The Unmentionable Fakery of the Apollo Missions.

[Uwe]

Someone riddle me this: If the Apollo moon-landings were faked, how come the Russians ("Soviets" at the time) didn't call us out on it? Those of you who are (like me) old enough to remember the late 1960s might recall there was a bit of a race to see who could get there first, which the Russians lost, at a tremendous cost to their national pride. However, they certainly had enough radar and other SigInt capabilities that they would have been able to detect it if we had faked it. Is it really plausible to think they would have kept mum in that case?

[Horse Badorties]

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html
Read the articles, you'll have fun, and I believe your question is addressed therein. I was 10yrs old when the first moon landing was on live tv. Classic - I remember Dick Nixon talking on the phone from the oval office to the moonwalkers. The Soviets did land a robotic probe on the moon, iirc, and the propaganda was heavy on both sides, and the media just as tightly controlled as it is now - we were at war in SE Asia after all, for some reason. Even if the Soviets outed us, I couldn't see it making it into the media over here. Haven't seen any review of Soviet media or position papers from the time.

[Jacob]

Someone riddle me this: If the Apollo moon-landings were faked, how come the Russians ("Soviets" at the time) didn't call us out on it?

I'm not old enough to remember the moon landings first hand, but I wouldn't doubt that there was propaganda in Russia saying the American moon landings were a bunch of bullshit.

If media, here in America, were to start running stories about how the Russians faked their moon landings, I guarantee the sheeple would eat it up and believe it.

I'm saying neither country went to the moon. If Google Earth's satellites can zoom in so close that I can even zoom in and see the plants in my front and back yard.... why the hell aren't their satellite photos of "our" (or Russia's) adventures to the moon? Answer: because they never happened. Propaganda on both sides to keep the sheeple masses thinking "their" government is super duper.

[Uwe]

If Google Earth's satellites can zoom in so close that I can even zoom in and see the plants in my front and back yard.... why the hell aren't their satellite photos of "our" (or Russia's) adventures to the moon?

Because the moon is roughly 1000 times as far from the orbit of those satellites than your yard is.

[Horse Badorties]

oh hey, Jacob -
You asked:

Can someone please link me to pictures from the "high tech" telescopes that show pictures of our presence on the moon? Thank you. (spoiler alert.... those pictures don't exist, but have fun attempting to dig them up, maybe you'll "wake up" in the process).

In my experience, it's true, haven't seen any terrestrial based telescopic images of the landing sites - but we do have orbiting satellites, like the one that snapped your backyard, around the moon - so there's things like this:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CDQQ9QEwAQ

But as a photographer, Darkroom tech, photo editor for many years, who got into high resolution film extensively with Kodak's Technical Pan 2415 - I have to say it looks iffy. The large image looks much higher resolution than what appears in the "5X" enlargement - it looks like a 5x software enlargement of the original image's .jpg sized for the web, not a 5x enlargement of the source. If it were a, say 11x14 sized print on photo paper, any good photographer from the 1930's could have added in the human traces with a brush & some inks. At that "5x" enlargement resolution, you'd never tell the difference. And with Photoshop, well now. An easy morning's work.

Just me geeking out. There's more compelling arguments in the articles.

edit: I could go on, and on. We had clear recon photos of the moon before Apollo...
But one thing struck me looking at the image again - from the footage "on the ground," the astronaut's trails never appeared darker than the rest of the dusty surface. Weird.

[Jacob]

Because the moon is roughly 1000 times as far from the orbit of those satellites than your yard is.

You're right. Google earth satellites was a horrible example.

It's amazing to me ("amazing" meaning "bullshit being shoved down my throat") that "we" can take pictures of other stuff in outer space, many light years away... but "we" don't have the technology to "zoom in" and see the good ol' American flag posted up on the moon when the moon is just a little bit closer than the other stuff out there.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/

[Ed]

Horse, one fix for Firefox is the Ant downloader. You can (sometimes) download YT vids and then watch them uninterrupted after the download, but you have to start the download, then close the page while the app is doing its thing, because the page will continue to eat bandwidth while trying to stream. Ant is the best fix I've found for the stuttering stream of long line DSL and satellite connections.

[Ed]

Because the moon is roughly 1000 times as far from the orbit of those satellites than your yard is.

Good point, uwe. It does recycle a point made by McGowan in the series: How did Houston NASA control center, with late 60s- early 70s tech manage to have nearly instant communication with the astronauts "on the moon", including streaming video, when the tech didn't exist at the time to reliably control a TV from across the room via a brick sized remote control?

The more the debunking sites try to defend the moon landing myth, the more the myth of vanished technology is brought to light. BTW, good to see you here.

[Uwe]

Cripes. It was all manually controlled analog transmissions; relatively mature technology even in the 1960s, and it doesn't take much power to push it over great distances (like 1/4 million miles) when you've got direct line of sight.

A TV remote control could have been built back then, but it would have been too expensive to bring to market, particularly in combination with the motors and actuators that would have been needed in the TV. Thing is, NASA had very deep pockets.

[Dave Brand]

A TV remote control could have been built back then, but it would have been too expensive to bring to market, particularly in combination with the motors and actuators that would have been needed in the TV. Thing is, NASA had very deep pockets.

TV remote controls were on the market in the mid-1950s:

http://inventors.about.com/od/rstart...te_control.htm

[Ed]

Cripes. It was all manually controlled analog transmissions; relatively mature technology even in the 1960s, and it doesn't take much power to push it over great distances (like 1/4 million miles) when you've got direct line of sight. .

Sure, pal. NASA could send a signal to the moon with a land based transmitter that took 1,000 square feet to house and a 120 foot antenna, not to mention a massive amount of electrical power provided by large transformers, so it logically follows that the moon landing module had the same signal sending capability without the transmitter, power source and antenna. I get it. NASA claimed their ridiculously faked up video images came from the moon, where there was no possibility of a transmitter being onboard the landing module that could send the images to the orbiting capsule, let alone to Earth.

A TV remote control could have been built back then, but it would have been too expensive to bring to market, particularly in combination with the motors and actuators that would have been needed in the TV. Thing is, NASA had very deep pockets.

TV remotes were built back then, but they were big and bulky and unreliable. Never mind NASA's deep pockets. A bottomless pocket doesn't allow the purchase of technology that simply doesn't exist at the time it's needed. TV broadcasting equipment small enough to fit in the landing module is an example of technology that didn't exist then.