O/T-Moon Landing Tomorrow

[Phil Dally]

The Odysseus lander will touch down on the moon tomorrow afternoon.

Launched by SpaceX and built by Intuitive Machines in Houston, Texas.

This is the first USA moon landing since Apollo 17 back in December 72.

NASA put a roof over my head and food on our table during the heyday.

My Father started with Hydraulic Research on the Titan I back in 1959.

Device on the moon still working that went with Apollo 11 my Dad built.

All moon landing fake kooks do not bother posting...you are crackheads.

https://www.intuitivemachines.com/im-1

[kmart356]

This is a pretty significant achievement so I will be following. Worked for NASA at Kennedy Space Center during the transition from Project Apollo to the Space Shuttle Program. I will never forget watching the Saturn V launch(s) from the roof of the Spaceflight Tracking Station which was just across the river from LC39.

Saturn V Launch.jpg (47.46 KiB) Viewed 473 times

[Phil Dally]

Saturn V is the baddest machine ever built by mankind.

We just got lucky and picked up Werner Von Braun first.

[joelsplace]

I know a guy that reads and follows all things NASA. I asked him why most of the moon pictures are fake. He looked at them with me and agreed they appea0r to be fake. The evidence is that their cameras all had + marks in the lenses which he knew about. Most of the pictures do not have them. Is there an explanation?

[Phil Dally]

Every conspiracy out there has been debunked one way or another.

Dig deep on the photos your friend looked at and I'll bet they're fake.

Some people will do anything to tarnish anything good America does.

MOST IMPORTANT FACT IS HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE IN ON IT!!

Our entire government, NASA, all the contractors, and Hollywood.

You cant keep Washington DC or Hollywood quiet for even a second.

In 55 years none of those people have said a word...gimme a break.

I wouldn't include you in my original statement but...crackheads!!

[joelsplace]

I had him pull the pictures up on what he said were official sites. There could be numerous reasons that they made fake pictures even if they went. Maybe the cameras weren't sufficiency shielded or had some failures and someone didn't want to admit it?
Another question I haven't been able to find an answer to is why isn't the dust disturbed under the lander? And why no dust on the feet of the landing gear? I don't recall if those were the fake pictures.

[Phil Dally]

All those people (TENS of THOUSANDS) had to be in on it X6.

Because we put men on the moon for six different missions.

[Wagon Master]

Joel, stick with JFK, Elvis and Hoffa. Leave the space program alone.

[joelsplace]

I'm not commenting on if we went. Just that a lot of the pictures seem to be obvious fakes and I haven't heard any explanation for it.

[Wittsend]

I know a guy that reads and follows all things NASA. I asked him why most of the moon pictures are fake. He looked at them with me and agreed they appea0r to be fake. The evidence is that their cameras all had + marks in the lenses which he knew about. Most of the pictures do not have them. Is there an explanation?

NASA most likely used cameras (images) for scientific purposes and the "+" is there for size, distance and descriptive reference. Those marks may have been added after the image was shot in the printing process. Even if they were present from a lens attachment filter does not preclude that these were the only cameras NASA used. And it would seem prudent of NASA that images to be released to the public would intentionally (as in pre-planned) be absent of any additional markings.

As to the appearance, the very first original images we saw where low resolution video images. The later released pictures were shot with high end film cameras and lenses. The moon is basically monochromatic and has an "other worldly" look. As someone who spent their career in TV and Film I remember there was a student who shot their B&W project right after a major forest fire had swept through the area. The blackened (what remained of) trees, ash tinted dirt and otherwise stark background looked like no other place I had even seen on earth.

[joelsplace]

My friend NASA guru says the marks were actually on the lenses of the only cameras designed to go to the moon. He didn't believe me when I told him the marks weren't there so he looked into it and said I was correct about the missing marks. He had no explanation for it.

[TimeMachineParadox]

Well I was a bit curious about the tech, so I looked into the camera stuff a bit, I'm not really enough of a camera nerd to bother looking a lot more. There were multiple different types of cameras and video cameras used for the lunar missions. This site I found about the Apollo 15 mission lists the various different cameras used. It also says that 70mm stills taken with a Hasselblad Camera were taken with a Reseau plate - which is what makes those little + marks. However, not all cameras used had a reseau plate.

Here's also a site from the Apollo 11 mission talking about the Hasselblad 500-EL camera with its reseau plate. And here you can read specifically about what the reseau plate was used for. One of the purposes was to gauge distances and sizes, but it was also used to correct for film distortion.

[Phil Dally]

Odysseus has landed on the moon and is transmitting data.

[joelsplace]

I was talking about Apollo 11. The link you gave for 15 still appears to say that the cameras carried on the surface for pictures were the 70mm that had the grid marks. I'm not sure where the other cameras would have been used or if they were used on Apollo 11.

[Wittsend]

In the link for the Apollo 15 cameras, at the VERY bottom of the scrolled down page, on the lower left hand side is a link to all the Apollo images. It is rather significant in size and as such I randomly selected the 70mm Hasselblad, Apollo 11, Magazine Q https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apol ... gazine/?39. These images are all shot on the same strip of film within the magazine. In some of the images the Reseau markings are visible and in others not. The amount of illumination, the angle of the illumination, the F-stop on the camera and the contrast within the shot are all likely contributors to the Reseau markings visibility..., or not. The presence or absence of Reseau markings in and of themselves would not be evidence of being "fake" based on the contiguous film strip that does and doesn't show them.

[1949chevy]

I know a guy that reads and follows all things NASA. I asked him why most of the moon pictures are fake. He looked at them with me and agreed they appea0r to be fake. The evidence is that their cameras all had + marks in the lenses which he knew about. Most of the pictures do not have them. Is there an explanation?

Yes...easy one. First of all, if you buy anything Hassleblad, and I owned 3 complete bodies, 3 lense's, 4 backs that hold film, 2 view finders, filters, etc, just the part you look thru to see the image you are taking, cost me $1500.00, the same as just one of my bodies I bought new, one lens, the 150mm cost me many hundreds and this was in 1990. The bodies took ONE FULL YEAR EACH TO PRODUCE in Sweden. Anyway, at those costs one with any sense WILL PROTECT the lens. You put on a filter on the front of the lens to do so. Every camera I have owned has a filter on the front of the lens. 1. The filter could be removed to actually take the photo or 2. A minor scratch OR scratches on the filter will NOT SHOW UP IN A PHOTO, even on a 2 1'4 negative. 3. The ONLY way a scratch would show up, the lens FOCUSED on the filter and everything else would be so blurry you would not know what it was and that is pretty much impossible, that is called depth of field. The focal length cannot focus that close to an object, especially back then. The lens they used was a 80mm (normal lens for a Hassy) more than likely and they used a 70mm polarizing filter on the lens. That filter is used to eliminate glare and it gives a vibrant blue sky photo especially on a slide, almost looks fake...but its NOT. In 1990, I was one of 1400 Certified Professional Photographers in the World by the Professional Photograhers of America and in Who's Who in Professional Imaging which corporations called on me to photograph many projects for them including Ford Motor Company twice and a top secret NASA/MILITARY part and I had to turn over the film to them immediately after the shoot.