Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[BHelmet]

A smart pap walk shoved to woke watchers as the return on the Moon. Please! Give me rather Alfalfa’s letter to Darla....

Ina, I want to understand what you are saying in these posts. I know I am sometimes guilty of using colloquialisms and idioms and local slang which may make some comments hard to figure out. So: pap walk?

And Buckwheat, I am old enough to remember Our Gang/Little Rascals and how they creeped me out in my childhood but I don’t remember Alfalfa’s letter to Darla. (Come to think of it, why were they showing these bizarre films from the 1920’s-1930’s to kids in the 50’s-60’s anyway? Very strange!)

I reply to the previous discussion, NASA did put astronauts on the Moon. NAsa managed that because and solely so, because NASA used german paperclips. The moment that resource finished, the old tech, became obsolete and decomissioned via the back door, not only never to be seen again, but left with no chances of reproducibility because of lack of ownership.

By German paper clips I assume you mean Werner Von Braun etc Nazis brought to US in operation paper clip? Not sure how lack of ownership of the old tech factors in or what you mean.

And by fog over stakeholders I assume you mean lack of clarity regarding the financial backers and powerful hands behind the recent moon “project”?

 

[Brewer]

In other news Elon Musk tells a crowd that his double vacuum tested, super cool looking IVA spacesuits don't really work that well. He is however working on it so soon he'll have a suit capable of conducting spacewalks.

I've been having a quick look at the SpaceX suits and those who use them. It's used by astronauts of various nations including Andrey Fedyaev of Roscosmos, the Russian space agency.

(Jan. 30, 2023) — A SpaceX launch and entry suit bears a Russian flag, and the name of Roscosmos cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev, who will serve as a mission specialist of NASA’s SpaceX Crew-6 mission to the International Space Station. Credit: SpaceX

In order for any item to be used in space it has to be rigorously tested and certified by the agency using it. I've searched, nothing, no certification evidence anywhere. Lots of pretty pictures though. I did however find some skepticism from a Russian engineer Vladimir Pirozhkov who stated in August 2020

SpaceX's Crew Dragon space suits are impressively designed, but their safety level remains an open question, said Vladimir Pirozhkov, CEO of the KINETICA High Complexity Prototyping Centre at the National University of Science and Technology MISiS.

Vlad's skepticism was recently confirmed by the man him self, Elon Musk. Though his onesie looks 'cool' you cannot move in the things when they're pressurized which makes them quite dangerous in the event of an accident. Other Russians had it figured out too.
Despite these shortcomings it appears that the ESA; NASA and Roscosmos have approved Musk's onesie as fit for purpose when it's clearly not. However I cannot find any evidence of certification anywhere. Nothing on the NASA tech server, pretty pix from the ESA and access forbidden for Roscosmos.
I can understand NASA and the ESA as being part of the circus but the Russians? Anyway, despite all the bad blood there's room for cooperation.

MOSCOW, Dec 28 (Reuters) - Russia's space state agency Roscosmos said on Thursday that a cross-flight programme with NASA to the International Space Station (ISS) had been extended until 2025, Interfax news agency reported. The cross-flights were extended "in order to maintain the reliability of the ISS operation" and will be carried out on Russian and U.S. spacecraft, Roscosmos said. The cross-flights involve sending one American astronaut to the ISS as part of the crew of a Russian spacecraft, and vice versa - one Russian cosmonaut as part of an American crew, Interfax reported.

Seems Russia's more than happy to allow it's finest to fly in one of Musk's flaky creations. Perhaps they don't fly at all.

 

[The Mechanic]

Of course, the next it's not a speculation.

Cosmos clearly indicated he was speculating when he stated (emphasis mine):

Yeah, there are many possibilities for that impression, including your speculation. We simply don't know, though, and it is just an impression after all. I can also imagine that such a flight is enormously stressful to body and mind, and doing a press conference afterward (even weeks after) might be quite challenging. Also, a simple consideration that applies to many people might play into it: they weren't looking forward or were even reluctant or unwilling to do such a press conference, not because they had to lie, but because they were exhausted and/or not keen to do it at all, because it wasn't a thing they like to do.

 

[Brewer]

Odie the lander is dead.

An uncrewed American lander that became the first private spaceship on the moon has met its ultimate end after failing to "wake up," the company that built it said.
Houston-based Intuitive Machines said late Saturday that the lander, named Odysseus, had not phoned home this week when its solar panels were projected to receive enough sunlight to turn on its radio.

