Why can't we used our technology to just take a live video of the landing site? Hubble has taken lots of lunar photos and can zoom close enough to see the text in a book if it were on the surface so why not zoom in on boot prints?
Dale Derpson hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.cat=topten&id=77 " No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites. An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot. Here is a picture that Hubble took of the Moon: @1999"
Dale Derpson "An @26587 created from data @26591collected by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter gives space fans a new look at the Apollo 11 landing site years after astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left the moon's surface behind. The new video shows a 3D view of the landing site, and LRO also spied the trails made by the astronauts as they kicked up the lunar dust." www.space.com/26591-apollo-11-landing-site-nasa-video.html
henry ford FUEL CELLS. Hydrogen and oxygen (both stored in liquid form and evaporated as needed; remember the "cryo tank stirring" which caused the explosion on the Apollo 13 mission?) fed into a bank of heated electrodes which caused the hydrogen to oxidize and produce electrical power, with drinking water as a byproduct. Although the technology existed back then, it is still not practical and safe enough to use in consumer products, where you don't have NASA trained astronauts with engineering degrees monitoring the supporting apparatus.
rocks could have been procured without men stepping on moon...fake earth pics through the window.gus grisom..the investigator who happened to get run over by a train and report was lost....
maybe the Russian ship was the one being monitored;they agreed to send something to circle the moon,so Amateurs would think that was Apollo 11 capsule ;
***** They were our competitors in the space race and our mortal enemies. They would not have agreed to do something like that. Besides, except for the Apollo 8 and (due to malfunction) Apollo 13 missions, there were TWO spacecraft sent to the moon, which separated soon after entering lunar orbit, one landing and becoming essentially a stationary base, and later taking off from the moon, executing orbital rendezvous and docking, then being discarded. A radio telescope on Earth could not only distinguish the two signals, but using the Doppler effect, it could track the motion of each signal's source. Anything orbiting the moon would show a lowering of its radio carrier frequency (called a red shift) on the way to the moon, disappear behind the moon for half the time, show a raising of its frequency (blue shift) when coming out from behind the moon, decreasing blue shift as it approaches what we perceive as the center of the lunar disc, then a gradually increasing red shift until it goes behind the moon again. The lunar module, upon undocking and beginning the landing would show a different amount of blue shift from the orbiting command module, and never begin showing red shift at all for the duration of the lunar part of the mission. On taking off, it would show a red shift catching up to the command module, then the joined spacecraft would disappear behind the moon, and on one of the subsequent orbits, that spacecraft would fire the rocket engine behind the moon, emerge with slightly more blue shift than on prior orbits, and the blue shift would increase as it approached earth. The Russian probe could not have duplicated the two-ship radio signals, even had it not crashed. Basically, the anti-hoax trump card is the fact that, had anyone with a radio telescope (not amateurs by any means) detected EVIDENCE of a hoax, which it was possible to detect in REAL TIME by analyzing radio signals (the same way the weather report measures wind speed in storms and the cops detect speeders), there would have been a super large print headline in Pravda the next day, and "breaking news" on Radio Moscow within the hour.
