's posts and Laugh my Butt off!!
What's really funny is this Jug-Head has no idea how deep of hole he's dug himself into. First he claims that scientists haven't adequately studied the lunar samples, then he states that samples have been proven to have questionable attributes. How would they know this if they can't study the samples correctly???
@pjwarez Wow, look at the arguments by people who espouse scientific knowledge and those who are supposedly 'mentally deficient'. If being able to present coherent thought without having to resort to name-calling, ridicule and sarcasm, is mentally deficient, label me as such. Whatever happened to the idea of disagreeing without being disagreeable?
@xxoooOFxx DONE! I will give no credence to the belief that the landings were hoaxed, that has no scientific basis and is based on nothing more than ignorance and stupidity, no more than I would to someone that suggests I keep an OPEN MIND about Blacks and Jews being sub-human. Its utter stupidity... nothing more, nothing less.
It's been over 40 years and all your side has to show for its efforts is your OPEN MINDS spilling their contents all over the floor and collecting dust in the corner!
@segedunum You seem to assume that resolution is the be-all and end-all of a lunar mapping camera. It isn't. There are many scientific investigations going on here, and few require absolute maximum resolution. They fly instruments other than cameras to determine the chemical makeup of the surface. They fly laser altimeters to map the surface topography.
A super-high resolution visible imaging camera also generates a huge amount of data that can be difficult to transmit to earth in real time.
@ImTheSecretSquare Not only is our only manned space station in low orbit, it's in a REALLY low orbit: 300-400 km. So low that it has to be frequently reboosted to overcome air drag.
Why so low? To make it easier to reach. The extra fuel mass spent overcoming the extra drag is more than made up for by the increase in Shuttle and Progress payloads made possible by its low orbit.
@segedunum Guess what -- they did! It's called Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. It has a 0.5 m resolution, and it's returned quite a few cool pictures of all the Apollo landing sites. The LM descent stages, ALSEP experiments, and especially the astronaut footpaths are all very clearly visible.
@xxoooOFxx Yes, I'd say they're all clearly visible, especially when seen on multiple passes at various sun angles. You can even see the individual footpads on the LM descent stages and the shadows of the RCS plume deflectors.
@xxoooOFxx Even if someone took you to Tranquility Base and showed you Neil Armstrong's backpack and the remains of the US flag, you'd still claim it could have been recently planted in furtherance of the 'hoax'.
Scientific breakthroughs often use data (and pictures) at the limits of technology. What matters is whether the data, statistically analyzed, fits the hypothesis. If LRO isn't showing Apollo artifacts, then what are they? Be prepared to produce detailed physical models.
@ApolloWasReal Now, you speak of me as if you know me. Do we know each other outside of this forum? Or are you trying to lump me together with an easily dismissable? Let's stick to what we know and factual. Let's leave future-telling and psychological evaluations to the mystics and psychologists, not necessarily respectively.
@xxoooOFxx So are you saying that while you don't accept the reality of Apollo at the moment, unlike all the other deniers I've met you can conceive of evidence that you *would* accept? What would that be?
Be careful before you answer. Make sure it's something no one can ever actually give you.
@ApolloWasReal The first part of your loaded question gave me a glimmer of hope, that you have finally recognized skepticism is not equivalent to denial. But that hope was soon dashed by your attempt in peddling evidence. For someone who espouses knowledge of the scientific method, you are certainly threading on unchartered waters. Of course I would like to be flown to the moon to witness the evidence myself. Short of that, I will settle for any impregnable evidence. Got some?
@xxoooOFxx You have yet to define what you would find acceptable proof; this is no surprise, as moving the goalposts is a favorite denialist tactic.
I've got plenty that should suffice for anyone who understands science, engineering and logic. The fact that it hasn't already been sufficient for you tells the story.
@ApolloWasReal Apollo! We're making such good progress! You're devolving into a typical frustrated believer. Please, no name calling. I kind of have a fragile ego....tough parents. I like more evidence better...all ears.
@xxoooOFxx Like I said, first you specify what constitutes acceptable proof so you can't move the goalposts later.
Who's calling anyone names? I need *some* term for those who do not accept that the Apollo missions were real. Hoax believer? (That's ambiguous...believe in the hoax, or believe that it was a hoax?) Denialist? Conspiracist? Pick one. Or make up your own.
@ApolloWasReal I like 'skeptic' better. As far as acceptable proof, any evidence that shows that human beings have been on the moon will do. I accept circumstantial evidence, as long as it is well supported. Direct evidence would be best.
This has been flagged as spam show
We never land on the Earth. We never land a probe on Mars. Hubble never send us pictures from the univers. The Moon is a huge spotlight in the sky came from Vegas. God is a hoax. LBJ commissioned the assassination of JFK. The 5th Symphony is a fake. Ludwig van Beethoven was a gay, born in Kenya and we dont care.
TheAlonetogether 1 day ago
Is it wrong that I just came here for the song?
DethPandable 2 months ago
@DethPandable I was thinking the same.
Do you or anyone does happen to know who sings this track.
Thank's a lot...
Volubilisable 3 weeks ago
there is a video of nasa air brushing buildings on the moon look it up
mkie100000 2 months ago
"It didn't happen because I don't believe it happened". How pathetic can you get, child.
goldenscales 3 months ago
@goldenscales Who are you talking to?
ImTheSecretSquare 2 months ago
@ImTheSecretSquare Who's talking to me?
goldenscales 2 months ago
@goldenscales ... Huh? That's what I asked you. You quoted someone and called them "child" - who were you referring to?
ImTheSecretSquare 2 months ago
@ImTheSecretSquare The Question and the Answer are no longer applicable. It was a comment made in the moment without thought.
goldenscales 2 months ago
Prove to me it's actually Neil Armstrong in that suit. Man didn't walk down that latter. Neil walked down that latter. If you can't prove it's Neil in the photo than stop saying it is.
bridgetroll9 3 months ago
@bridgetroll9 What are you talking about?
