"The infamous flag waving picture" may mean something to you, but it doesn't get me any closer to what you are talking about. And if you acknowledge that the "line" you see in that unidentified picture could be a drop (or the horizon), why speculate that it's evidence of a backdrop?

Until I see the picture I can't comment on your claim about the shadows.

The Rover got to the moon in a storage bay on the LM. Go to this site

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...lsj/frame.html

and you will not only be able to find the picture you are referencing, you'll also be able to find out exactly how the LM carried the Rover and how the Rover was deployed on the Moon. Spend a few hours at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site (the link I gave above) and many of your questions will be answered. For those that aren't, come back here with specifics and I'm sure people here will help you. No-one is going to answer a question based on our guessing what picture you have in mind.

Are you referring to this one?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...11-40-5874.jpg

I don't see a line on the horizen. Also the shadow of the flag is barely visible as a narrow line off to the right. The dark shadows to the left are from footprints and uneven soil.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

ok well, the STRAGIHT line can be found in the 'INFAMOUS FLAG WAVING' picture.

This is not helpful. There are several photographs given in evidence of flag-waving.

We need either a link to the photo online, or the NASA photo ID number (e.g., AS11-40-5903). Any analysis is fruitless until we agree we're looking at the right picture.

I do realize that this could be a drop or could indeed be a backdrop.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you agreeing that the photo can be explained by natural phenomena as well as by artifice? If so, what process did you use to determine that the artificial backdrop was the best explanation.

Also in the same picture ...

We'll have to reserve comment until we see the picture.

also does any1 know how they got the lunar rover onto the moon?

Your question is a bit ambiguous. Are you asking how the rover was carried aboard the LM? Or are you asking how it was lowered from its place on the LM to the lunar surface?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

see this is the problem with you fellows. you are way to far into NASA that it is like a god to you, and you believe anything they say. ONe day you'll have to face the truth, that NASA lies. I mean come on, betwen 1964-67, 10 astronauts died in freak accidents because they were going ot leak evidence. also what about the saftey isepctor that died after reporting to congress all the things wrong with the Apollo Program? was that an accident? and where did his 500 pages of notes go?

Now http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...11-40-5874.jpg yes that is the photo i am refering to, obviously you people don't know how to use your eyes to examine a photo. I mean come on folks, it's an easy task. If a 15 year old can do it, I think you can too. Too make it easier, I will add lines to the image showing exactly where the line is, maybe then you will see.

Also, if you look, there is a cable going form the LM to the camera that is planted on the ground. Now I think you all would know this, they used remotely controlled cameras. like when the astronauts were lifting off from the moon, they were using a RC camera, to catch the footage.

Another thing is, does the LM have a camera on the outside?

...betwen 1964-67, 10 astronauts died in freak accidents

Ooooh, this is interesting. Let's hear the names of all ten.

The later Apollo missions (15, 16, 17) had a camera on the lunar rover that could be remotely controlled from Earth and also parked far enough away to get a good view of the liftoff. The earlier missions had a camera that was stowed in the science equipment bay. This popped out when the equipment bay was opened from within the lunar module and allowed a view of the first steps on the Moon. Then the astronaut would take the camera and set it up some distance away from the lunar module so that their activities could be observed.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I know Jay will do a better job of tearing this post apart, but I will give it a try.
Wrong. We don't believe a word they say until we can analyze the evidence. The evidence is clear that the moon landings were real.
Do you have names for these astronauts? As for any other deaths, you have to prove that they weren't accidents. Speculation doesn't cut it.
Saying that Jay can't analyze a photograph is absurd. I'm not an expert in the field, but on first glance I can see the shadow of the flag going to the right. Why can't you?
I will let others answer this, but I don't see anything mysterious about the cable.

_________________
"I am not left handed either."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laser Jock on 2003-02-06 16:16 ]</font>

ok now, since you have answered my camera Q. I will tell you this. Armstrong was the first man on the moon, how was their footage captured from ground level of him getting off the ladder??????? you said it yourself that on 15, 16, and 17 there were cameras, but you never said 10. So, explain this. We all know Armstrong as the first man on the moon, and "Buzz" was the second one, so how could footage be taken of armstrong getting off the LM, don't try to BS me by telling me buzz filmed him through the window. at the angle shown, there is no way that could be the case.

THank you come again.

Fakeness, you didn't answer any of our quesitons.

However, Armstrong was filmed from the MESA equipment pallet under the LMP's window. He deployed this from the top of the ladder with a "D-ring" handle:

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/g-mesa1.gif

I mean come on, betwen 1964-67, 10 astronauts died in freak accidents because they were going ot leak evidence.

