What is Digg?65 Comments
- sfpfc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+22Reporter: Don't you think there is an inherent danger in sending under qualified civilians into space?
Homer: I'll field this one. The only danger is if they send us to that terrible Planet of the Apes. (thinking) Wait a minute... Statue of Liberty... that was our planet! You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell! - vroom101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10How they're doing it -- with pics:
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/index.html - flipmeat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Correct. NASA does not assert copyright over the images they produce with taxpayer dollars.
- tomboy501, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Previews from the Apollo Image Archive: http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/METRIC_PREVIEW/index.html
- brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8All photographs released by NASA, old and new, are in the public domain.
- STKD, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11It makes me think once. Then point you to http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE THINGS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE WRONG OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Just depends if you're willing to not look like a moron for questioning it the first time. - flipmeat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Get out your camera, or ask a shutterbug. Go somewhere that's brightly lit at night, like under a streetlight. Take pictures including the lit ground. In the areas of sky, you won't get stars either. The bright ground makes the camera close its iris, and faint sources like stars won't be visible. To take pix of the stars, you need to be out of direct light, and the cameras aperture will need to be wide open.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Honestly, are you just trolling or what? These aren't even remotely valid. Especially this gem:
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
Must have been a vampire cameraman, with an invisible camera, hovering in between the two! Or the camera was on the chest of the astronauts, as two seconds of basic research would reveal. - jlatka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Are these public domain photos, since they are old government pics?
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He was referring to the "moonlanding was faked in a Hollywood studio" tinfoilers, I imagine.
So much tin foil, so little to wrap it around. - expert01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Panoramic Pictures
Film Size (mm): 127x1219
Resolution (pix/mm): 200
Image Size (pix): 25400 x 244000
File Size (Mb): 11,821
4,612 frames from the Panoramic camera
Holy crap! What kind of computer is going to be able to display a 25400 x 244000 11GB picture? I tried to set the 7000x2748 4.2MB San Francisco in ruins picture as my background, and not only did it crash explorer while writing this, but it slowed my system to a crawl (2.6GHz 512MB DDR-400). Seriously, isn't it going to have to fit the whole picture in RAM? - flipmeat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The ASU project is just getting going, and does not have many pictures up yet.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html on the other hand, has lots. Be kind to them, diggers.
The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ has photos, mission audio, and much more.
I move that the conspiracists and their followers be called 'moontards'. - asaturn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5can you use google? aside from being rather self-explanatory (it's a matter of the exposure time on the cameras and the faintness of the light emitted by stars), it's easy to find if you search "no stars moon landing"
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars - Kardde, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/SUPPORT_DATA/index.html
- OneLess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Spaza, you're a damn moron. Just stop commenting and making an ass of yourself.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Google "very large image viewer". There's a number of them.
- STKD, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6No. It makes for a clearly deluded fantasy for the already unhinged. Don't confuse the two.
- mjparme, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This will pretty well sum it up for you:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars - brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's nice to see this stuff converted, film doesn't last forever, even in a freezer.
- thealliedhacker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://research.microsoft.com/ivm/HDView.htm
- mahler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What is THIS?
http://img405.imageshack.us/my.php?image=unidentifiedvq8.png
(mirror) http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=unidentifiedap6.png
The shadow of the imaging device? - SlvrEagle23, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You forgot to call everyone sheeple...
- prestontek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Finally some images I can print at full res on our large format printers. I want a panoramic view of the moon on the wall. 24,000x24,000 will print nicely at 80"x80" @ 300dpi.
Oooh.. maybe print it out on some fabric at 100dpi so i can walk on the moon... ;/ - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Fake... I don't see one single picture of Tom Hanks in the Apollo 13 section.
- wikimart, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Apollo Moon Landing Map
http://www.fileegg.com/imageview.php?quickkey=5974FEE177CF1769&thumb=7
Apollo17 Schmitt Boulder
http://fileegg.com/imageview.php?quickkey=A2401230AAC83419&thumb=7 - asaturn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.timecube.com/
- OakRidger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The stars are there, they're just too faint to be picked up by the high speed lens settings that were being used. If they were on the dark side of the moon, you'd see stars, but they weren't, so you don't. If I try to take a picture of the night sky, I won't get any stars either, if I'm using a high lens speed - but they're still there.
- moofer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You people really need to get a life outside of the one you're currently living.
- rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3some moon footage was supposed to of been found under a chair at a movie theater, lost, now they say they had it all the time in some freezer?...i can keep up.
- secretwhistle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Pics or it didn't....oh.
Never mind. - toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2looks like a hole in the ground.
- queenstarsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1what, they couldn't include a link or two in the story? cool story, but whyn't ya learn the internet, asu pr folks?
- majordanger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Kind of a misleading title "Complete Apollo photo archive now available after 40 years"
"Now available" would apply to ASU only.
I can only find five low res previews scanned and posted
This project will take three years. However, I am very happy this is happening. - JimmyTheClam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's making fun of foil hat wearing idots like you, OneLess.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sinkhole or film damage.
- williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, that is one of the weakest arguments for a "hoaxed" landing: The sky is black because there is no atmosphere, but the foreground is dazzlingly bright. The exposure time has to be far too short to pick up starlight. No mystery at all about that one.
- britoca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I use ACDSee´s classic picture viewer and it handles my 100+meg high-res pictures just fine.
- asaturn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1also refer to Nazis and/or Hitler
- trenchcoat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2And post "Ron Paul '08"
- Pixelante, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3/sticks blast0x's head down a toilet bowl and steals his lunch money.
- TheDHC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2cant wait till we go back
- STKD, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3That defeats the entire tin foil hat brigade, right there.
- mmeads, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1[Off Topic]
How the CRAP does TOMBOY501 get 3 stories in a row on the front page?!? - slayerab, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hmm I thought the ASU being referred to was App State. Oh well...
- cbdgr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It took them 40 years because thats how long it took them to airbrush out the ufos and what not. We know they do that in building 8 to because of McKinnon
- thespudmall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1GO ASU!!!!!!! WOOOO!!!!
- TheDHC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Cameras were set for daylight exposure, idiot
- bbqsalad, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0There all going to laugh at you!
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Hmmm... Complete Apollo Photos release the same year as Photoshop CS3? coincidence? I think not!
- TheDHC, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2eat *****, idiot
moon landing conspiracy freaks like you have been debunked many times. which is why saying "eat *****" is the only response you deserve -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