ImTheSecretSquare 3 months ago
NASA has been the lier, jaxa given the truth to us.....
kusumabudi 4 months ago
@kusumabudi -- If "NASA has been the lier" and Jaxa has "given the truth to us" then WHY are they the SAME?
... or did you not understand the point of this video?
The whole point is that NASA took high-resolution, detailed, up-close pictures by standing on the surface in 1960 - 1972 and the best efforts anyone has done since (or ever can do) is to confirm that yes, indeed, that IS exactly what those areas of the moon actually look like.
prosperomage 4 months ago
@prosperomage - i always standing on my principle, and never same by you..
kusumabudi 4 months ago
@kusumabudi -- "principle" can easilly get you buying into LIES and doing the wrong thing if you don't understand what you're seeing.
You may THINK you're standing up for "the truth" but how do you know?
You didn't even understand the point of this video.
So tell me: This video DOES, in fact, overlay Japanese images on top of Apollo images and show that they are the same. So if Apollo images were "fake" then why are they the exact same as the real ones taken 40 years later?
prosperomage 4 months ago
Lol you moon hoaxtards are as pathetic as the 9/11 inside job tards. Fucking grow up.
Spindry96 5 months ago 3
@Spindry96 Grow up? You need to wakeup and use that thing that passes for a brain in your thick skull!
MrExcathedra 4 months ago
@MrExcathedra Some people still think the earth is flat despite science saying otherwise. I'm sure moon landing deniers can empathise with them. Youre the one who needs to wake up, maybe keep your fantasies restricted to Hollywood movies or computer games?
Spindry96 4 months ago
What we need to do is take all these conspiracy nuts, put them on a rocket and send them to the moon. Let them look out the window at the evidence left behind by previous visits then if they still don't believe, open the hatch and let them go see for themselves.
Spacesuits? Why?
Aelinthali 5 months ago
neil amstrong and buzz lightyear is fake... deal with it
molceonly 6 months ago
the apollo missions were faked. Deal with it.
uwantsun 6 months ago
i cant see lunar module and car :Pp
faruk34gng67 6 months ago
The moon landings happened. Deal with it.
Task5003 6 months ago
@philkarn exactly
SingularityProject 6 months ago
Two big things which still aren't explained well enough for me is, where are the stars, and who filmed the lunar lander taking off from the moons surface?
davetattoorowlands 7 months ago
@davetattoorowlands 1. The stars are not visible due to the camera setup to take images of the bright lunar surface. A longer exposure time to get pictures of the stars would have the effect that the surface is an outwashed area.
2. The camera mounted on the Lunar Rover filmed the launch of the LM. It was controlled remotedly by Mission Control.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs Yep heard all that, light from the stars travel light speed, so was the shutter speed faster than light? The camera was controlled by mission control - we had remote control then? - and over a distance of 130,000 miles? The lunar lander - where in the LEM was that stored and was in flat packed / self assmebly or already like that?
davetattoorowlands 7 months ago
@davetattoorowlands The Rover was folded and stored outside of the LM. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes.
The controller at Mission Control was Ed Fendell. The procedure was known, they knew the location of LM and Rover (incl. the camera), they knew the angle and the time delay. It was only a question of calculation.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs I have read the answers you have gave me before, but I am asking what you think - not what answers have been put up by NASA. For instance I asked about the stars, the answer was the shutter speed, why then when asked by Patrick Moore if they saw any star constellations, Buzz said he saw no stars at all and the other two astronauts agreed, one saying he didn't look out of the window! Its on youtube - thats why I doubt he offical answers.
davetattoorowlands 7 months ago
@davetattoorowlands It is on youtube, so it must be true. I hope this sentence is not your own mantra. To do a proper research you have to watch original footage, original photos and original datas.
My suggestion is: Talk to a professional photographer who can inform you about shutter speed and the technology to get images of the faint starlight.
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs There is no need to lower the tone! I have the DVD of the full interview of the astronauts after they came back, it in itself is very interesting - I merely used You tube to point you to the i minute part of the hour and a half long video for your convenience rather than tell you to buy the DVD. My friend is a professional photographer should I need photographic advice - are you suggesting the video I tried to point you towards is fake? Do those things really happen?
davetattoorowlands 7 months ago
@CHSarahBs Also - what is meant by 'faint starlight'? They were on the light side of the moon with temperatures hitting 105 c no atmosphere to reflect sun and starlight but you are suggesting their only light was 'faint starlight'? I saw an interesting interview with the maker of the cameras for apollo 11 and I really think you are getting your research a bit wrong if you thought the astronauts were adjsuting shutter speeds to compensate for starlight. Google it as i can't add links.
davetattoorowlands 7 months ago
@davetattoorowlands I think you have understood me wrong. There were two light sources: the sun and the reflecting lunar surface. This light was too bright, the starlight was faint.
The camera setup was adjusted to take photos of the bright lunar surface. To take pictures of the faint stars, they would have to adjust the shutter.