But it was not in vain

"This confirms that Odie has permanently faded after cementing its legacy into history as the first commercial lunar lander to land on the moon," it said.

Strange though, 19 years ago a probe landed on Titan, a moon of Saturn

It sent full color stills and video of it's own landing back to earth from 1.5 billion km away!

A problem in the communications program limited the number of images that Huygens transmitted to Cassini, from about 700 to 376. Yet, to the excitement of planetary scientists back on Earth, it continued its transmissions for another three hours and 10 minutes during which it transmitted a view of its surroundings (224 images of the same view).

They're still chatting with the Voyager probes from up to 24 billion kms, they can still send them orders! Voyager 1 is 62500 times more distant than the moon, Saturn, 3906 however, sending a probe to our nearest neighbor 384000kms distant fails on a regular basis!

Finally, it looks like Artemis will be delayed, again. Problems with the heat shield and hatch, oh well, maybe sometime next decade!

 

[Brewer]

Not only are the Russians content to let their cosmonauts fly in Elon Musk's fashion before function onesies. They're now ferrying orbiting moron Don Petitt to the ISS!

Hopefully he's learned how to fight fires, deal with leaks, formulate plans and use a gas detector! Careful with that Russian tech too Don, don't lose it! He's got a lot to be thankful for, he's using tried and tested Russian space tech!

Why does Russia still co-operate with the US?

 

[Brewer]

APOLLO SUNS​

A couple of weeks ago the moon eclipsed the sun. As you well know the sun is the same size as the moon relatively speaking. The sun, viewed from the moon is exactly the same size as when viewed from the earth.
Except for the Apollo 'suns' that is! they're massive and often display strange artifacts. Here's one example AS15-87-11745, as it appears from the 'lunar surface'. On the right I've filled the 'sun' with earths as seen from lunar orbit and taken with the same camera and it's on the same roll of film.

It eight earths across! The earth, seen from the lunar surface is about 3.7 time larger than the sun so this 'sun' is almost 30 times larger than it should be! Some experts argue that it's simply a flare caused by the internal reflections in the lens. No, flaring would occur that would increase the sun to around the size of the earth as seen from the moon but not to a large homogenous blob. If you open this image with GIMP, Photoshop or forensic software, adjust the levels and this what you get.

An evenly illuminated circular blob, if it was a lens flare you'd have a kernel of intense light in the center that would diminish in intensity towards the edges. This disc remains the same intensity throughout so its probably some sort of overlay they placed over the original transparency as they reprinted it. If you look closely you'll see a couple of vertical lines and what appears to be the original image under the overlay.
So what should the sun look like? After skimming through entire Apollo image gallery this is the only genuine image of the sun I can find taken from low earth orbit, here's a snip and that same snip with levels adjusted. Right is an image taken through an open hatch from the Gemini missions.

The only differences are that one was taken through a double paned window in low earth orbit with an 80mm f/2.8 lens. The other, on the lunar surface, allegedly, with a 60mm f/5.6 lens and finally the Gemini, 38mm f/4.5 None of these differences would account for the enormous differences in appearances of the lunar 'suns'. If you're curious as to why the suns are spiky, it's because of this, light diffraction spikes.
Well, I could go on, I could post a sun and lens flare analysis weekly but I'd still be posting 5 years from now. I'll drop a couple more here and there, there's some real doozies! I have asked 'experts' as to why the sun appears this way, usual responses, oh well!

 

[Mike]

Recently I read the book 'Penetration' by Ingo Swann. In it he mentions the book 'Somebody Else Is On The Moon' by George Leonard as part of his research on the moon. In this book by Leonard he details many things such as structures, things moving and causing tracks on the moon, etc from studying the thousands of photographs that were taken by probes, etc of the moon's surface. After reading this book, I think what aragorn said at the beginning of the thread is what is the case... and that the fake moon landing conspiracy is a psyop to hide what they really don't want people to realize about the moon.

After years of sporadic research into the subject, I'd say that the second alternative is more plausible: they did go to the moon, but encountered something that couldn't be shown and told to the public. Hence, some of the footage might be altered if not outright faked. Just my guess, but the silence and weird behavior of Armstrong could be evidence of this – he saw something unexpected.

