Shared publicly  - 
NASA's LRO takes a new image of the Apollo 11 landing site! #wereallylanded
Michael Powell's profile photomullapudi srinivasa rao's profile photoJ. T. Mackoy's profile photogiovanni primerano's profile photo
The lunar hoax nutters never had a case, now they have even less of one :)
+Asbjørn Grandt If you look closely, you can see it's been photoshopped in. =D

Sorry, I had to say it... Awesome look on history though! Someday we'll have similar pictures from Mars, I look forward to it.
Has anyone actually SEEN the satellites going around the moon with a telescope!?
Kidding... I don't actually believe the conspiracists.
+Alan Bell nah they went there......just later than they said and where then warned off from returning from what was already based there.. the X-37B is a modern version of the star wars protection program 2
You could take a hoaxer to the moon, land at the site and give them a tour and they would never believe it. They would say you hypnotized them and made them dream the entire thing...

People are "funny" that way.
Also, the whole Star Wars defense strategy gives some keen insight into just how fucking bonkers Ronald Reagan truly was. Let that be a lesson lest we ever decide to listen to California again.
The space shuttles ran at XT-level technology... remember those? PC-XT? Not even AT. Pre-Pentium.
+Alan Bell as i said last night star wars is a documentary series
don't let the dark side consume your thoughts
+Randall Hunt: To start with, sure. By the end of their service life, pretty much everything had been upgraded and most of the systems were +Debian based, IIRC, and definitely the astronaut workstations were. I recall watching NASA TV and seeing Astronauts with ThinkPads clearly having +GNOME as a desktop environment with Evolution running. If the mics were open, you might hear an astronaut cursing the "dreaded red line" on the Evo calendar indicating the current time in their schedules.
+Randall Hunt If I recall, the 5 main computers in the Shuttle were built in the 70's...I seem to recall something about there only being a few incidents where one of the computers were pulled out of the decision making process, they had redundancies to handle that event.
Asbjorn: Multiple levels of redundancy. The primary flight computer had two hot standbys and one cold standby.
I heard storied of people saying they worked at a government building and the used a training room that had the air vacuumed out and the set up camera's. There are so many things that say it was fake. Like the camera distance and how confident he just jumped into space. Also the timing went perfect so they could air it when they said. No delays, but I wasn't born yet so I don't know. I don't really care because it is in the past and it is still a neat story. Conspiracies are always neat to hear. I need to look into the Live feed technology of that time was. I always have love space the picture, movies, and or stories.
+Alan Bell lots of people have taken telescope shots of the landing sites. It's just that all the telescopes big enough to really get a good shot of something that small are owned by government-funded entities, so you wouldn't believe them anyway.
+Alan Bell at best with the largest ground-based telescope you'd be able MAYBE to make out a shadow of something that small if the sun was in the right position to make the shadow kilometers long. Actually seeing the object itself? It's WAY too small to resolve through an atmosphere at that distance.
I should add, it's way too small to resolve with the Hubble even. Has to do with the ratio of the diameter of the aperture with the wavelength of the light.
+Alan Bell 1. I am sure there was interference, the signal was just strong enough to understand in spite of it. Signal to noise ratio.

2. The transmissions were not instantaneously transmitted. If you listen to the old broadcasts, they generally have a 4-8 second delay, depending on their distance out.

Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute, because I am really curious what drives disbelievers. If the government wanted to fake a moon landing, I don't think they'd be stupid enough to forget about light speed delay, or wind on the flag?

Do you think the Russians faked it too? Do you believe in the ISS?
I watched the first moon landing live. The imagery wasn't clear, it was snowy, minor dropouts (a few lines at a shot) and phase shifting of the signal. In short, it looked like crap. But, even VHF and microwaves obey the inverse square law. :)
If it was faked, do explain how Armstrong dropped down SLOWER than Earth gravity? Antigravity?
Earth based observation cannot manage to see something that small, that's why the astronauts had to examine the landing area before touching down, as boulders couldn't be imaged then or now. The physics of optics are laws of nature, one cannot vary those laws, so one is stuck with what one can image (unless you want to try to build a 1 kilometer optical telescope).

As for SDI (aka star wars) during the Reagan administration, it did what it was designed to do as a program. Not the STATED purpose, but its intended purpose: Force the Soviets to overspend on the military to such a level as to destroy their economy. In THAT, it was a resounding success.
+Alan Bell , the inverse square law for electromagnetic energy.

No, radio telescopes receive, though one COULD potentially make a radar, the beam width and frequency won't resolve at that level, even to large boulders. I should know radar well enough after having an over 27 year military career! The optical telescope again, lacks the capability to see even large boulders or even small hills. Look up the formulae for optics, you'd need a kilometer sized telescope to accomplish what you suggest! And when I was in junior high school, we had an observatory that was donated to the school that we used, seeing anything that small just is physically impossible at even THAT size (16 inch unit is what we had).

The space race wasn't part of any arms race, but part of the cold war, which had multiple series of arms races of varying classes of weapons. SDI was part of a strategy to destroy the Soviet economy, as they tended to match whatever we spent, hence, with our much higher amount of funding available, they'd have to match an impossible amount, which they DID attempt to do. Hence, the collapse of the Soviet Union and George Bush Sr announced that we had won the cold war. However, the expenses HAD to be made, as the Soviets did and the Russians still do have a highly capable espionage network, with quite a few assets inside of the US. Indeed, their spy network was so extensive and successful that during WWII, detailed reports, to include copies of diagrams and plans were on Stalin's desk before Washington got the reports. That was verified when the KGB files were opened for outside scrutiny. Even the anti-war movement during the Vietnam war had Soviet assistance and "guidance", not agents doing the protesting, only "egging on" the protesters leaders and suggestions given, a few bucks here and there to help with transport, etc (though the Soviets were notoriously low paying, even for the "big time" spies that they payed for information from).
So, what was Apollo 1? A stage accident?

Good quote:
Quoting from James Hansen's biography of Neil Armstrong (First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong):"For those few misguided souls who still cling to the belief that the Moon landings never happened, examination of the results of five decades of LRRR experiments should evidence how delusional their rejection of the Moon landing really is."[9]
It wasn't that long ago that NASA finally released ALL of the footage of the various moonwalks. It was very, very enlightening how much time our astronauts spent on their knees and butts, losing their balance under the low lunar gravity.
OK, enlightening isn't the correct word, humorous, perhaps? ;)
Add a comment...