CHSarahBs 6 months ago
@CHSarahBs I did, but cameras rely on light - the light from the stars is constant, no atmosphere so bettter visibility. what shutter speed could be used so a camera won't pick up direct light sources, a shutter speed can eliminate glare and haze but would therefore make the other light sources crisper, meaning the stars hould have been much more visable than on earth, Could a photographer on Earth take a pic of the sky and show no stars using only shutter speed? I just have a curious mind.;)
davetattoorowlands 6 months ago
@CHSarahBs Also the lunar surface can produce a glare but cannot truely reflect light. The Astronauts would be facing away from the sun to take photographs and the light wouldn't be able to reflect or bounce off the surface and into the lense, so the surface should have had very bright parts where the light hit rocks etc, and bounced back to the camera lense - a glare. Yes there are reflective properties in the surface but they produce the glare as the are not uniform, a reflective surface is.
davetattoorowlands 6 months ago
@CHSarahBs The moon surface is not reflective, the earths surface is three times more reflective, I understand that there is no atmosphere to diffuse light so some distant stars will be difficult to see but the Astronauts said they saw no stars - as I mentioned before.
davetattoorowlands 5 months ago
@davetattoorowlands You can't see stars because this is a brightly lit scene - the Sun is 50% brighter on the Moon than in any Earth desert, due to no atmosphere. Look at any picture of a well-lit sports game at night, for example - no stars in evidence. The astronauts had the same problem - keep in mind that the gold sun visor on the helmet serves the same purpose as a pair of sunglasses. Put on a pair of sunglasses in a brightly-lit parking lot and try to pick out stars - not going to happen.
ImTheSecretSquare 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHSarahBs I have read the answers you have gave me before, but I am asking what you think - not what answers have been put up by NASA. For instance I asked about the stars, the answer was the shutter speed, why then when asked by Patrick Moore if they saw any star constellations, Buzz said he saw no stars at all and the other two astronauts agreed, one saying he didn't look out of the window! Its on youtube - thats why I doubt he offical answers.
davetattoorowlands 7 months ago
judging from your fighter planes, your radar can only detect 150km nowadays . If you could do better why aren't you using it? We are talking about just identifying a dot on a radar not 3D imaging.
edwardtang1977 7 months ago
how did they get the the angle of the terrain exactly the same? And where the hell is the American flag? don't tell me the wind blew it away. 50 years later they can't get a clear picture and back then they could? Nixon and Kubrick did all this shit man. Just accpet it. Wait for the Chinese to send someone there. They promised to rewrite history. Oh yea and Columbus didn't find shit neither.
edwardtang1977 7 months ago
so everyone who thinks we never went to the moon keeps asking...how did nasa do this or how did nasa do that..... ill answer them all for you! nasa knows a whole lot more than you...end of story. give our country some credit for being the best and if you cant get the f&ck out!!!
TheDigitalFX 7 months ago
How did NASA get accurate high-resolution pictures of tiny craters from multiple angles? I'm thinking they took multiple pictures, using a high-resolution camera, from multiple angles. I think you should be more straightforward about the mystery here, I can't figure it out. The Jap pictures match the Apollo ones, so something fishy is going on?
cosmicharlie1970 11 months ago
Just because a camera isn't digital doesn't mean it doesn't have high resolution. They used specialized cameras that could photograph a pack of cigarettes from 40,000 feet, and that was in the mid-1960s. I know because I was in the Air Force back then (1967 to 1971) and saw these cameras. We had the technology but it wasn't available to the general public. It's the same today.
BurnsDillon 11 months ago 4
@BurnsDillon What are you talking about? How does that have any relevance to anything? I never said anything about digital cameras.
ImTheSecretSquare 11 months ago
@BurnsDillon We didn't have the technology. I was an Electronics Design Engineer at the time working on very basic radar imaging using fractal theory and Bayesian Inferential techniques...........for space projects and avionics application.....
dvaidr 9 months ago
@BurnsDillon How did the still photo cameras get such pristine details of both objects very close and terrain very far away? You can buy a nearly identical camera and take a pic of someone standing in front of a mountain, if you focus on the person, can you see the background clearly?
zenphil 4 months ago
@zenphil ... Of course you can. I was on a vacation in Portland just a couple of weeks ago and someone took a picture of me with Mount Hood in the background - both I and the mountain could be discerned clearly. (Now, mountain pictures taken from far away have a bluish haze in front of them, but that's from atmosphere, which is not in effect on the Moon.)
ImTheSecretSquare 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a lunar conspiracy theory of my own. Mine is that the US government blew 20 billion dollars over 10+ years and pushed the aerospace, computing, electronics, metallurgy and bio-medicine industries of that country so far forward that they have maintained a lead which they largely hold to this day, and in the process achieved the single greatest feat of mankind and international kudos whilst making their opponents look like amateurs.
Theres your conspiracy, simple isnt it. Dickheads.
DumbYankies 11 months ago
Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but....
Sorry ;-)
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Pete and I have discussed that orbiter program. He fails to mention that it had a resolution of 60 meters. IOW, much worse than Selene, and not even in the same ballpark as LRO, which has imaged features that ALL match Apollo ascent and descent films and EVA photography.
So no, we did NOT have the data necessary to fake the resolution of Selene or LRO at the time of Apollo -- except from Apollo itself.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
Anyone notice want's missing in all the new moon pictures? The frickin lander and rover for one.
akirafactor 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE "That's inaccurate a spy satellite can see a nose hair"
Speaking of inaccurate... The best spy satellites have a resolution of 10cm. Now, they could get a really nice look at the landers, rovers, etc, but do you really want them to spend $1b plus the cost of getting it there just for that? Serious waste of money. (Thought it would be cool.)
419Films 1 year ago
@419Films The US already sent a spy satellite to the Moon, look up the Clementine Mission. Funny how they won't show any pictures from that satellite to the public.
akirafactor 1 year ago
@akirafactor The Clementine mission was not a spy satellite, that's ludicrous to suggest. But even more ludicrous is the idea that no pictures are available to the public. Google "Clementine lunar image browser" - the entire raw data set is available to the public. You're lying or you're laughably misinformed - either way you're hardly credible on the subject.
Continuing in the vein of you being completely incorrect in everything you say, landers are visible in new moon pictures.
Persuter 1 year ago
@akirafactor Well, the images from Clementine's HIRES camera can be found in the NASA's World Wind software. Also, Clementine was not a spy satellite, and it's HIRES camera only had a resolution (depending on altitude) of 7m-20m. Given that the LM was only 4.3m wide, it would only appear as 1 pixel, anyway.
