The 40th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing

I know it's late, but it doesn't matter.

I don't know if anyone else cares enough to reflect upon the events that happened 40 years ago today, but I do. I wrote a Newswire article about it, but it doesn't look like it'll be published. At any rate, here it is:

I highly suggest watching Al Reinert's Oscar-nominated documentary For All Mankind(check yr local listings) (and check out Brian Eno's soundtrack to the film, Apollo: Atmospheres & Soundtracks) and another great documentary, In the Shadow of the Moon.


What they did is the greatest thing we as Americans and as humans have ever done. It is the best and brightest in us.

Maybe.

After watching the British documentary "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon," I am quite skeptical that we really reached the moon.

Aside from the photographs taken from the moon which were enough for me to doubt our landing there (shadows from the sun wouldn't intersect on the moon's surface) which was enough for me to , there was also NASA footage of the astronauts staging a scene where the Earth looks smaller from one of the ports.

By the way, I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. I don't think for a second that there was an additional gunman in the Kennedy assassination, nor do I think aliens nab humans for experiments then return them.

Bollocks. Only proves that the broadly ignorant can be conned into just about anything.

I remember where I was. A little kid playing in a swimming pool in TX on the way to the Grand Canyon. I came in to watch the TV broadcasts. I know some of the old guys that worked communications for the missions. I also know a couple of the cryogenics specialists, long retired, but interesting to talk to.

Excuse me. Buzz Aldrin would like a word with you.

Ah, the infamous shadows. There's the use of artificial lights, light reflected from Earth, the issue that the Lunar surface is not flat, and the use of an extreme wide-angle lens.

Don't forget ambient light. Have you ever looked up at the moon at night? That thing is pretty goddamn bright. The surface of the moon reflects light pretty well, wouldn't you say? I was hoping it would take longer for folks to roll out that retarded conspiracy theory.

I hope that we are able to go to the moon again someday...the dawn of the space program was such an amazing time.

NASA's working on it. The target for Orion's first flight is 2015, and they're working toward a lunar mission in 2020. I hope they can beat those estimates, since that sounds like a long time to rely on Soyuz alone.

I'm a little familiar with light. You do realize that due to the sun's position, the moon's position, and our position, that you cannot see the Earth's reflection of the sun while we see the moon's, right? As for the artificial light claim...uh...what? Not even NASA claims there were artificial lights used to photograph. And with the sun's blinding intensity on the moon - they wouldn't have portable flash units available at that time to even make a dent in the shadows.

I was on two of NASA's sites last night looking for images of the Apollo 11 trip. I was a bit surprised only a handful of the moon pictures were available now compared to many of the images that are disputed in the documentary and on several websites. I only wanted to use official NASA photos for this discussion.

As for the use of a wide angle lens, there is a series of photos taken for a panoramic such as this one:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

To get such distorted perspectives of shadows, you would have to use an ultra wide lens or fisheye lens. Not only would it distort the perspectives, but the shadows themselves would be bent.

There is also a strange hot spot directly behind the astronaut. This might be expected if he were facing towards the sun because of the shield across his face, but he is facing away from the sun.

Then there is the image of the lunar module on the moon's surface:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

So there is no burn mark from the rocket underneath it. I understand they are only in 1/6 gravity but why is there enough weight and force to produce a footstep (you can see them all around the craft) but the rocket doesn't produce enough force from landing to create even a small burn hole or displace the moon dust and rocks? And this thing is supposed to have lead plates to protect the astronauts from the radiation in the Van Allen belt but weight of the entire unit doesn't cause the surface under the landing pads to depress? The pads are sitting on top of the moon's surface. Even the lunar rover spits rocks and dust up when driving on the surface in photos.

I won't get into the flag waving in photos but that's also a bit weird as the moon has no atmosphere.

I am still a little confused as to how radio and tv signals were able to get through the Van Allen belt so clearly. I'm not being snarky, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

This was all at the height of the Cold War with Russia (USSR at the time). The government was so sure of the success of this trip that they broadcast it live in front of the world? They didn't even do that with the previous exercises. And it is strange that in all 3 Apollo missions, the networks were only allowed to film a copy from a projector and not a live feed.

