Probably not a CIA plot, and fortunately this article at NPR has a link to newly remastered/restored broadcast video from this historic mission, which launched 40 years ago today. I'm hoping to track down the black and white prints I made by photographing the original broadcast three days later.
I know the launches took place, and most footage could have been taken when they were just in orbit, but the footage on the moon is strange. I recently saw the documentary- "For All Mankind"(1989) and was scratching my head during the 2nd half. When they land on the moon, all footage shows a black sky. I understand without water to reflect the sunlight, no blue sky, but is there evidence of day and night on the moon? They do show the Earth, but it was far away...and they never show the sun. Nothing proves anything, but the footage is unreal to me.
If they did go to the moon, not sure they taped the real footage. And did they ever visit Tycho? Must look like the grand canyon in real life, most of the moon they took footage of looks like a big hilly studio full of cement powder!
Looks like the set of an Ed Wood movie. I think if it is fake its because they want to make it appear as if its nothing but a wasteland. But I doubt it is, the moon is cheese!
The probe proved it how? That probe can't zoom in closer?
Try this... park your car, and take your camera and your longest lens. Now walk back 60 miles. Now shoot a photo of your car. O wait, run sideways at a few thousand miles an hour, *while* taking pictures of your car. How do they look? Be sure and post back so we can see. ;-)
When they land on the moon, all footage shows a black sky.
It's the exposure, dude. You're supposed to be a photographer. The moonscape and spacesuits are very bright- basically a beach scene. Take a photo at night with your exposure set to a daylight beach scene and tell me how many stars you capture.
The probe proved it how? That probe can't zoom in closer?
Try this... park your car, and take your camera and your longest lens. Now walk back 60 miles. Now shoot a photo of your car. O wait, run sideways at a few thousand miles an hour, *while* taking pictures of your car. How do they look? Be sure and post back so we can see. ;-)
The probe proved it how? That probe can't zoom in closer?
As the article I posted in the "Photos from the LRO" thread mentioned, the first LRO photos of the landing sites were taken during the "instrument calibration" phase of the mission, and eventually they expect to capture images with 2-3 times the resolution of those posted so far.
The probe proved it how? That probe can't zoom in closer?
Try this... park your car, and take your camera and your longest lens. Now walk back 60 miles. Now shoot a photo of your car. O wait, run sideways at a few thousand miles an hour, *while* taking pictures of your car. How do they look? Be sure and post back so we can see. ;-)
OK, heres my effort - thank god I had a 1.4x TC on there..
The probe proved it how? That probe can't zoom in closer?
Try this... park your car, and take your camera and your longest lens. Now walk back 60 miles. Now shoot a photo of your car. O wait, run sideways at a few thousand miles an hour, *while* taking pictures of your car. How do they look? Be sure and post back so we can see. ;-)
Those Google Earth satellites do a hell of a job at picking out the world from space. I could see my swimming pool or my brother's Ford Explorer just fine, and with excellent resolution.
the stakes were very high should NASA had not landed on the mood for the Apollo project.
look at the funding figures. they had to have something to show for all things invested.
when you have millions of people looking at their TV on the landing footage, you know you had to deliver (by hook or by crook). merely being in space isn't enough (the Russians beat NASA to it). so the rest, is history.
Those Google Earth satellites do a hell of a job at picking out the world from space. I could see my swimming pool or my brother's Ford Explorer just fine, and with excellent resolution.
Mainly because there are no Google Earth satellites. Much of the high-rez Google Earth data you see is taken by aircraft flying within the atmosphere. And it doesn't bear on your skepticism about the Moon landings anyway. Even if you could see a huge picture of the lower sections of the LEMs you would still find a way not to believe. Moon landing deniers don't live within the world of evidence based information.
Those Google Earth satellites do a hell of a job at picking out the world from space. I could see my swimming pool or my brother's Ford Explorer just fine, and with excellent resolution.
Mainly because there are no Google Earth satellites. Much of the high-rez Google Earth data you see is taken by aircraft flying within the atmosphere. And it doesn't bear on your skepticism about the Moon landings anyway. Even if you could see a huge picture of the lower sections of the LEMs you would still find a way not to believe. Moon landing deniers don't live within the world of evidence based information.
No Google Earth satellites? I could name at least 3 different types sir. Ever heard of Geo-eye? Aero plane photography is used as a supplement only, because its too expensive. And Im not a moon landing denier. I just think the footage was taped over and hidden by NASA for good reasons. Evidence? its essential, I just want the truth my man.