419Films 1 year ago
@akirafactor muppet. Im guessing you think hubble is a spy satellite as well? I this the level of moron the american school system is generating today. or did you parents have no children that lived?
DumbYankies 11 months ago
@DumbYankies Why don't you go look up hubble's specs and match it to a certain series of spy satellites. Same tech. Appropriate name DumbassYankee
akirafactor 11 months ago
nasa didnt build a moon model with evey crater befor the first landing ? im sure they did
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast Nope, certainly not anything on this size. They had lunar soil simulations and they had perhaps some terrain models but nothing that would capture relatively tiny craters like these.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@datzfast but then they forget to check the shadows? or make the astronauts too bright? they were on the moon, its really a fact.
kaif140 5 months ago
@kaif140 ?
datzfast 5 months ago
@datzfast sry answered to wrong user. just marked it as spam
kaif140 5 months ago
@datzfast sry answered to wrong user. just marked it as spam
kaif140 5 months ago
@NASAvsPETE You are, of course, well aware that JAXA did not have the spatial resolution and was not trying to find the LEM, yet you lie about it anyway. Out of everything, that's the part about the hoaxer that I find most fascinating - you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, yet you do it anyway like you're showing off your dishonesty.
As for a court, since you have no evidence, are openly dishonest, and refuse to provide any consistent theory, I think I'm pretty safe. Blocked.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE lol, and that's a hoax pusher in a nutshell. You say something, I respond to that, and you tell me I'm shoving my beliefs down your throat. You literally openly refuse to be logically consistent.
And of course, just to prove it, you then claim JAXA tried to confirm it and had nothing... when the very video you're posting on proves you a liar.
If you have anything of substance to say, other than snarky comments, say it, otherwise I think this is the end of this conversation.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE I know what you believe because you said it. I love how you don't even try to deny it. I know you don't believe there are LEMs on the surface, and yet at the same time I know you do believe they're there - so obviously you don't really believe in either of your theories.
As for 3rd parties, first off, pointing out that NASA can do it doesn't say anything about 3rd parties, who are few and far between. And why would another nation spend millions confirming what they already know?
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE That's exactly what I'm saying, Pete. You happily tell me the Chinese wouldn't find any LEMs, even as you say that there are LEMs down there. None of this is real for you, you're just arguing for argument's sake. You don't believe any of this. You don't have any "theory" - that would require a rational narrative in which LEMs either are or are not on the surface of the Moon. You just have responses to existing evidence and snarky comments.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE I would further like to point out that your sudden change only confirms what I said earlier: "You guys would not be convinced by those pictures anyway, you're only using this argument because you know the pictures don't exist. If they did you'd make up some other argument." If China had taken pictures of the rover and LEM you would have said that the LEM landed unmanned. As such you are clearly arguing for argument's sake, not because you actually want to find out the truth.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE You claimed the Chinese would bring back pictures of missing LEMs. I point out that the Soviets would have had a lot easier time noticing that, and you shoot back that there are LEMs down there? You literally took two posts to entirely change your theory. You are simply making things up on the spot.
Your idea is ludicrous - landing unmanned LEMs would be far MORE risky than a manned mission. You're literally trying to say NASA perpetrated treason for no good reason whatsoever.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a country to bring back proof the Moon landing didn't happen either. The Soviets were watching us very carefully in 1969 - they had a satellite in orbit around the Moon when we landed. If we faked it well enough to fool people watching at the time, it's a bit hard to believe that anyone will find anything new years later. All the satellite imagery so far has been completely consistent with moon landings.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
Why are the cameras mounted on the LRO or Kaguya so crappy? These things were orbiting the moon 100 meters above its surface and we can barely see anything related to the Apollo landings. I mean google earth has better pictures taken from a satelite way way higher than that where we can see cars buildings even people! What kind of camera do they take up there? Cell phone camera?
Thebeavir 1 year ago
@Thebeavir First off, "100 meters" is about a thousand times too low. Second, keep in mind that the Google Earth satellites are FAR lower than the lunar satellites with respect to Earth's gravity well. The lunar satellites have to be boosted 240,000 miles straight up, a little less than a thousand times as far as Google Earth satellites have to be boosted. Third, they take up the kind of cameras they need... and they don't need cameras that can see cars or people on the Moon.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@Thebeavir Oh, also, you might be thinking of only the LRO's early images before it had settled down into its final parking spot. Newer LRO pictures clearly show the lander, the rover, and foot and rover tracks. Try Googling "LRO images bostonglobe" for an article with some really beautiful pictures.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE You're absolutely right. If China, or indeed any country or private agency anywhere in the world, had any solid evidence whatsoever that the Moon landings weren't real, such as missing rovers, I'm sure more people will be asking questions too, because I would be one of them.
But until there is some actual evidence that the Moon landings were faked, I and the vast majority of other people, as rational human beings, will have to go on believing in the reliable evidence that exists.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Again, you're simply insisting, based on nothing, that NASA should spend millions of dollars to send a satellite to the Moon with a camera whose only function would be to take pictures of the rover, to confirm something that every knowledgeable person in the world believes anyway. It is absolutely silly. You guys would not be convinced by those pictures anyway, you're only using this argument because you know the pictures don't exist. If they did you'd make up some other argument.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
One? ...Wears the rovers, the flag and other such part's left behind in the 1st moon landing...Japan has found nothing of the sort?????If it happened thou's things should still be there in the same spot they were left...Yet there's nothing "?Did people from Mar's steel all the left behind stuff ???
CommanderThsh 1 year ago
@CommanderThsh Kaguya's camera is 10 meters per pixel - no artifact of the mission is 30 feet by 30 feet, which would show up as a single black pixel.
Even on the LRO, with a resolution of 1.5 meters per pixel, the landers only show up as a small smudge of different-colored pixels.