In the 1980s, Reagan announced the "Star Wars" defense system which would eliminate any nuclear threat from Russia. We later found out we had no such intelligence or ability.

It's still a little strange that no country has even attempted going to the moon since any of the Apollo missions. Not even Russia? Just to finally say, "We did it" after all of that hard work? It just leaves more questions for me than answers.

There was a press conference after the Apollo 11 mission where the three astronauts were asked about the stars they saw as they would have been closer to constellations and systems then ever before. All three said they couldn't recall seeing any stars unless looking through some optics - but nobody thought of putting a camera to them for space exploration. They also didn't for the Apollo 12 and 13 missions.

Ambient light is "existing light."

The types of light on the moon are direct (from the sun) and reflected (from the sun but reflected from its surface), which is the ambient light.

The rest of your post begs to differ.

Gringo said:
As for the use of a wide angle lens, there is a series of photos taken for a panoramic such as this one:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

To get such distorted perspectives of shadows, you would have to use an ultra wide lens or fisheye lens. Not only would it distort the perspectives, but the shadows themselves would be bent.

And they did, indeed, use a fisheye lens. See how the shadows in that photo seems to converge to a central point? Not the terrain shadows, but the shadows caused by the astronaut, the flag, etc?

Then there is the image of the lunar module on the moon's surface:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

So there is no burn mark from the rocket underneath it. I understand they are only in 1/6 gravity but why is there enough weight and force to produce a footstep (you can see them all around the craft) but the rocket doesn't produce enough force from landing to create even a small burn hole or displace the moon dust and rocks? And this thing is supposed to have lead plates to protect the astronauts from the radiation in the Van Allen belt but weight of the entire unit doesn't cause the surface under the landing pads to depress? The pads are sitting on top of the moon's surface. Even the lunar rover spits rocks and dust up when driving on the surface in photos.

At landing, the propulsion system is throttled down to the point it's only producing about 1.5 PSI. There's just not enough thrust to displace huge amounts of compacted regolith and make a large crater, though measurements indicate a crater of 4-6 inches was created.

In addition, the landings did scatter a great deal of fine dust, which is visible in the 16mm footage, and commented on by mission commanders.

Finally, the landers moved horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring along the descent path.

It's not waving. Ever had wrinkled clothes and held them out horizontal?
Check out these photos:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Different times. The camera moved. Same flag position.

Clearly not. Different kinds of interference affect radio propagation at various frequencies very differently. For instance, you usually can't skip frequencies over about 30 MHz off the ionosphere. They just go right through. But you can use tropospheric scattering.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

That is not taken with a fisheye lens. Nikon put out fisheyes in the late 60s but the crew of Apollo 11 shot with Hasselblads and not Nikons. They shot the panoramic scenes and photos of each other with a 70mm lens on a Hasselblad body. I appreciate your offer of an answer but because you aren't discussing the lens used, then it still does not account for the different angles of shadows nor the hot spots.

You might be referring to the data acquisition cameras which were not hand held and had much wider viewing angles (including 16mm and down to 5mm). These aren't the images I am referring to.

Again, 1/6th gravity. If they are hovering horizontally/vertically, they would need the thrust required to suspend 1/6th the weight of the lunar lander, the crew, and the lunar rover. I'm still not understanding how that amount of thrust wouldn't leave a HUGE ass trail print from force needed to keep it suspended. You still didn't answer the question. I'm not talking about a few bits of dust being scattered. Again, their own weight was enough to leave definitive footprints in the ground.

It's not waving. Ever had wrinkled clothes and held them out horizontal?
Check out these photos:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Different times. The camera moved. Same flag position.

No, I am referring to the video footage where the flag starts moving on its own from the bottom right-hand side then the astronaut responds to it moving. I will have to Google/YouTube the footage. (EDIT/ADD: It may be from another Apollo mission...it's the one in color.)

