Did man REALLY landed on the moon? Why there aren't any good satelite pictures of the moon landing sites?

Question

No anwser so far was satisfatory. If man really landed on the moon, there should be satelite pictures of the moon landing sites. Period. There should be (and if I'm not mistaken, there are) satelites able of taking pictures of those sites. Price is not, and has never been, a problem for NASA or the american goverment (just look at the budget of the Internetional Space Station).

So, I ask, why nthere isnt any satelite pictures of the moon landing sites? Why there isnt any satelites, capable of taking those pictures, orbiting the moon?

Taking pictures of the surface of the moon should be a priority, given that thew moon is much closer to the earth than Mars. If a satelite like the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was orbiting the moon, we could have those pictures. But instead, it gets sent to Mars.

Wouldn't it be logical to take pictures of the moon first? Witch one are we most likely to build bases on the near future: On Mars or on the Moon? The moon of couse.

So why not make it The Moon Reconnaissance Orbiter? Why is the moon so sacred? What is there that we cannot see? Or, more exactly, what IS NOT there for us to see?

I'm still waiting for a satisfatory anwser...

Answer 1

I admit I have been wondering the same thing myself--espicially after seeing a documentary posing doubts we landed on the moon. The photographic evidence posed on the show did give me some thought, being I do have experience in professional photography.

The LEM photos: That thing purportedly landed on the moon, firing retro rockets with enough blast power to burn the moon surface under it to shiny black glass.....yet the area looks undistrubed! All that violent firepower had to have raised moon dust all over the place.....yet look how shiny and dirt free the LEM landing pads looked. Espically take note of NO moon dust collected inside the landing foot pods themselves.

The Apollo mission cameras were state of the art of their time, with perfectly etched "crosses" on the lenses to assist with picture composition. I still see the astronaut photo where one of those crosses IS BLOCKED OUT by the guy's shoulder--where it should've been OVERLAPPED to appear onto his arm/shoulder!!

The sun light / angle theory gets complicated.....but it clearly made sense to me....and gave rise to suspicions.

The video of a golf ball getting shot out into space was good PR, but take note how the fine moon dust stirred up by the lunar rover merely falls back to the surface....when it should fly off into the air.

Then there's the Van Allen belt explanation: stuff we learned back in fifth grade: a deadly belt of radiation, stretching hundreds of miles between us and the Moon. You'd have to travel in a ship with walls of at least five feet thick of lead to safely shoot through it....the Apollo space vehicle walls were....what....maybe two inches (if that) thick??? And our guys never cooked like chicken in a microwave???? The Van Allen belt emits enough deadly radiation to singe fry the Apollo capsule electronics in about 2 minutes and cook the astronauts in about another minute past that. So how did our guys do it?

The Space Shuttle: purportedly capable of travel to the Moon and back....yet it's NEVER been done. Why? The thing can carry enough fuel, food / supplies and other life support for such safe travel. In fact, it was one of the Shuttle program objectives...that got put on the back burner....and not likely due to "budget" or "safety" concerns.

However, all this "evidence" is of conjecture; you have to be your own judge on if we faked the Moon landings, until we get a deathbed confession by one of the surviving astronauts to confirm we DID fake the landings. Until then, it makes for great coffee-cafe debate amongst good friends.

Answer 2

People, don't get fooled by silly conspiracy theories. I know they are often more fascinating than the real thing, but the moon landings were fascinating, and for the times (60s and 70s) were a triumph of technology and science.

The fact is that there were tens of thousands of people involved in the Apollo missions over a whole decade, and with the way we humans love gossip, it is an overwhelming impossibility that people would not "spill the beans" if it was all a hoax. The whole thing would be out in the open years ago.

There are a lot of scientific replies to all the conspiracy theory "observations". Please go read the scientific side of it rather than what conspiracy theorists guess at.

For instance, someone here mentioned the flag waving. Well, the people who questioned this aspect are not bright enough to consider why the moon is different from Earth. The fact is that the stiffish material of the flag shakes as you drive the thing in the soil. The tremor that is set up in the flag will go on for hours, because there is no air to slow it.

