NASA releases closer look at the Apollo lunar landing sites.

[Torplexed]

http://www.universetoday.com/88692/n...sance-orbiter/

Apparently the LRO has been dropped into a lower lunar orbit to get higher resolution pictures of the '69-'72 Apollo landing sites. It's sort of eerie to see things left abandoned just as they were almost half a century ago. For the astronauts I imagine it's like seeing an aerial picture of a site where you camped as a kid with the tent, stove and footprints still in place. Likely there isn't much left of the nylon American flag after decades of incessant cosmic radiation except the staff.

[TLAM Strike]

[nikimcbee]

So it looks like Detroit?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

So it looks like Detroit?

Detroit has far more craters.

Can't be Detroit.
There's no Gang signs spray painted everywhere.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

My favorite conspiracy theory going right now is this one....

But even if NASA is correct and the images do portray what’s left of the Apollo lunar modules, evidence that they carried astronauts to the moon’s surface remains dubious.

All we can say for certain about these images, assuming they are genuine, is that NASA landed lunar modules on the moon, and that has never been in doubt anyway. What has been in doubt is whether Neil Armstrong and Co were ever inside one of those machines. And that remains a point to be proven.

http://www.consciousape.com/news/new...oon-landings-/

At least we're getting closer. They think something landed.

[razark]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

*Ahem*

So, as evidence that NASA landed on the moon, you're going to use pictures that NASA claims to have taken of the moon? They look pretty suspicious to me. I've seen pictures of the moon before. It's ROUND! All these pictures show is a big flat surface. At least when they faked the missions they has the foresight to tape round things to the windows to make things look round. Besides, I've seen the videos of the astronots. I don't remember ever seeing any giant white arrows and letters all over the place. Those are obvious markings for the prop department to place the fake scenery for the pictures. Not only that, but it's pretty obvious that at least one of the pictures has been altered. That one shows two Antares "landers". How can there be two of them? And why is one so much larger? It can only be a second model built for close up shots.




Did I hit enough of the craziness?

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by razark

Did I hit enough of the craziness?

You forgot that the shadows are going different directions, and why did the starfield disappear. Other than that, good job!

Oh yeah, and if there are two astronauts in the picture... ... who took it?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

Oh yeah, and if there are two astronauts in the picture... ... who took it?

Elvis.

[Garion]

Laser Reflectors.... Nuff Said

Cheers

Garion

[Herr-Berbunch]

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by razark

Elvis.

I read in internetz, it wuz Jim Morrison

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I love that clip.

[papa_smurf]

The best answer to the doubters, is: The Russians were tracking the Apollo missions as the travelled to the moon, so if it was "faked" why did they not bring it up?

Back to the original posts, very nice pics, and hard to believe we have not been back yet.

[Growler]

I know how jazzed I get hiking someplace new... walking on the moon must've been incredible.