And that something might have scared the **** out of the NASA-people, hence they haven't done any manned missions in a long time. And this could also be the reason that conspiracy theories regarding the moon landings are encouraged by some (hidden) parties, just as a distraction and false lead. A lot like the JFK assassination, where there are so many false leads planted during the decades that it is nearly impossible to see things clearly anymore.

 

[mkrnhr]

That's an over-saturated image of the sun, not an image of the sun.
Here's a non-saturated picture I took yesterday with a pocket digital camera (through binoculars..):

There is a center to limb darkening. It's not evenly illuminating.

When the image is over-exposed, the sun appears larger than it is as in this shot:

 

[Brewer]

That's an over-saturated image of the sun, not an image of the sun.
Here's a non-saturated picture I took yesterday with a pocket digital camera (through binoculars..):

This example is taken through what is essentially a telephoto lens with no terrestrial features to compare with.

When the image is over-exposed, the sun appears larger than it is as in this shot:

This is taken through a thick atmosphere, typical terran sunset or rise, possibly through a telephoto lens. The atmosphere distorts, causes flares etc. My example was taken with an 60mm lens, about 2 X magnification; in a vacuum, allegedly; with a 'moonscape' for comparison. The sun occupies 0.5 degrees of sky and indeed it would flare somewhat but not to this extent There would be some saturation however this 800 pixel wide 'sun' is evenly illuminated 6 or 7 pixels from the edges inwards no matter where you go. It's as white as the driven snow, equally white as the perforations bordering the image. There are no indication of any bright spots because it is one big bright spot. With saturation levels this high the entire image would be bleached white! Though similar to most Apollo 'suns' this image is an outlier, many Apollo suns do display as least some discernable structure in their bloated discs as seen here in AS17-147-22507 with its soft pastel pink highlights and its dashing red Tesla logo lens flares!


Whoever posted the Apollo images obviously saw a need to doctor some of them as demonstrated by these 2 snips.

They're two snips of two versions of the same photo but one's been documented as photoshopped on September 23 2015 at 23:18:54 GMT. The other is the 'original'. There is an obvious difference between the two and someone thought changes needed to be made. However they both share bizarre horizontally sliced lens flare around the 'sun'. Can you tell me which one is the original and which is the photoshop? Thanks.

 

[Cosmos]

Brewer,

all the photos you have presented so far clearly show an over-exposed sun, as mkrnhr explained.

Notice how almost perfectly circular with litte to no bulges on the edges the sun’s disk presents itself in the first photo mkrnhr took of the sun. There you can see the actual form/size of the sun’s disk thanks to a photo that is not over-exposed. Notice on contrast how bulgy/jaggy and not circular the sun looks in ALL photos you presented so far. Which is a clear indication that you can’t see nor determine the actual size of the sun‘s disk in any of those photos! Also notice how sharp the edges of the sun’s disk in mkrnhr photo are compared to yours. Another clear indication that the photos you presented are over-exposed just as mkrnhr explained, and because of that, you can’t determine the circular shape/form/size of the sun’s disk in those photos. Also, in an over-exposed photo it is perfectly normal to see little to no color/brightness differences on any part of the bright object, because, well, the photographed object is just “too bright for the camera“ to pick up anything less bright. Over-exposed.

Try this experiment: Take a photo of the sun yourself with your phone and then zoom into the photo. What do you see? Pretty much zero color/brightness differences on the object, which in this case is the sun. Also, look at how not circular and buldgy/jaggy the sun’s edges look on the photo. Also notice that you don’t see any sharp edges on any part of the photo of the sun you just took. So, you can’t see/determine the actual form/size of the sun in that photo you just took yourself either.

Edit: spelling

 

[Cosmos]

Here is an example of what I mean from the photos you presented:

what you get.

Look at the shape. The disk you see there is not circular and is buldgy/jaggy, especially at around 7 to 8 a clock. Look at the edges. Which means that the disk you see there isn’t the actual sun’s disk/form/size. That actual size/form/shape is hidden in the over-exposion of the photo with no way for us to determine how big the actual sun-disk really is in the photo. So, the disk you see there is the disk of the over-exposion and not the sun. All we can definitely say is that the actual form/shape/size of the sun‘s disk is smaller than the disk you see in the photo.

So, the actual sun’s disk, which you can’t see (nor make it appear via any brightness adjustments) on the photo could look as big as this if we could see it:



But it could also be much smaller, like this:



Or even much smaller than that. No way to determine.