Only (Only?) eight between 1964-1967, and not really from "freak" accidents considering their chosen profession:
Freeman - 1964 - T-38 crash
Bassett - 1966 - T-38
See - 1966 - T-38
Williams - 1967 - T-38
Givens - 1967 - auto accident
Grissom, White, Chaffee - 1967 - Apollo 1

See http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/astrobio_former.html for more.

also what about the saftey isepctor that died after reporting to congress all the things wrong with the Apollo Program? was that an accident? and where did his 500 pages of notes go?

Thomas Baron? Discussed many tmies on the BABB:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...c=1712&forum=3

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...c=2026&forum=3

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...745&forum=3&17

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

u see a shadow of the flag off to the right?? that simply cannot be, all shadows must be parallel to each other, and I see no shadow, where is the shadow of the pole?

Here's another pic of the MESA deployment mechanism.

you're all so silly. I love the sheer lack of logical thinking skills that you all have inherited.

Affirmed consequent, not to mention ad hominem. If we were obsessive compulsive NASA worshippers, we would defend NASA, but defending NASA doesn't mean we are obsessive compulsive NASA worshippers. Please give us a quote from replies to your post that would serve as evidence to support your lay psychiatric analysis. Right now, it simply looks as though you are trying to paint us as deranged in order to justify ignoring what we say.

We know NASA has lied on occasion. But that doesn't mean we're going to immediately assume they're lying on every occasion.

Try eight. Grissom, White and Chaffee in the Apollo 1 fire, See, Bassett, Freeman and Williams in T-38 crashes and Givens in a car crash. Would you now care to offer clarification of your assertion that they were going to leak evidence? Until then, it's just another affirmed consequent.

Thomas Baron's death is considered a suicide attempt brought on by extreme stress due to the Congress hearing, his dismissal from NAA and his nervous condition. Check here for more information.

We don't know how to use our eyes? Why don't you look at AS11-40-5875 or AS11-40-5905, which both show the flag again with exactly the same shape. Neat trick for three different photos. Want to know why? Check here

Condescension won't work on us. We can see the flag in all three photos. Can you see that they're the same?

Only the LRV cameras on the J class mission were remote. The previous television cameras needed a cable connected to the spacecraft. It's always amusing to hear HBs make Apollohoax assertions, not just based on misinterpretation, on paranoid conjecture, but on wholly incorrect facts.

Different mission, different camera.

Yes, the television camera was stowed on the MESA.

Photo of the (training) MESA relative to the ladder. If you look closely, you can see the camera lens facing toward the ladder.

Close-up. Camera lens clearly visible.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

The pole is so thin that its shadow would get lost in the crannies of the terrain. But in 5904, you can see the shadow of the flag itself.

I've pointed out your use of affirmed consequents and ad hominems. Could you point out so fallacies we've been using to justify your statement?

see this is the problem with you fellows. you are way to far into NASA that it is like a god to you, and you believe anything they say.

No, but that's what the conspiracist "script" tells you to say at this point in the debate. The fact is that I and several others have put NASA's claims to the test. And most of us are highly-educated, highly-trained people who have the technical skills to see whether NASA is lying or not.

Further, we have put the conspiracist claims to similar tests and have found them to be inconsistent, based on selective evidence, and just plain ignorant of several well-known physical principles. The conclusion is pretty straightforward at this point.

10 astronauts died in freak accidents because they were going ot leak evidence.

Name them, give the details of their deaths, explain why they are "freak" accidents, and explain specifically how NASA managed to purposely bring them about.

Can you supply evidence that they were going to reveal some secret? Or is that just your supposition?

also what about the saftey isepctor that died after reporting to congress all the things wrong with the Apollo Program? was that an accident?

No, it was suicide, according to the Florida medical examiner. What Thomas Baron was going to testify to was already a matter of record since he had written a report to North American Aviation and to NASA, and had had several stories published in Florida newspapers. If this was so damaging, why did the alleged conspirators wait until after the committee's findings were published? Don't you normally bump off witnesses before they can testify?

and where did his 500 pages of notes go?

To Congress, who can't seem to find them now.

obviously you people don't know how to use your eyes to examine a photo. I mean come on folks, it's an easy task. If a 15 year old can do it, I think you can too.

No, the mistake is assuming that image analysis, photographic interpretation, and photogrammetrics are "easy" or "intuitive". I have seen no end of garbage spouted by ignorant people who just thought they could become experts at photographic interpretation by gawking at a photo.

I will add lines to the image showing exactly where the line is, maybe then you will see.

No need. If I'm looking at the same line you are, just below Aldrin's waist level, it's the rim of a gaping crater that's visible in about 50 photos taken of the area.

