Photos of earth

[Echnaton]

I dont know about the rest of you, but this flounce took me totally by surprise. No, really, it did!

I was just sure he was going to take my kindly advice and turn around so we could all engage in a frank and open conversation.

[Luke Pemberton]

I was just sure he was going to take my kindly advice and turn around so we could all engage in a frank and open conversation.

That was my expectation too. It is every time a hoax believer arrives. I always try to have such expectations as I am a strong believer in benefit of the doubt, and genuine skepticism is something for which I have time.

[smartcooky]

I read this as "Im going to shout and scream and hold my breath and stamp my feet and slam the door unless I get my own way". Blimey, maybe you ARE a pre-pubescent teenager.  Nice to see that you were still logging on a day after your tantrum and flounce.

As the old saying goes, if you have half a mind to be an Apollo Hoax Believer, then you already have more than enough qualifiications.

[Kiwi]

Why can we see only one photo of earth that was taken from the moon surface?

Hey Photo hound, how about identifying for us the particular photo that you mistakenly thought was the only one. What is its AS number?

Were you pleased to find that there were more?

Just in case you don't know, one way to find many of the photos of Earth from the lunar surface, is to:--

1. Go the the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal,  http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

2. Click on the link to each landing mission, Apollo 11 first.

3. Click on the link to its Image Library.

4. Do a search for "Earth" (for Apollo 11 you could save time by paging down to or searching for film 40 -- AS11-40-**** -- the only one taken on the lunar surface).

5. Once you find a photo the includes Earth, read the caption so you understand what the photo shows (for instance, some Apollo 17 shots of Earth were taken looking up the side of a large mountain, South Massif -- a fact which fooled some hoax-believers who didn't bother reading the captions, so they prattled on needlessly about how Earth could never have been that close to the lunar surface , which was only true if they were talking about a flat and level part of the surface).

6. Note the number of the image, such as AS11-40-5924, and its link.

7. Check the photos before and after that one -- the captions won't necessarily mention Earth, but the photos might include it.

8. Repeat the procedure for Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

I hope that's useful and that you won't accuse me of being the same thing you said about others in your third post. But my feelings won't be hurt if you do -- we're pretty used to hoax-believers behaving like that. Perhaps they're too young to be able to help themselves.

[twik]

I suppose our ****** attitude is to not immediately roll over, and cry "Merciful heavens, you're right! They only took one picture of the earth the entire time! That's proof of a hoax."

It's like a three-year-old going "you're mean!" when her parent won't give her another cookie, because it's almost dinnertime.

So, basically, not having enough pictures of the Earth proves a hoax. But pointing out there are many pictures of the Earth from the lunar surface, and that there was no particular reason to concentrate on such pictures, also proves a hoax, because ... well, because *nice* people wouldn't point that out and make him feel bad, and if we're not nice, we are in on a hoax.

By the way, Photo Hound, if you ever decide to rescind your decision to leave, my question is still outstanding:

Can you tell me first why they should have taken pictures of Earth while standing on the Moon?

We already had lots of pictures of the Earth from space. It wasn't going to look much different. Why should they have wasted precious time and film on pictures that would not have given a particularly good view of Earth from space?

This is the heart of your enquiry, is it not? I'm afraid that you have no chance of persuading anyone on this board (or most other places) if you can't tell us why few pictures of Earth is a suspicious circumstance.

[twik]

You know what the most frustrating thing about the Moon Hoaxers (and others of their ilk)? So many of them won't tell you what they're actually thinking. Half of them have the idea that they're going to enlighten us by some sort of Socratic dialogue, but when we don't play, they pack up and go home.

So far, in this thread, we've had:

PH: Why isn't there more than one picture of the Earth from the surface of the Moon.

Us: Well, there are more than one. But assuming there weren't, what would that mean?

PH: Goodbye, cruel forum!

I really want to know why he felt this was relevant in the first place. How would our agreement to the statement "You're right, there's only one picture of the Earth from the Moon?" have moved his position forward at all?

[darren r]

I really want to know why he felt this was relevant in the first place. How would our agreement to the statement "You're right, there's only one picture of the Earth from the Moon?" have moved his position forward at all?

I'm guessing it's a similar argument to the one about 'no stars'. That the absence of the Earth in photos is because NASA couldn't fake it in a 'realistic' way. Or, at least, not consistently.

[Zakalwe]

You know what the most frustrating thing about the Moon Hoaxers (and others of their ilk)? So many of them won't tell you what they're actually thinking.

To be fair though, most of them appear to be incapable of thinking at all. if they were, then they'd soon start seeing the blatantly obvious inconsistencies in their "arguments".

[nomuse]

I think he may be on GLP now -- saw some similar arguments flying past. Or maybe it is just the latest trend among HBs.

I did see an absolutely wonderful post, though, which I just have to share a bit of here:

When apollo 11 started for the moon from earth it was almost the same distance from its meeting point with the moon, as the moon was from that same meeting point.

The moon was traveling perpendicular to the rocket at a fairly similar speed as the rocket was going.

So when the moon and rocket met, the rocket had to do a significant breaking maneuver to get down to orbit speed. ie it basically stopped in space. But the moon was still traveling from the rockets side at full speed (4000m/s). How could the rocket travel at 4000m/s at right angles to its motion in order to match the moons motion, yet be almost stopped in space at the same time?

you can try it at home...... get a car to travel along at 30km/hr with a door removed from its side at a right angle to you. Then sprint full speed and try meet the car at a point on the road and end up sitting in the car's seat unharmed.

the moon would've crashed into apollo 11 or they would've completely missed each other Right? It is impossible to insert into a moon orbit.

