Still Mythbusting
Written by Nancy Atkinson
It seems fitting that today's NASA "Image of the Day" is this wonderful image of the lunar lander from the Apollo 11 mission, the Eagle, on its way to land on the moon. Really, truthfully, can anyone really believe that a spectacular image like this can be fake? After last night's "Mythbusters" show about the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Myth, I'm cautiously hopeful that at least some people who believe(d) in this myth had their eyes opened and minds changed. Alas, there will always be folks out there who for some reason are set on not believing scientists, engineers or the government and won't subscribe to any type of proof, be it scientific or television-ific. Perhaps the upcoming Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission will be able to take hi-resolution images of one of the Apollo sites.
But in the meantime, enjoy this great image, taken by the Columbia Command and Service Module Pilot for Apollo 11, Michael Collins. Inside the Eagle were Commander Neil A. Armstrong and Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin. The long rod-like protrusions under the landing pods are lunar surface sensing probes. Upon contact with the lunar surface, the probes sent a signal to the crew to shut down the descent engine. And then Armstrong said, "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."
And that's the truth.
For more great NASA images, visit the Image of the Day site
Filed under: NASA
August 29th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Hmmmm…
I DO believe they landed on the moon. Always have done so.
I work in movie post-production and special effects, and I know a fair bit about photography and computer graphics. I've always found the ignorant arguments presented by the hoax theorists somewhat upsetting and insulting.
This picture, though…. it looks like an excellent modern computer graphic to me… lovely motion blur, while at the same time maintaining crisp detail. Compare it to the mock-up movie NASA made of the Phoenix landing (available at the iTunes store, for free). The quality is very similar.
Just don't show it to the hoax theorists - it'll be more "proof" for them. Actually, if all the mission photos were like this, I myself might have become a hoax theorist…
August 29th, 2008 at 2:04 am
From a guy who grew up in the Information Age and has a trained eye for computer generated imagery I would have to say that is definitely done in 3D Studio Max in about 1999 what ever version was out then.
Just has that feel to it.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Sorry got chopped off but the only thing that some of us might not be taking into account is the fact that this photo was probably taken in a place that has no atmosphere thus making it sparkle some more?
August 29th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Lovely picture - I have no doubt it's real.
(Some of the 'authoritive' analysis here almost beggars belief - paranoia is rife in the 21 Century!)
August 29th, 2008 at 6:27 am
You have to really look at the facts. It's a bit hard to beleive we did this on our own. Let alone, at all. in the 1940's we were still using prop planes. The end of WWII we just started using jets. 20 years later, were in space?? It's a bit hard to believe. If anything, it's alien tech. I still don't beleive we went up there… the moon that is.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:38 am
One of my lead technicians at work is a die-hard believer that the moon missions were faked, and Yael Dragwyla's analysis fits him to a "T". When we asked him to explain how the "bounce-the-laser-off-the-apollo-reflector" evidence was faked, he harrumph that we were all idiots, it was obvious "to anyone with half a brain" that someone had just faked the laser results and the scientist that the Mythbusters were talking to was in on the conspiracy. I challenged him to explain the video of the "hammer-and-falcon-feather-drop", and he claimed that it was well known that a vacuum chamber had been built into a giant transport aircraft and phony moon set had been built into the vacuum chamber. Then an actor in a vacuum-proof suit had stood on the set in front of a camera while the transport flew parabolic curves and released the hammer and falcon feather so they could be photographed falling in a vacuum and at 1/6 G , hitting the phoney lunar soil together.
Just because it's fun to play with his head, I'm going to get him to estimate the weight of his hypothetical vacuum chamber and see if there was a transport aircraft available at the time that could lift such a huge weight and fly parabolic curves without suffering structural damage.
He spends half his days goofing off anyway, maybe this will at least sharpen up his math skills while he's hiding out in the back of the shop office.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Aren't the Japanese taking hi-rez pictures of the moon now? Why are there no pictures of landing sites from them? That would be the proof needed.
And pardon my stupid, but how did the astronauts avoid the solar radiation between here and there?
I look for the FACTS of something before making a judgement. And all the facts are not in yet, IMHO.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
@michael
when they do take photos of the landing sites people will just call them fakes too because they have nothing better to do with their lives.
……………………………..