Now I think you all would know this, they used remotely controlled cameras.

On Apollos 15, 16, and 17 -- yes. On Apollo 11 -- no.

Another thing is, does the LM have a camera on the outside?

For Apollo 11 the television camera was initially in the MESA. Then it was mounted on the tripod and carried some distance away.

There was a 16mm film camera in the window of the LM.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

all shadows must be parallel to each other

Who told you this? A conspiracy theorist? Did you check this "fact"? Did you go outside and look at how many sun-cast shadows don't conform to what they tell you?

Shadows cast by the sun appear parallel only when cast through parallel objects onto flat, level ground. Contour and texture of the receiving surface has an enormous effect on the appearance of shadows. This effect is maximized when you view it at right angles, as is the case in this photo.

Don't believe me? Go find some uncut grass. Stick a pole in the ground and stand up-sun of it so that the shadow falls away from you. You should see a pretty distinct shadow. Now stand cross-sun so that the shadow falls left-to-right, or right-to-left. Stand back a ways. Watch the shadow almost completely disappear in the clutter.

The texture of the lunar surface has a similar effect. Why doesn't it affect the shadows of Aldrin or the lander? Because those shadows are large. When the size of the shadow is close the size of the texture, the shadows tend to disappear. When the shadow is much larger than the texture, it remains.

You say I just take NASA's word for things. Yet I went out and did experiments to test whether phenomena like I just described would explain the so-called anomalies. What experiments did you do? Did you attempt to verify any of the conspiracy theorist's claims? Or did you just swallow them without thinking. Which one of us is really the intellectually lazy one?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

how was their footage captured from ground level of him getting off the ladder?

The camera on the MESA has already been explained, so I won't belabor its position.

What I find disturbing, however, is that this was a pretty well-known fact. Further, if you watch the Apollo 11 EVA (which only takes about two hours, by the way) you can see the wild camera movements as Armstrong unmounts the camera, changes its lens, and puts it on the tripod. If you check on any of several web sites or in most Apollo books, the placement of the camera is described.

See, I have a hard time taking you seriously when it's apparent you just don't know much about Apollo. You say it was faked, and you even make fun of us for not believing it was faked. But when push comes to shove, you can't demonstrate that you've even bothered to watch the telecast you say was faked, or to test any of your assertions before making them.

So what, exactly, separates you from a troll?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

you're all so silly.

Why? Because we question your findings?

It turns out we have good cause to question your findings because they appear to be based on an alarming lack of factual understanding and a good measure of conjecture.

I love the sheer lack of logical thinking skills that you all have inherited.

For example?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...11/40/5905.jpg

omg, i'm about to die from laughiung, the flag in that piccture, it is doctored, it's like not even in the ground, yes it may appear that it is, but doing a lot of work in photshop, I know how certain images tend to come out. plus look at that box shadow in the upper right of the picture, sure u'll say it is from the flag, but the mere shape of the sadow does not comply with the flags shape, nor is there any shadow from the pole, that piece of the iamge was docotred as well.

you're all so silly.

So our infamous troll has finally shown his age.

But i digress... Fak3n3ss, i will ask you again nicely. Please move this discussion to a new topic. The act of Buzz hitting Sibrel has nuthing (directly) to do this discussion currently.

You are bing rude to people who are trying to show you facts and not speculation. Show some maturity and act your age. There are several high schoolers (Colt comes to mind, Hi! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]) on this board who are very mature and put in valuable replies and questions. Please emulate this if you want to be respected.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

ho silly of you all to argue with me, you think I have the time to do all this research for noe reason. I am fak3n3ss, I do what I want and please to do what I care.

I am not obligated to listen to you fettered conspirators, man went to the moon, you all have to accept that, you silly conspirators. I don't know what you were trying to pull by saying they never went to the moon. just look at the videos and you will see they simply could not be faked. what silly conspiracy theorists. laff!

Yes I oculd be mature, but I must simply disagree ith this subject, I am sorry, for not moving the topic, but it was already getting on its way. Also, I apologize for my sillyness. I just see many factors that could prove that the moon landings were faked.

one last comment and I shall hush up.

If I were put in a room filled with a plethora of radiation, and left in there for a bit over an hour, would I get seriuosly infected with radiation? most will answer yes.

but then, how could the astronauts survived 1 hour thru Van allen belts, and then from magnetic storms from the sun? I mean look at hirshima and Nagasaki and all the effects that they caused. And you mean to say that the astronauts were fully protected? well then why can't they take thos spacesuits and go clean up may radiation leaks and things such as those, I'm sorry but I have no place in mind that contains a radiation problem.

once again I a[pologize for being rude. I would like to inform you that I can be a very mature individual, one of the maturest among my grade level possibly, but I dchose to show my oppposite side for a while here.

i'm about to die from laughiung

Me too, but for a different reason.

the flag in that piccture, it is doctored, it's like not even in the ground, yes it may appear that it is, but doing a lot of work in photshop, I know how certain images tend to come out.