ADMIN GS Did you study science as a child? I did. Did you take honors biology and physics in high school? Did you earn a college degree in engineering? Did you write and maintain mainframe computer programs for 30+ years? I did, and retired a few years ago. Are you at retirement age, or are you still in high school (or in school high)? Do you understand the physics of space travel, and the fact that ANYONE with the right receiving equipment in ANY country could, and did, track the position and velocity of each module in the Apollo missions, and receive the telemetry signals as well as the astronaut's audio and (when scheduled) video transmissions SEPARATELY from whatever NASA as the "hoaxer" might be feeding the world's public TV networks? Do you understand that some of those people who could track the spacecraft were our COMPETITORS in the space race (the USSR), some of them were in countries ALLIED with our competitors (China, for one), and some of them were in countries with freedom of speech and press, but wanted to be sure we were telling the truth, and had access to the proper receiving equipment? Do you understand enough of the politics of the Cold War (not to mention human nature) to realize that IF the US had fed a fabricated, pre-recorded fake lunar mission TEN times (Apollo 8 through 17), and in even ONE of those cases, these honestly skeptical and/or hostile observers had found ANY discrepancy between the public TV feed and their own INDEPENDENT observations in the sky, there would have been an INTERNATIONAL SCANDAL, which would have been MUCH WORSE than either quitting the space race or suffering a failure? Did you read in your newspaper (if you are old enough; I was in college at the time) or in history class (if you are young) about such an international scandal regarding the faking of our space missions? Perpetrating such a hoax would have required ROBOTIC equipment set up to duplicate the planned course of the astronauts, play back over radio transmitters a pre-recorded and simulated telemetry, audio and video transmission, at just the right moments in the flight, and do so FLAWLESSLY, because the hoax would have been uncovered if, for example, the robotic lunar module crashed while the robotic command module orbiting the moon kept playing back Collins' third of a conversation with the lunar module and Mission Control as if everything were fine. Our latest space probes, landing on Mars and flying by Pluto, and the European landings on Titan and on the comet, may not always work flawlessly, which is why each one of those was so suspenseful in their mission control rooms. Not only remote control (which, by the way, would have required an extra and undisclosed radio uplink which independent observers would have detected), but independent robotics (which would have been required for the two engine burns BEHIND the moon to slow down into lunar orbit and then to break out of lunar orbit to come home) was much more primitive in the 1960s -- the years I was studying engineering, by the way. And adding such robotics to the spacecraft would have been much more expensive than adding life support so that we could send astronauts. Now, do you have any pro-hoax evidence that is so conclusive as to counter the anti-hoax evidence that Pravda and Radio Moscow never once accused us of faking anything in our space program (Pravda was the state/party controlled main newspaper in the Soviet Union)? Other than just fake arrogant laughing at anyone who presents documented historical facts combined with physics?
+Allan Richardson also there were thousands of man hours put into it people can probably track and find sources for. Instead of judging the whole thing off of highlights from the Apollo moon landing film and 40+ minute feed. Even though film technology wasn't advanced enough to render video in slow motion for such a long time if it was fake. It's impossible for 1969.
+Mad V And another piece of hoax "evidence" is the grainy quality of the live videos from the moon, especially the first one. The hoaxers apparently have never studied POWER AND BANDWIDTH requirements for video transmission (I was in college studying those very topics at the time). All of the signals sent from the Apollo spacecraft were sent with low power from a great distance. In order to separate signal from noise with the analog noise suppression technologies of the 1960s, it was necessary either to reduce the bandwidth (resolution times frame rate) or record the video, send at a fraction of real time speed, then play it back. The latter was OK for the features broadcast later, but not for the LIVE pictures taken from the camera on the outside of the LM, which photographed the first steps of each astronaut; for them it was necessary to reduce the resolution and frame rate, which made the video look grainy and jumpy. And since color adds to the required resolution, the videos were in monochrome. And STILL a usable signal could not be received (usable meaning strong enough to defeat the noise in the circuits) except with a giant radio telescope dish. Today's digital noise suppression techniques, using microchips with millions of times the computing speed of the rack mounted monsters available to Apollo, could get a much better, possibly even color, "first steps" live video on the moon. The same technology is why the fastest speed available on a dialup modem topped out at 56Kbps, while dialup modems of the 1960s could only get to 9600bps on leased "conditioned" lines, 2400 on pure dialup at the most. That is because the last (and cheapest) dialup modems built as long as 10 years ago had ways to encode and decode the digital signals with a lower signal/noise ratio by digitally computing with their waveforms, which even NASA did not have in the 1960s. By the way, I have noticed that on this and some other alleged conspiracies and hoaxes, the tinfoil hatters attribute hostility toward THEIR ideas to ALL governments, or to an allegedly all-powerful group which CONTROLS all of the "sides" of all conflicts. They cannot seem to understand that SOME of their "enemies" were/are ALSO the enemies of OTHERS of their "enemies." They dismiss the hard evidence, for example, of the serious rivalry between communist Russia and capitalist America, and assume a world in which those deadly rivals cooperated in order to pull off a hoax which made one of them look bad by comparison! They ignore the well known FACT that Soviets were watching our space program (more successfully than we could watch theirs, since they just did something and announced they had done it after the fact, so we could only catch them if we happened to be watching at the right time), and if they KNEW of, or even SUSPECTED a hoax, they would have EXPOSED it; to the hoaxers, the Soviets, Chinese, all the European powers, all the factions in free nations which did not trust us, somehow magically cooperated secretly to help us fool the world, while they were arming the VC to fight us in Vietnam!