Kaguya was able to see the shadow of the lander (shadows can be very long when the sun is at the right angle) as well as discolored dust around it.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE You have been found out? for the liar you are, again. The original USSR photos did not show stars, you just zoomed in, and manipulated the poor quality images until some imperfections appeared, and you called them stars.
Why did you not also put the original pics in your YT video? Because they lack stars?
watch?v=kQRcQtJ4DWo
2lib2live 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE
Theres a big difference between someone on the ground taking photo's and a orbiting satellite. Look at Google Earth. We cant see footprints on our own fucking planet from overhead camera shots. how the fuck are they supposed to see it on the moon?? The cameras used on the moon landings were chemical and naturally has better quality or comparitive resolution than most digital cameras today. This video proves to me once again that they were really their.
What Reality do you live in?
187781jason 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE You're just looking for a fight, not making any sort of reasonable argument. Of course Apollo cost a lot - because it got twelve men to the Moon. Heck, the Apollo missions have plenty of pictures of the LEM - all of which you insist don't count. You're insisting that NASA should have then spent millions of dollars to send up a specialized camera with no other purpose than to take far-away pictures of equipment that they already have better pictures of. It makes no sense.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Until the LRO, no nation had put up a satellite with sufficient resolution to view the LEMs - a six-meter object is not that large in the grand scale of things. The LRO indeed returned pictures of the LEMs and their shadows on the surface of the Moon.
It costs millions of dollars to get a camera to the Moon. No one's going to send a camera just to take crisp photos of the LEMs. And the super-narrow-field camera you'd need to get the pics would be useless for almost everything else.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
I quite don't get the objective of this video,with all that photography jargon
BoundInChains 1 year ago
@BoundInChains There's no real photography jargon - this is simply research from the Japanese showing that the pictures we took on Apollo are indeed highly accurate to the Moon's surface, to a much greater extent than we had the capability to do back in the 1960s, thus showing clearly that Apollo actually happened.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare
I missed the point of your video all so .. till I read your response to "boundinchaines" maybe you should rework it.
michaeldublg 1 year ago
Most likely we soon learn there was a humanoid on the moon or not.
And here there were Americans? It is the big question. Americans liars and visionaries.
hardoff72 1 year ago
The Apollo 11 mission was in shambles just 2 years before launch and many astronauts died in the experiments and virtually all equipment was experimental and prone to failure. What was the mission's probability of success according to NASA scientists? Why did President Nixon allow the mission to be broadcast live for the world to see when the odds of success were so low? Failure would have led to instant humiliation with no ability to cover it up. Seems quite odd to me.
felicity5155 1 year ago
@felicity5155 None of your assertions are correct. The equipment was not overly prone to failure, the mission was certainly not in "shambles", and there was only one incident which resulted in astronaut loss of life.
As for your question about why they broadcast it live, I leave that up to you. Why do *you* think they unquestionably lifted off the largest rocket ever to take off from planet Earth in front of everyone? Shouldn't they have kept it away from everyone if it was fake?
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare - My assertions? I am paraphrasing comments from NASA employees themselves. I like the quote from Gus Grissom "How do you expect us to go to the moon when we can communicate between two buildings?" before he and three others died in an accident. Apollo 11 was the first mission to land on moon. Virtually everything was experimental and one-off designs which are always prone to failure. Inventors know this.
felicity5155 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare - During the cold war space race one would never take a gamble like that especially when odds were way against you. If anything went wrong live on TV it would be instant world humiliation. If it's not live at least you can cover up accidents and do damage control. There is no way the President would make a decision like that unless he was certain the mission would be successful. Only an engineered hoax would guarantee success.
felicity5155 1 year ago
@felicity5155 lol, how would an engineered hoax guarantee success? They launched a dozen football-field-high rockets without a doubt - the launches were visible for hundreds of miles. The Soviets were completely unable to do so. You have clearly never seen a rocket launch in person - they're impossible to cover up, and impossible to guarantee.
Furthermore, the fact that they went public with Apollo 1 makes your thesis that they could not tolerate any embarrassment patently incorrect.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare - Nope, my theory stands. Too much was riding on this mission to risk global humiliation during the cold war. You still have not shown me the NASA radiation studies. Imagine if NASA calculated wrong and the astronauts ended up burnt to a crisp on live TV. You think Nixon would risk that happening? Not a chance.
felicity5155 1 year ago
@felicity5155 You have failed to find any evidence that there was too much radiation. You attempted to make some sort of point regarding humiliation but utterly failed to even spit out a cogent and reasonable point in that regard, since they publicly launched the largest rocket in the world over and over and over.
In short, your argument is nothing but "I refuse to look up anything, please find evidence for me that Apollo was a hoax." You literally have no actual argument whatsoever.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@felicity5155
Wow you just made a a complete line of bullshit, nothing you said was true.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
Do you have links to the studies that NASA did regarding radiation and VA belts prior to the mission? They certainly must have done many studies and came to firm conclusions prior to designing the space suits and equipment. I doubt NASA would just roll the dice and see what happens. They must have been absolutely certain the level of radiation in order to design the capsule and space suits properly. Where are the studies? I'd like to see them.
felicity5155 1 year ago
I guess it will be years down the line when we are exploring and settling the moon and actually come across one of the landing sites that we will say " looks like we really did come here before".
mgwilliams1000 1 year ago
@mgwilliams1000
Nah, the moon hoaxers will just claim all the equipment was planted there the day before.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo I guess I'm too old and set in my ways to question any of this. But I thank you for your reply. The world is a mess right now, but I have to believe in this "miracle exploration" that I witnessed in my youth because it gives me hope before I pass that Humanity can overcome the problems of today.... for my grandchildren's sake.
