OK conspiracy theorists - get out of this! Moon landings!

[Coito ergo sum]

The external pictures of the LM blasting off from the lunar surface were taken by video cameras on the lunar rovers, which were left behind on the Moon. The cameras were operated by remote control from Earth. On Apollos 11, 12, and 14, on which no rovers were taken to the Moon, there were no pictures taken of the lunar surface ascent. The one that doesn't pan is NASA's fuck up on timing the panning of the camera.

[mistermack]

I'm not surprised that they fucked up, given the time delay of 1.3 seconds each way for a signal to and from the moon.
It would mean that you couldn't react, it would have to go as planned, or not at all.

[FBM]

Ah. Now I got it. It's all just a long-range advertising gimmick. Wait for "Visit the very spot where NASA tricked us into believing we landed on the moon! Call now and receive this amazing set of Ginsu knives with your shuttle reservation!"

[Coito ergo sum]

It's probably just cover for NASA sending robotic missions up there to plant things on the Moon so it looks like we were there.

[Atheist-Lite]

It's probably just cover for NASA sending robotic missions up there to plant things on the Moon so it looks like we were there.

There's photoshop, why try harder?

[FBM]

It's probably just cover for NASA sending robotic missions up there to plant things on the Moon so it looks like we were there.

There's photoshop, why try harder?

Because the doubters have a secret moon mission underway to expose the unvisited areas? Big money in doubting these days, y'know.

[Schneibster]

The second thing was why the video was of such poor quality. Given the budget, I don't know the answer to that, but I'm prepared to acknowledge that there were good reasons.

Has to do with the amount of radio noise, the distance, the available amount of power to run the transmitter, and the frequencies TV has to use, which are great down here inside the magnetosphere but outside it, not so good.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The second thing was why the video was of such poor quality. Given the budget, I don't know the answer to that, but I'm prepared to acknowledge that there were good reasons.

Has to do with the amount of radio noise, the distance, the available amount of power to run the transmitter, and the frequencies TV has to use, which are great down here inside the magnetosphere but outside it, not so good.

It came from the Moon in 1969. The taped footage is much better.

[Rum]

The second thing was why the video was of such poor quality. Given the budget, I don't know the answer to that, but I'm prepared to acknowledge that there were good reasons.

Has to do with the amount of radio noise, the distance, the available amount of power to run the transmitter, and the frequencies TV has to use, which are great down here inside the magnetosphere but outside it, not so good.

I knew Magneto would be mixed up with the conspiracy somewhere!

[Coito ergo sum]

It's probably just cover for NASA sending robotic missions up there to plant things on the Moon so it looks like we were there.

There's photoshop, why try harder?

NASA is panicking. Now that Obama is in the White House, and has canceled government controlled Moon landings, leaving manned space flight to private enterprise, the guilty parties at NASA are scrambling to cover their tracks. So, they need to send materials up to the Moon that look like the stuff on the fake films from the Apollo missions. This way, they will have plausible deniability when, in a few years, private enterprises have crafts orbiting the Moon and looking down on an empty surface.

I mean, the Constellation program itself was partly the Bush administration's attempt to cover up for the lies of the past. Seeing that China and India had designs on Moon missions, Bushco decided it was time to really get stuff going on up on the Moon so they could plant some refuse that would look like it had been there for decades.

It's all so clear....

[Mr P]

Ah fukkitt, I may as well throw my hat into the ring.

[mistermack]

Ah, I just remembered the other thing that made me doubt a teeny little bit. ( not that I believe the conspiracy theory ).
But have they ever explained satisfactorily why they haven't been back to the moon?

The Apollo missions returned from the moon to earth in a tiny craft, using very little fuel.
That is because it takes very little energy to take off from the moon.
The same applies to the space station. The energy needed to go FROM THE SPACE STATION TO THE MOON is not much at all. And the same applies to the return trip.

Nearly all of the fuel is consumed by taking off from Earth, which they have been doing all the time, anyway.

So if you can go to the space station, what's the problem with going to the moon?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So if you can go to the space station, what's the problem with going to the moon?

Post coitus depression, sort of. We'd done it and it was time to move on. Remember that it wasn't about going to the Moon, it was about beating the Russians to the Moon for most people, so support for the missions waned quickly. There were missions planned after XVII, but they were scrubbed. We had other things to do, like dig ourselves out of S.E.A.

[Atheist-Lite]

Ah fukkitt, I may as well throw my hat into the ring.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showth ... t=18316321

It appears to be true and is deeply suspicious. What have they got to hide? Nothing? That's what I'm thinking as well !!!

[Clinton Huxley]

A mission from the ISS to the moon wouldn't be Apollo- expensive but would still cost a bob or two