Let me understand. It looks like it's in the ground, but it really isn't. And because you've played in Photoshop you're now an expert on what a doctored photo looks like, even though you agree it looks genuine. Apparently I didn't read your post carefully.

And why are we looking at just one photo? There are several photos taken of the flag, as well as motion pictures and video. Strange how they're all consistent.

but the mere shape of the sadow does not comply with the flags shape, nor is there any shadow from the pole, that piece of the iamge was docotred as well.

LOL! So now a shadow cast by an irregular object on a textured surface and viewed from an angle some distance away, must "comply" with the perception of the shape of the object?

Okay, you know nothing of projective geometry.

Where is the light coming from in this photo? From essentially due left. How do I know? Shadows on Aldrin's legs, plus the orientation of the LM in the photo and knowledge of how that relates to the expected sun direction.

Where is the flag pointing? Essentially due left. How do I know this? By examining all the photographs taken of the flag, and the motion picture and television coverage.

Now if I take a sheet of rectangular paper, crumble it up and then open it up, and present it edge-on to a light source and cast a shadow onto an irregular surface, and view it from an oblique angle, what possible flight of fancy would convince me that I should see a rectangular shadow?

you're all so silly.

No, not really. We're applying standard, defensible methodology for image analysis, while you're simply giving your opinion as a guy who owns Photoshop.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

ho silly of you all to argue with me, you think I have the time to do all this research for noe reason.

Most people who draw conclusions in public don't consider the research necessary to support those conclusions a wasted effort. But then most people have some fear of looking like an idiot in public. But ...

I am fak3n3ss, I do what I want and please to do what I care.

... which answers that.

1st you chose poorly

2nd There is a difference between long term doasges by radiation and short term. I will let the physicists on this board explain that. But a short term exposure by small amounts will not kill you. Long term it might, but they were in the belts for only minutes at a time.

[Added a quote from his post]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-02-06 18:25 ]</font>

I just see many factors that could prove that the moon landings were faked.

"Could prove" and "do prove" are two entirely different things.

You see anomalies, to use the conspiracist term. In other words, you see things which run contrary to your expectations. These are effects to which you have tried to fit a cause. But in all cases the cause you identify is not the only possible cause. Further, the whole idea of whether something is anomalous rests on how satisfactory your expectation is.

In almost every one of these cases, the conspiracist's expectation is wrong, usually because he hasn't considered some point of science, or because he doesn't know some pertinent fact about Apollo. When the expectation is unjustified there simply is no anomaly.

I were put in a room filled with a plethora of radiation ...

Define a "plethora". That's a subjective term. Give me radiation type and emission levels and I'll give it a shot.

...and left in there for a bit over an hour, would I get seriuosly infected with radiation?

Radiation doesn't "infect". Certain types of radiation have biological effects, at certain strengths. The typical effect is ionization. This produces free radicals in your body and in some cases genetic mutation.

Is the exposure constant?

Are we talking about gamma rays? X-rays? Energetic protons? Energetic electrons?

What protection is available in your room? Polyethylene slabs? Aluminum sheets? Which would you use, and why?

most will answer yes.

This is irrelevant if "most" don't know anything about radiation. And that's "most" of the American public. They see radiation as some sort of bogeyman and behave very phobically toward it.

how could the astronauts survived 1 hour thru Van allen belts

Because they were in a space ship, and took a carefully planned route. Guess who planned that route for them: Prof. James Van Allen.

then from magnetic storms from the sun?

There weren't any "magnetic storms" from the sun during Apollo missions, except for one little bitty one. The conspiracists have you thinking that there's no way you could venture outside the Van Allen belts without getting blasted by the sun, but in fact those events are pretty few and far between, even in the "solar max" period that conspiracists try to scare you with.

I mean look at hirshima and Nagasaki and all the effects that they caused.

Completely different type and amount of radiation. Nuclear weapons produce high-frequency x-rays and gamma rays in huge amounts. That really does require several feet of lead in order to shield against. The Apollo spacecraft and space suits would be completely ineffective against that type of radiation. Luckily that type of radiation doesn't occur naturally in space.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Doesn't this statement only apply to cislunar space? I'm pretty sure naturally occuring high-frequency X-Rays and/or gamma radiation might be found elsewhere, just not in this sordid part of the "unfashionable end of the Galaxy".

D.