mgwilliams1000 1 year ago
@mgwilliams1000
hi, listen, there are some statements and opinions that make people eligible to be ignored and dismissed like a 5 year old, and saying the moon landing was a hoax is one of them. There is nothing to question about that great achievement, I envy that you got to witness it. these nuts don't deserve a response ;-)
michaeldublg 1 year ago
@michaeldublg Thank you.
mgwilliams1000 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo - One thing for certain is that your government lies cheats and steals from you. They always have and always will. If you believe anything your government tells you without questioning it then you are a complete fool my friend.
felicity5155 1 year ago
ive heard some pictures of moon were fake,becos it was crawling with ets, thats why they had to fake it?????????
d9andy992 1 year ago
this doesnt explain away the massive amount of total crap connected with the moon landings ...
zzzcherryzzz 1 year ago
@zzzcherryzzz This is direct evidence that the Apollo landings are real - your "crap connected with the moon landings" are simply innuendo used by people who can't make a real scientific argument to save their lives.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@zzzcherryzzz -- "Massive amounts of total crap connected with the moon landings?"
Oh, wow.
You're another real believer in the hoax-"proofs" aren't you?
I've seen a ton of supposed hoax-evidence. Every piece of it I have seen has been just as much "crap" as the original "there should have been a blast crater" argument which can only be promoted by people who can't (or don't bother to, which is worse) do simple arithmetic.
I've been looking for months. So far, there is NO evidence of a hoax.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@zzzcherryzzz "Massive amount of total crap"? Really? Just because you don't understand how it was done doesn't mean no one else could do it.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@zzzcherryzzz Consider yourself welcomed to this forum, very warmly of course.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
Thanks for taking the time to put this together and for the links to the original source. Congrats to the Japanese scientists who made these pictures possible! Another nail in the hoaxer's coffin (but then, their conspiracy theory was braindead to begin with...)
WackyAmoebatrons 1 year ago
@WackyAmoebatrons Nail in the coffin, huh? Neither JAXA nor NASA are making such audacious claims. Believers are curious beings; you give them ancient myths, they make a gospel out of it. You give them a few topographical image, they make a proof out of it. You give them an official story, they make a fact out it. The truth of the matter is, believers needed neither gospel, proof nor facts to believe. They are a special kind of people, albeit annoying at times.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx Right, JAXA doesn't make this claim. I do. Many more join me, as can be seen by the abundance of hoax debunkers on YT. Funny that hoax believers like to point out their skills in "critical thinking" but never question their own gullibilty. All the idiocy about flags, craters, shadows, stars. If only they understood one bit of the scientific method, they'd become hoax debunkers right away. It's never too late to learn! See the light! YES WE DID LAND ON THE MOON.
WackyAmoebatrons 1 year ago
@WackyAmoebatrons The caps did it for me...I am a believer! I have seen the light! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
BTW, I hold 2 advanced degrees in science. If you can assign any kind of common trait to 'hoaxers', 'conspiracy theorists', etc, it is that a good number of them have problems with authority. No one likes to think they're gullible, and as such we stick to critical thinking to avoid falling in that trap. Despite such effort, we all fall in such trap from time to time. Cont.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx Yes, conspiracy theorists have problems with authority. But so do many scientists! That's why theories are accepted only after independent testing, not by appeals to authority.
Unfortunately, the conspiracists simply do not understand this; they erroneously believe that science is by authoritative fiat. If they understood how science works, they could do their own checks and realize that no government could fake this.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@WackyAmoebatrons Cont. But those who lack arguments and rely on beliefs quickly become defensive and start attacking the person. Beliefs are great things, when they're kept private. The minute you try to espouse your belief as a fact, you find yourself in trouble. Reason and logic, we can share. Beliefs, not a chance.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx Thanks for your reply. You seem to be one of the more reasonable people and you seem to understand the distinction between belief and factual knowledge. Me, I consider moon rocks, retro reflectors, independent voice recordings in real time as facts, not beliefs. On the other hand, conspiracy theorists present nothing but beliefs. The Apollo program is the best documented technical endeavor in modern times. None of the hoaxers "arguments" survives one bit of scrutiny. They *did* land.
WackyAmoebatrons 1 year ago
Ah...so close that they have a shot from the same spot the lunar module supposedly landed and where the astronauts erected the American flag, but the Kaguya has not image of the lunar module that was left behind nor the image of the American flag. How could it be? Or is that the Japanese were not looking for these artifacts as they are inconsequential?
Yeah, go ahead and ban me. How do I dare question orthodoxy!
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx I'm not going to ban you - they didn't actually get that close, it's a 3D projection based on altimeter data and satellite imagery. You're not "questioning orthodoxy", you just don't get what's going on.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare Really? What don't I get? All ears...honestly.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx You don't get exactly what I just said - that this is a 3D projection based on altimeter data and satellite imagery. They did not actually take a picture from the same place. The satellite imagery did not have anywhere close to the resolution necessary to take pictures of the lunar module.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare Ok...you presupposed that I'd not get what you said before I even responded. I am following your logic now. Anyway, why are you and more importantly JAXA using topographic data/images to make identification of the Apollo 15 landing site and the 'halo' the landing module formed. Curiously, there was another 'halo' right next to it that looked just like the one 'created' by the landing module. If the images are not clear enough, why make any IDs?
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx You're going to have to explain your post. They're identifying it as the Apollo 15 halo because it's in the right spot. See, the problem with you hoax pushers is that you think they're trying to prove Apollo true. These guys are space scientists - they know Apollo happened. They're using Apollo data to show that their work is correct, not the other way around.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare The old trick in the book....when you run out of arguments start associating people to nefarious groups so you can easily dismiss them. Stick to the argument friend. If the halo they identified was that of Apollo 15's lunar landing module, what are the other halos right around it that are eerily similar?