It is great to have an open mind about things, but being open minded means you have to read both sides of the argument, rather than the seeming fun of trying to prove a government cover up.

It is impossible that in an open society like USA that anyone in their wildest dreams could cover up such a huge undertaking as faking the moon landings.

Answer 3

Man did really land on the Moon and there are plenty of pictures of the landing sites, but the Apollo hardware is too small to see in most of them.
The 1st source is the Apollo 15 landing site taken by SMART-1
The 2nd source is the same place taken from the Apollo 15 command module.
The 3rd source is a closeup of the landing area from the CM while the LM was on the surface. You can see part of Hadly Rille on the left. Compare it to the other pictures to get an idea of how close up this picture is.
The 4th is a magnified portion of the center of the same picture. The caption says that the LM can be seen near the center, but I can't make it out.
The 5th source is yet another closeup taken from the Apollo 15 CM while the LM was on the ground. I can see a blob with a shadow that could be the LM in this one.
The 6th source is a picture of the landing area a couple hours after the LM took off. the area labeled as "LM" is brighter due to the rocket exhaust having swept the area. You can also see the edge of Hadly Rille in the lower left corner. Compare it to the size of the rille in the first couple of pictures to get an idea of now close up this pictures is.
The 7th and last source is the master page where I got all the pictures and it includes descriptions. Click on the "Image Libraries" link and then the "Apollo 15" link to see the same pictures, but all the other pictures on this site are interesting too.


While the "satellite" that took most of these pictures was an Apollo command module, there ARE plenty of pictures.

Answer 4

Alright, I give up trying to convince people with nothing better to do that men landed on the moon. It is very difficult to prove beyond all possible doubt. If you want to think people didn't land on the moon, there you are, they didn't. Does it make a heckuva lot of difference one way or the other? Is someone trying to sell you people moon rocks that you think are bogus 'cause they couldn't have come from the moon? Are you heavily invested in research that comes from the lunar program? If the government lied about it, how does that compare with, say, Watergate? Do you expect to get issued a tax refund for the money supposedly spent on space during the 60's?

Same goes for other notable "conspiracies" like the Kennedy assassination. Who cares? Did the KGB do it? It doesn't exist anymore. Castro? Today he's an impotent old coot. The CIA? FBI? They're not the same organizations today -- especially since J. Edgar wore his last dress. Was LBJ in on it? If he was he bought himself one helluva of a lousy presidency for all his trouble.

As for anyone who thinks the moon thing is some huge Republican conspiracy, it was a Democrat who launched the race to the Moon (that would be JFK) and it was a Dem who saw MOST of it through (that would be LBJ), and most of the congresses during that period had significant if not majority democratic representation. It was Nixon and a democratic congress that put the lunar program on a shelf in the early to mid seventies.

Answer 5

Yes we did...As proof we did NASA set a mirror on the moon, and every few weeks we bounce a laser of this little mirror to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.

And because no spy satalite has ever been put into orbit around the moon. With an average price tag of $145,000,000 dollars I hope they never do!

Answer 6

Naw, man has never landed on the moon. It was all a hoax. NASA has even managed to fool us into thinking that there's even such a thing as the moon. I know for a fact because I read it on another website and saw it on Fox TV that the sun will rise in the west two weeks from next Thursday.

Answer 7

Yes, Americans really, really, really, truly landed on the moon. Why aren't there any satellite pictures?

1) because there are no satellites orbiting the moon

2) because satellites orbiting the Earth don't have powerful enough cameras/lenses to resolve anything on the moon, not even the Hubble Telescope (which has a focal length that makes it completely inappropriate for lunar photography).

Answer 8

I don't know why the pictures are bad, but I have met people that have been into space and on the moon and they all were saying that there were people on the moon before they got there (way before) and things out there are just weird and not right

Answer 9

There are no cameras on any satellites around the moon. There are pictures, however, of the landing sites taken from space.

Answer 10

I always wondered why there are no good close up pictures of the moon. Heck we built the Hubble space telescope that can see millions of miles away, why isn't there one on earth that can pin point landing sights on the moon?

Answer 11

Yes, man landed on the moon. Neil Armstrong was the first man to land on moon.