It does not matter what evidence comes out about the moon landings there will still be the crazy people who think they were not real.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am
> when they do take photos of the landing sites people will just call them fakes too because they have nothing better to do with their lives.
Or because they have a strong belief that orients them towards one conclusion over another. Shock shock, they act like people because that's what they are.
By strict science, I'm willing to bet that few commenting here about 'crazies' and 'weirdos' - all scientific and open-minded terms, of course - has a lick of hard evidence that meets the criteria of anything that science calls a fact. Third party photos and documents about a state that you can't reproduce, and a slew of ad-hominem attacks don't make up much of a 'factual' argument.
Personally, I think that people went to the moon and I have no good explanation of why that stopped except for lack of political will. But I don't have proof of that, so I don't call people who think otherwise 'crazy' or otherwise insult them.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
If this is true & the information that was given by Neil Armstrong is true ( the atmosphere dencity is very low in moon) then how can flag floating in the picture ,captured by Egale?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Because dipankar, it was no ordinary flag pole. It had a rod going through the top horizontal to give the appearance of the flag being raised. It wasn't meant to fool anyone, they just thought the flag would look better if it was visible, rather then crumpled and limp, like if they used an ordinary flag pole on the airless moon.
Now that picture feenix, is rather nice. But it would be impossible for it to be CGI, for I have a colour reproduction of that very image, in a book from 1970. As well as a picture taken very shortly before or after, in colour, from the December 1969 National Geographic. This magazine also disproves the claim that NASA only released colour photo's in the photoshop, CGI era of today. Questions should be asked, questions should always be asked. But much of the conspiracy theorists who think the moon landing was fake that I have encountered (mostly on youtube) are viciously dogmatic, not interested in questions at all, and prone to anger when offered scientific rebuttal to their claims. Are they all like that? I hope not, but many I have encountered are.
Case closed. Peace Out.
August 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
"I have no good explanation of why that stopped except for lack of political will."
Todd, that's precisely the reason. Nothng any more conspiratorial than that. Congress isn't likely to fund any high-profile program that has little public support beyond those employed by it.
I suspect many who don't believe it, weren't around (and space enthusiasts) in the 60's. I was. An unpopular war in southeast Asia and other major social issues of the day, did not help We didn't keep going to the Moon (and beyond…I still remember that the first Mars missions were 'supposed' to happen in the mid 1980's.) because we had 'beaten' the Soviets and the support wasn't there anymore.
Pure and simple.
.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
"Aren't the Japanese taking hi-rez pictures of the moon now? Why are there no pictures of landing sites from them? That would be the proof needed."
I imagine the Japanese don'y feel any need to seek out specific locations (and their orbiter still might not be able to see the surface with the necessary resolution) to satisfy conspiracy theorists.
"And pardon my stupid, but how did the astronauts avoid the solar radiation between here and there?"
Because, unless a solar flare storm is actually occuring, there is *no* signifigant risk. Espically for missions lasting only a week or so, beyond the magnetosphere.
Apollo (and most anything else) also cuts quicly across the VanAllen belts. (solid-state electronics don't like ionizing radiation very much, either)
Conspiracy theorists would have you believe it's as bad as the interior of a reactor, on the way to the Moon..,
September 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
FTW: I was there at MSFC when we test fired the H1 rocket engines and Saturn I boosters to qualify them for space flight. Ditto for the F1 engines and Saturn V boosters and J2 engines and S2 second stages that took the astronauts to the Moon.
I was there at PAFB, Fla. in Sept or Oct 1964 when they launched one of the Saturn I rockets into space that I had helped test fire at MSFC only a few weeks earlier.
I was there at MSC (later JC) Houston in 1969-1970 while they were still going to the moon & back. I was privileged to witness portions of several missions from the viewing room over the Mission Control Room.
I was there at Homestead AFB, Fla. in Dec 1974 (IIRC)
When they launched Apollo 17 at night. What an incredible Sight!
Was Apollo the REAL deal? Yep.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:16 am
I think the question here is not "Why don't you believe we actually landed on the moon, with all the evidence we are presenting?"
The question is "What evidence will it take to convince you that there WAS an actual moon landing?" Because if the non-believer cannot or will not answer that question in a reasonable fashion, it proves to them and everyone around them that they are not being reasonable. And if they are actually able to posit evidence that would convince them, chances are someone has it.
In short, put the burden of disproof on them.