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx You clearly don't understand this work, do you? From orbit, Kaguya could not see objects as small as the LM. But it saw the same LARGER objects (like these craters) that Apollo photographed from the surface. Remapping Kaguya's pictures to a surface perspective didn't increase their resolution, but it did put those large craters in the same locations as they were seen by Apollo.
There was no way to produce such pictures during Apollo, so Apollo's must have been real.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal If I did, I wouldn't be asking questions. Don't you think that's futile? That would have been a decent circumstantial evidence argument, had the premise 'there was no way to produce such pictures during [sic] Apollo...' was true. Before Apollo, NASA has sent at least one unmanned orbiter to take images of the moon surface to determine a landing site for Apollo 11. Such effort produced similar resolution images as Kauguya did in 2007
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they never went to the moon...
AhileyGusani 1 year ago
they can fake it if they want to. lol
WavesOfTrolls 1 year ago
Very nice, some excellent supporting evidence, but I'm sure the hoax people will refute it somehow. lol
kree1964 1 year ago
japanese and americans faked it togeher!
mrwhitemanvideo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrwhitemanvideo That wouldn't be such a far-fetched idea. Japan is joined at the hip with the U.S. with the latter's military-industrial complex. The Japanese government continues to ignore demands by its citizens to get rid of the U.S. military based on their soil.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx What a convenient argument! Any space-faring nation with the ability to send a spacecraft to the moon is necessarily "joined at the hip" to the US military-industrial complex and thus would, I guess, never reveal the Apollo "hoax".
What about the Russians? They watched and listened to Apollo as it happened, but no one would say they were joined at the hip to the US military. Yet they fully accepted Apollo as real. Why?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal What a convenient rebuttal! Look, we have no way in hell proving and/or disproving why national governments behave in a manner they behave at any given time. Motives for geopolitical maneuvers are very complex. We're better of sticking to the science of Apollo. We have a much better chance there.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
I would like a hoaxer to explain to me why I should expect a rocket engine performing a soft landing to produce the exact same kind of surface artifact (crater) as the uncontrolled impact of a object traveling several km/sec.
The landing of a LM was not a hypervelocity impact. Is it so unreasonable to expect that it'd affect the surface differently?
The landings DID scour out the surface, as seen in many still images. They simply don't resemble impact craters. And why should they?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
fuck why must every damn video have the poorest taste in music on this damn planet? leave the gay soundtrack to your jazzersize workouts.
flarbton 1 year ago
How did NASA get accurate high-resolution pictures? Check the cameras they used, Hasselblad 70-mm using then secret Kodak super fine grain film.
billman92509 1 year ago
@billman92509 There was nothing "secret" about Kodak's film. They may have made a product specially for the government, but the only special need NASA had for Apollo film was to cram more pictures on each roll. So Apollo used the standard emulsions on an extra-thin backing. Same performance as the standard commercial products, just more pictures on each roll (and probably quite a bit more expensive too).
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
So, the lunar satellite can take pictures showing details of craters but can't take pictures of, oh I don't know, the USA flag, moon buggies, base structures of the lunar landers ? After all, aren't the afforementioned items standing above the surface that was so accurately pictured ? Anyone digging my drift ?
Frankly747 1 year ago
@Frankly747 OMG you cracked the code! That's something that no one, including NASA, the Japanese scientists taking these pictures, and all the hoax pushers, EVER thought about! Well done! You proved the moon landing a hoax! What a genius!
ORRRR maybe it's that the Kaguya satellite did not have the resolution to take pictures of them - something that would take a simple Google search to find out.
Think you can guess which one it is? Hint - it's not the one where you're a genius.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare
The resolution has been available on spy satellites to photograph a packet of cigarettes on the ground on Earth for a long time. It's not hard or expensive and this was a perfect opportunity to see how the objects left behind by the missions have faired in almost fifty years. Everything could have been proved legitimate and kosha in an instant.
One might ask what the point of Kaguya was.
segedunum 1 year ago
"The resolution ... on spy satellites"
So in your view, NASA should waste millions and millions of dollars to send some spy satellite to the moon in order to appease some small population of Hoax Believing Nut-bars??
I'll humor you for a minute and let's assume NASA did this. You and all of your Hoax Believing buddies wouldn't just say,"Oh.. Those photos they just took are all fake too!! They're just trying to fool us all!!" ???
Ummmm... Sure. Let's take some more moon photos ...Spare me!!
pjwarez 1 year ago
"So in your view, NASA should waste millions and millions of dollars"
The optics and digital technology has been available cheaply for years.
Everything else you've written there is mental illness.
segedunum 1 year ago
"The optics and digital technology have been available cheaply for years"
You make it sound as if NASA can just go to the local Hardware store and purchase a spy satellite and booster rocket for $67.95. It's a little more complicated than that wouldn't you agree?
It would still cost at least millions to do so, and for what purpose? So arrogant numb-skulls like yourself can just view the new photos from this satellite, fold your arms and state, "Sorry... I still don't believe it"
pjwarez 1 year ago
"Everything else you've written there is mental illness"
And I concur! Believing that Apollo was hoax with all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is most likely a sign of mental deficiency! And on that note...
"Forty years. Why not?"
Thank you for completely proving my point!
Yes segedunum, why don't you contact some of these Geologists and tell them what moronic, brain-dead fools they have all been. I'm sure they'll greatly value your in-depth analysis. They await your call!
pjwarez 1 year ago
@segedunum Yes, one might ask what the point was. The answer would be that the point was not to photograph the Apollo lunar landers - why you thought it was, I haven't a clue.
By the way, on your "spy satellites" point, ever notice how we don't have a manned space station in orbit around the Moon either? The Moon is a thousand times as far away, straight up - you might as well say since you can leap two feet in the air, bounding to the top of the Burj al Khalifa should be just as easy.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare
"the point was not to photograph the Apollo lunar landers"
I didn't say that it was. The point was that if you're going to take yet more pictures of the moon's surface it would be sensible to do it better than before, especially now that there seems to be a hunt for water on the moon, no?