[frenat]

I think he may be on GLP now -- saw some similar arguments flying past. Or maybe it is just the latest trend among HBs.

I did see an absolutely wonderful post, though, which I just have to share a bit of here:

When apollo 11 started for the moon from earth it was almost the same distance from its meeting point with the moon, as the moon was from that same meeting point.

The moon was traveling perpendicular to the rocket at a fairly similar speed as the rocket was going.

So when the moon and rocket met, the rocket had to do a significant breaking maneuver to get down to orbit speed. ie it basically stopped in space. But the moon was still traveling from the rockets side at full speed (4000m/s). How could the rocket travel at 4000m/s at right angles to its motion in order to match the moons motion, yet be almost stopped in space at the same time?

you can try it at home...... get a car to travel along at 30km/hr with a door removed from its side at a right angle to you. Then sprint full speed and try meet the car at a point on the road and end up sitting in the car's seat unharmed.

the moon would've crashed into apollo 11 or they would've completely missed each other Right? It is impossible to insert into a moon orbit.

Saw that one.  Funny.

[JayUtah]

Well, if you could run at a speed precise to 0.05 meter per second, along a direction precise to 0.001°, and the car's path were similarly determined, you could.  It's impossible to walk on a tightrope -- except of course to the few who can.

[smartcooky]

I think he may be on GLP now -- saw some similar arguments flying past. Or maybe it is just the latest trend among HBs.

I did see an absolutely wonderful post, though, which I just have to share a bit of here:

When apollo 11 started for the moon from earth it was almost the same distance from its meeting point with the moon, as the moon was from that same meeting point.

The moon was traveling perpendicular to the rocket at a fairly similar speed as the rocket was going.

So when the moon and rocket met, the rocket had to do a significant breaking maneuver to get down to orbit speed. ie it basically stopped in space. But the moon was still traveling from the rockets side at full speed (4000m/s). How could the rocket travel at 4000m/s at right angles to its motion in order to match the moons motion, yet be almost stopped in space at the same time?

you can try it at home...... get a car to travel along at 30km/hr with a door removed from its side at a right angle to you. Then sprint full speed and try meet the car at a point on the road and end up sitting in the car's seat unharmed.

the moon would've crashed into apollo 11 or they would've completely missed each other Right? It is impossible to insert into a moon orbit.

Oh, that is priceless!

I guess he's never heard of gravity then?

[Luke Pemberton]

PH: Goodbye, cruel forum!

Goodbye cruel forum, I'm leaving you today. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.

I feel a song coming on, now, where's my little black book with my poems in?

[twik]

I really want to know why he felt this was relevant in the first place. How would our agreement to the statement "You're right, there's only one picture of the Earth from the Moon?" have moved his position forward at all?

I'm guessing it's a similar argument to the one about 'no stars'. That the absence of the Earth in photos is because NASA couldn't fake it in a 'realistic' way. Or, at least, not consistently.

That's what I think they were heading for, but since they admit there was one photo, apparently NASA could do it.

It may simply be an extension of the stars argument - "But logically, people who had spent years and billions of dollars to put men on the Moon would want those men to spend their time taking pictures of the Earth (which would be a little less valuable than pictures from Earth orbit), rather than pictures of the Moon surface itself (which can only be obtained when on that surface), because ... oh, look, a puppy!"

I still would prefer the HBers to spell out what they're hinting at. At least Moon Man had the guts to do that. The current crop always seem to fade away before they ever get anywhere near the point they were trying to make.

That makes me wonder if they're more trolls than honest believers. An honest believer shouldn't have a problem in saying "they couldn't show the Earth because it's just too hard to show a crescent with a vague pattern of ocean, land and clouds on it!"

[Bob B.]

I'm guessing it's a similar argument to the one about 'no stars'. That the absence of the Earth in photos is because NASA couldn't fake it in a 'realistic' way. Or, at least, not consistently.

That's what I think they were heading for, but since they admit there was one photo, apparently NASA could do it.

Either that or he was simply making a "if I ran the zoo" argument.  You know the argument... "had Apollo been real then surely NASA would have had the astronauts do (insert activity here)."

It may simply be an extension of the stars argument - "But logically, people who had spent years and billions of dollars to put men on the Moon would want those men to spend their time taking pictures of the Earth (which would be a little less valuable than pictures from Earth orbit), rather than pictures of the Moon surface itself (which can only be obtained when on that surface), because ... oh, look, a puppy!"

I would consider this a prime example of the "if I ran the zoo" argument rather than a stars arguments.  You can insert an activity into that sentence and the argument would be the same.

I still would prefer the HBers to spell out what they're hinting at. At least Moon Man had the guts to do that. The current crop always seem to fade away before they ever get anywhere near the point they were trying to make.

I think they're just trying to keep their options open.  By not committing to anything they can adapt their argument to the flow of the discussion, i.e. keep moving the goalposts.  To them its not about taking a stand, defending a position, and seeking the truth.  It's about trying to win the debate.  By keeping their argument fluid they can weasel their way around and try not to be pinned down on any specific point.

Often times, also, they don't take a position because their trying to spring some sort of trap.  They want us to commit to something first so they can jump out and say "now I've got you", followed by their big reveal.  I usually find this tactic to be pretty transparent.

That makes me wonder if they're more trolls than honest believers. An honest believer shouldn't have a problem in saying "they couldn't show the Earth because it's just too hard to show a crescent with a vague pattern of ocean, land and clouds on it!"

I haven't seen an honest HB in a long time.