As with the radio signal (I was fucking up the formatting of our two conversations), I understand that it's not "clear." What is puzzling to me is how clear it was considering the distance they were in addition to the Van Allen belt disturbing (if not stopping) any radio or tv signals. I do not have in-depth experience in radio signals but I do know that radiation does significantly disrupt signals.

By the way Sick, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post in an intelligent manner. I know a lot of people would have responded in an asshole-type tone. As retarded as my questions may seem to most - I think they are pretty fucking valid....or at least they are based on sound photography principles instead of just going, "Oooh yeah...the government is out to get us." Wait, that last statement...er.....Bush is gone, right? <kidding>

Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing things that don't make sense. I think the entire nation did it with 9/11 so why wouldn't we challenge anything else that doesn't completely add up?

Look at it this way; it would be easier to actually send men to the moon than it would be to create all the technology to do it, merely pretend to go, then cover it up for forty years. The methods used by the Apollo program were, after all, fairly primitive.

Strap some men on top of a giant explosion with enough supplies for a couple weeks, give them a radio transceiver and the equivalent of a modern graphing calculator to control the whole contraption, and hope there isn't a surprise solar flare or a major flaw in the Principia.

thank you.

and those that do propagate this conspiracy theory deny and demean the power of the human mind and spirit, and also dishonor all those who have put forth so much time and effort, and some even gave their lives, into the space program, from their very beginning through Apollo 11 and up till now.

Nevermind

If you're holding a piece of fabric, and then you drop it, it's going to fucking wave, especially if there's no air to push back against it.

Jesus, there's a whole hour of Mythbusters devoted to dispelling this bullshit.

I remember watching the moon landing on a neighbour's TV. Even at the age of four, you had a sense that this was something pretty special. I had a sticker book with all the Apollo badges in (I can still remember - Apollo 8, Anders, Lovell and Borman....I think). And an anorak with an Apollo patch on (I was that kind of kid).

And they don't build rockets like that any more!

Just read that back....it sounds like "Back in the old days, when we used to fly to the moon....."

One brilliant stat on human progress. In 1919, Alcock and Brown were the first pilots to cross the Atlantic. Fifty years later, we are standing on the moon. That's not bad going, is it?

This site is a good debunking of many of the main points of 'evidence' of the moon hoax. But leaving aside questions of waving flags and blast craters for a second, I've never heard an explanation, from those who think it was all a hoax, why it would be faked six times, when presumably once would be enough to show the world (and Russia) who had won the space race. Although it wouldn't be just six times, because Apollo 8, 10, and of course 13 went to the moon without landing, so presumably they'd have to be included on the list of faked missions too.

Anyway, good article, and I second the recommendation of 'In The Shadow Of The Moon'. I hope I get to see something like this happen in my lifetime. I know the Constellation program is up and running... I just hope it's not subject to any budget cuts or cancellations.

I also recommened Andrew Smith's book 'Moondust'. Strictly speaking, it's as much about how the years have treated the men who walked on the moon as about the missions themselves, but it's a fascinating read.

"How come you guys can put a man on the moon, but you can't get my shoe to smell good?"

Homer Simpson (my Buzz Aldrin)

My inner looney-tunes fan salutes you sir.

Ugh, I was going to write out the Hasselblad 500 EL lens specs and show barrel distortion and its limits in regards to angles of view and - not the up-sloping angle that was used on Mythbusters which any fucking amateur photographer would expect but the images and perspectives shown in my original examples. If anything, I guess I've been "saved" from writing out all of the discrepancies found in the Mythbusters tests - including their "sun" and its placement as well as wrong exposure values.

I could see the junior high school comebacks if I was just making random claims without any sort of logic or reasoning behind them. I guess I shouldn't have expected anyone to respond with any amount of seriousness, so in that, I thank you Sick. You seem like a pretty decent human for these boards.

It becomes easier and easier to understand why group and board participation has gone down over time - especially when someone has a differing opinion or view from what's popular.

I hope none of you ever question anything our government does in the future with sound and reasonable questions and expect to be taken seriously. Because that would make you hypocrites.