Moon landing conspiracy theorists - lend me your ears.

[MickyD]

Lunar surface temps from -173.15 degree Celsius to 116.85 degree Celsius, these cameras could cope with these extremes. I'm a little dubious. They made the images so appealing.

they were on the surface relatively early in the lunar morning - remembering that a lunar day is about 15 earth days. You can even see in that photo you posted that the camera is in a metal box by the way...

[Al GTi-R]

Dickheads like you would never be employed in places like these for that reason. I have worked a short period in a company secret R&D department, there is no dead beats or jokers, every ones head is on the chopping block. I got the ass cause I was to friendly, and like talking to people. The military, forget it. Wake up to your self.

Even people who work in those areas need to let off steam, some play golf, some play with remote control cars, some play computer games, some modify cars & are even members of car forums...

[Billzilla]

One of the less awesome photos taken by Armstrong.



An example of one the crappy photos they took.

[Buco_73]

I have to ask Buco , the digital camera's you speak of in the late 60s early 70s . How did they view images when computers werent powerful enough back then ? The earliest Ive heard of digital camera's was when Commodore was playing around with them with the C64 , but the computer wasnt powerful enough to process the images that well . It wasnt until the Amiga that they could do it with ease : 1985 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oqUd8utr14

Well then Amiga's must have been developed by the military some 30-40 years ago.

[MickyD]

They had cameras inside the high radiation blast zones taking video images as close as they could get to ground zero, though how close was classified and still is. They wanted to see what happens at ground zero. So the equipment had to be significantly advanced other wise why would the information on the equipment be classified.

So there's secret footage, from secret cameras, which no-one has seen, or knows anything about, and no-one is allowed to talk about, and which was apparently in an environment where EVERYTHING would have been vaporised.

OK.

CCD cameras were invented (and in common use) by the early 50's by the way.

[Billzilla]

Another ripper by Mr Armstrong.

[Billzilla]

Armstrong again, with Edo-spec skills.

[Sturmovik]

The amount of radiation is estimated that the astronauts received passing through the Van Allen belt is around 2 rems, or 20mSv

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

According to wiki, and average Chest CT scan is 6-18 mSv

[darwinschops]

i want the hat (better chuck helmet liner in...) so i can get some mad scientist on

and buco, pretty sure it happened. you might want to let this one go... if it helps you sleep to think we didn't in july 1969, cool, we did eventually, everyone's happy.

[Buco_73]

Obviously not the same model or even type. But it doesn't look like it is anything special.

[poid]

Not pointless at all. My opinion from the evidence is, and going out on a limb here, is that they faked the moon landing that we are all familiar with. How ever they did eventually get there. There is no way that any of you guys would even consider examining this notion, and you guys call me a nut job.

I have examined this notion, and in great detail. I did it because when i was growing up i was always told the moon landings were fake, and so i started digging around to confirm this was the case. All the research i did simply confirmed 1000% that Apollo 11 did land Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon.

Other wise there would have been excessive film damage passing through the Van Allen radiation belts.

The radiation argument is probably the one that gets raised the most in these discussions, but once you look at the numbers involved and the course used by Apollo 11 you see that its just not a big deal. The Van Allen belts are only dangerous for prolonged exposed, not for transitory trips through the belts as was the case with Apollo. The only real radiation danger they were exposed to was if a CME scored a direct hit on the moon. Fortunately that didnt happen and there were no serious CME events during the missions.

I'd love to have us throw our ideas around and challenge convention

If i may, i'll explain to you why I have concluded that the Apollo 11 mission was more difficult to fake than to actually execute. This is just a quick summary of a couple of the main points; i've probably examined every hoax argument there is during my i'm-bored-at-uni days.

There was telemetry that tracked Apollo 11 all the way to the moon. Not only NASA, but also the Russians and HAM radio operators tracked Apollo 11 on its journey. The Russian Luna craft was similarly tracked as it attempted to beat Apollo to the moon, it was unmanned. It crashed on the surface of the moon, and the world knew about it very quickly. There were too many eyes on Apollo 11 for there not to have been a spacecraft that landed on the moon. The Russian cosmonauts wrote a letter shortly after Apollo 11 congratulating the Apollo astronauts. The Russians are firmly convinced that the landing was real.

Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla as well as Parkes were all involved in some way as well; Parkes transmitted most of the footage from Apollo 11 to NASA in Houston, and there were reporters there watching the pictures come in live form the dish. If the craft wasnt there, you can bet that the Aussies that had the dish aimed at the moon would have cried foul; they even calculated the trajectory of the craft themselves so they could confirm NASA's data.

Not only that, now to have faked the landing you need to have the lunar lander broadcasting images to Parkes, Honeysuckle Creek and Goldstone in the US. There are two ways to have done this:

1) A simultaneous broadcast of video and audio from the Earth to Apollo and back to Earth.

2) Pre-recorded audio and video stored on-board the spacecraft.

You can rule #2 out pretty easily. If NASA was to fake it, you couldnt take the chance of a glitch in your pre-recorded footage ruining the whole thing. PLus it would be rather heavy. So you are broadcasting from Earth to Apollo to Earth again.

Now, on to case 1. Given the video footage of Apollo 11's descent to the moon, the trajectory followed by the spacecraft is the same as that shown on the video. Armstrong, for the last few minutes of the landing, actually flew across the surface of the moon looking for a suitable landing spot. This is something that had never, and has never, been done using a remote or robotic lander. For the trajectory of the Apollo 11 flight to match Armstrong's landing is pretty bloody difficult to fake.

This is further the case since Google has reconstructed the actual landing using LRO footage that they were given to build Google Moon. As it turns out, using the trajectory of Apollo 11 and the imagery of LRO, the reconstruction of the landing matches the Apollo 11 video absolutely exactly. The video hasnt been released yet, but was shown to a CPA dinner recently with Armstrong describing what he did and was thinking during the landing. The chances that NASA knew the moon well enough to construct such an accurate fake landing video that would stand up 40 years later is pretty much zero.

Lastly, consider that you have a very clear process of successful testing of the various craft, of man orbiting the moon before Apollo 11, and even the beginnings of the descent stage, and there is no reason to believe that it was hoaxed. Its not like NASA built a rocket and miraculously hit the moon in one go. It was all very well planned and executed, with a huge Russian-shaped driving force behind the project. All in all, it was just easier to put a man on the moon than to fake it.

I just suggest you avoid the hoaxer websites and youtube videos and look at the NASA technical papers, look at the data gathered, the comparisons between moon rock and Russian soil samples and hell even visit the Kennedy Space Center. If you look at the all the underlying science stuff and ignore the people talking crap and trying to confuse others you'll see pretty clearly that there was no hoax, its just the greatest achievement so far in human history.

[darwinschops]

at a drunk, late night guess, some sort of case/metal box mounting thingy to hold said camera in? (mystery camera difference...)

[Buco_73]

So there's secret footage, from secret cameras, which no-one has seen, or knows anything about, and no-one is allowed to talk about, and which was apparently in an environment where EVERYTHING would have been vaporised.

OK.

CCD cameras were invented (and in common use) by the early 50's by the way.

See this is what I mean, stop being such a rite royal CUNT, who the fuck said "So there's secret footage, from secret cameras, which no-one has seen, or knows anything about, and no-one is allowed to talk about, and which was apparently in an environment where EVERYTHING would have been vaporised."

Obviously the video footage is available. It is in the documentary, but the distances and type of equipment used is still classified. And it is stated in the documentary. There is heaps of these docos.

[seedyrom]

Obviously not the same model or even type. But it doesn't look like it is anything special.

They might not look special, but they need to be built to NASA's spec. Even more recently when tendering for DSLR's, they specify the grease they require the camera's to be assembled with (BRAYCOTE LUBRICANT (EVA))
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=24939

[MickyD]

See this is what I mean, stop being such a rite royal CUNT,

fuck me, you're touchy.

Not being a smartass (or a RRC, or whatever), but have you seen the Peter Kuran doc (Atomic Filmmakers) mentioned in this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/science/14atom.html

It's almost more interesting that the "Trinity and Beyond" movie that it is the DVD extra for. They basically say that there was nothing particularly fancy about the equipment they were using, apart from some of it being high speed cameras (Harold Edgerton did a LOT of work with them - legend of a man)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapatronic_camera