"ever notice how we don't have a manned space station in orbit around the Moon either?"
The optics have been available and cheap enough for years to do it. I can't see your point.
segedunum 1 year ago
@segedunum Yes, the optics have been available. Naturally, you completely ignore the actual argument, which is that the Moon is a thousand times farther away than LEO, straight up. Please note that if you continue to ignore arguments, you will be blocked from this channel. This is a channel for discussion, not for simply spreading your false propaganda.
ImTheSecretSquare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"which is that the Moon is a thousand times farther away than LEO, straight up."
It's irrelevant. The optics are there to do it and it doesn't explain why we got no corresponding increase in detail from Kaguya. This bogus distance argument gets wheeled out every time as to why we have no detailed photos.
"Please note that if you continue to ignore arguments, you will be blocked from this channel."
Since your 'arguments' are being embarrassingly debunked every time, I'm not suprised frankly.
segedunum 1 year ago
" ... you will be blocked from this channel .."
NO!!! Please don't block him!! Are you kidding! Every day, I grab a cup of coffee, read segedunum's posts and Laugh my Butt off!!
What's really funny is this Jug-Head has no idea how deep of hole he's dug himself into. First he claims that scientists haven't adequately studied the lunar samples, then he states that samples have been proven to have questionable attributes. How would they know this if they can't study the samples correctly???
pjwarez 1 year ago
@pjwarez Wow, look at the arguments by people who espouse scientific knowledge and those who are supposedly 'mentally deficient'. If being able to present coherent thought without having to resort to name-calling, ridicule and sarcasm, is mentally deficient, label me as such. Whatever happened to the idea of disagreeing without being disagreeable?
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx DONE! I will give no credence to the belief that the landings were hoaxed, that has no scientific basis and is based on nothing more than ignorance and stupidity, no more than I would to someone that suggests I keep an OPEN MIND about Blacks and Jews being sub-human. Its utter stupidity... nothing more, nothing less.
It's been over 40 years and all your side has to show for its efforts is your OPEN MINDS spilling their contents all over the floor and collecting dust in the corner!
pjwarez 1 year ago
@segedunum You seem to assume that resolution is the be-all and end-all of a lunar mapping camera. It isn't. There are many scientific investigations going on here, and few require absolute maximum resolution. They fly instruments other than cameras to determine the chemical makeup of the surface. They fly laser altimeters to map the surface topography.
A super-high resolution visible imaging camera also generates a huge amount of data that can be difficult to transmit to earth in real time.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ImTheSecretSquare Not only is our only manned space station in low orbit, it's in a REALLY low orbit: 300-400 km. So low that it has to be frequently reboosted to overcome air drag.
Why so low? To make it easier to reach. The extra fuel mass spent overcoming the extra drag is more than made up for by the increase in Shuttle and Progress payloads made possible by its low orbit.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@segedunum Guess what -- they did! It's called Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. It has a 0.5 m resolution, and it's returned quite a few cool pictures of all the Apollo landing sites. The LM descent stages, ALSEP experiments, and especially the astronaut footpaths are all very clearly visible.
So what's your complaint now?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal These are the images you're talking about?
nasa dot gov / mission _ pages / LRO /multimedia / lroimages / apollosites. html? Clearly visible? That's a bit of a stretch.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx Yes, I'd say they're all clearly visible, especially when seen on multiple passes at various sun angles. You can even see the individual footpads on the LM descent stages and the shadows of the RCS plume deflectors.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal I would say they're not, but I am afraid that makes me a 'hoaxer'?
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx Even if someone took you to Tranquility Base and showed you Neil Armstrong's backpack and the remains of the US flag, you'd still claim it could have been recently planted in furtherance of the 'hoax'.
Scientific breakthroughs often use data (and pictures) at the limits of technology. What matters is whether the data, statistically analyzed, fits the hypothesis. If LRO isn't showing Apollo artifacts, then what are they? Be prepared to produce detailed physical models.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal Now, you speak of me as if you know me. Do we know each other outside of this forum? Or are you trying to lump me together with an easily dismissable? Let's stick to what we know and factual. Let's leave future-telling and psychological evaluations to the mystics and psychologists, not necessarily respectively.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx So are you saying that while you don't accept the reality of Apollo at the moment, unlike all the other deniers I've met you can conceive of evidence that you *would* accept? What would that be?
Be careful before you answer. Make sure it's something no one can ever actually give you.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal The first part of your loaded question gave me a glimmer of hope, that you have finally recognized skepticism is not equivalent to denial. But that hope was soon dashed by your attempt in peddling evidence. For someone who espouses knowledge of the scientific method, you are certainly threading on unchartered waters. Of course I would like to be flown to the moon to witness the evidence myself. Short of that, I will settle for any impregnable evidence. Got some?
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx You have yet to define what you would find acceptable proof; this is no surprise, as moving the goalposts is a favorite denialist tactic.
I've got plenty that should suffice for anyone who understands science, engineering and logic. The fact that it hasn't already been sufficient for you tells the story.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal Apollo! We're making such good progress! You're devolving into a typical frustrated believer. Please, no name calling. I kind of have a fragile ego....tough parents. I like more evidence better...all ears.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago
@xxoooOFxx Like I said, first you specify what constitutes acceptable proof so you can't move the goalposts later.
Who's calling anyone names? I need *some* term for those who do not accept that the Apollo missions were real. Hoax believer? (That's ambiguous...believe in the hoax, or believe that it was a hoax?) Denialist? Conspiracist? Pick one. Or make up your own.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal I like 'skeptic' better. As far as acceptable proof, any evidence that shows that human beings have been on the moon will do. I accept circumstantial evidence, as long as it is well supported. Direct evidence would be best.
xxoooOFxx 1 year ago