Has any one ever seen pictures of the dark side of the moon?
596301
Yes, there are pictures.\n\nThe Russians sent up the first unmanned ships in the 1960s, took pictures and named most of the features.  The US astronaughts in the Apollo missions saw them and took pictures also.
785520
go to http://moon.google.com and zoom in all the way.  you'll see what our moon is made of.
8454
Light from the moon passing through Ice crystals in Earth's upper atmosphere.\n\nI have included links to a couple of web pages that include photos and explanations.
120878
http://www.grand-illusions.com/moon.htm\n\nThe Moon Illusion\n\nThe moon illusion is one of the most famous of all illusions. Stated simply, the full moon, when just above the horizon, appears much larger than when it is overhead. Yet the moon, a quarter of a million miles away from the earth, always subtends the same angle wherever it is in the sky, roughly 0.5 degrees.\n\nThe first problem is for photographers. A wonderful picture presents itself, with the full moon just rising above a spectacular horizon. Click, the picture is taken. Yet the result is disappointing. The moon seems much smaller in the photograph than it did when viewed with the naked eye. Even professional photographers fall for this one. Yet on a normal lens, 50mm on a 35mm camera, the field of view is around 50 degrees, and the width of the moon, subtending an angle of 0.5 degrees, will be 100th of the width of the photo! Many photographs that you see in magazines, containing both a moon and a landscape, will be composites. The landscape will be taken with a normal lens, the moon taken with a telephoto lens, to get a bigger image.\n\nHow does this illusion come about? Since the moon always subtends an angle of 0.5 degrees, the image on the retina must always be the same. Clearly the problem is one of interpretation. One simple experiment shows this to be so. A full moon just above the horizon will not appear so large to the human eye if a piece of paper is held up to that eye with a hole in it, so that only the moon can be seen through the hole and not the horizon. If the other eye is open at the same time, viewing both the moon and the horizon, the two eyes will each see different sized moons!\n\nThe explanation is believed to be as follows. We 'know' that a cloud that is overhead will be larger than when it moves towards the horizon. And an airplane that is a mere speck on the horizon becomes large when it is overhead. And we are all familiar with standing under a tree which seems enormous, yet at a couple of hundred paces seems insignificant. It would seem that so much of our world is interpreted this way that we are ill-equipped to cope with an object like the moon, that subtends the same angle at the eye, whatever position it occupies in the sky. And so our brain 'interprets' the image that it 'sees', and tells us that the moon is larger than it really is.\n\nHendrik Ball\n\n\n\nFrom: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_110.html\n\n\nDear Cecil:\n\nI have noticed that the moon (and the sun, for that matter) appears very large just as it rises and sets. When it is overhead, it seems tiny by comparison. The color is also vastly different, but this can be easily explained by the fact that we view the moon through varying ''thicknesses'' of atmosphere as it makes its way across the sky. But this explanation seems insufficient to account for the change in size. So what's the straight dope? --Frank M., Los Angeles\n\nCecil replies:\n\nBelieve it or not, Frank, they've been arguing about this for two thousand years, and it's about time I got things straightened out. First of all, let me make it clear that the effect is an optical illusion. If you measure the moon with a ruler held at arm's length (a paper clip bent into the shape of a calipers will also work), you'll find it's always the same size no matter where it happens to be in the sky. If anything, the moon is slightly smaller at the horizon than it is at the zenith, mainly because it's 4,000 miles (the radius of the earth) farther away. (If you don't understand why this is so, draw yourself a picture.) Nonetheless, most people are convinced that, area-wise, the moon's at least twice as big when it's near the horizon as when it's overhead.\n\nNumerous theories have been advanced to explain the ""moon illusion.'' At one point people thought it had something to do with the angle at which you hold you
996857
Based on the information out there, I now believe that they never went  to the moon. There is no wind on the moon, yet the flag blows in the background. The angles of lighting do not match the way they are supposed to, unless lighting was set up...and an extensive amount. The temperatre that the films would have been subjected to, would have destroyed the pictures. And for the picture of the footprint on the moon, there would have had to have been moisture to create such a mark. If you take completey dry sand and try to make a castle out of it, what happens? It crumbles...any child who has been to the beach knows that you need a little water. so, anyone can believe what they want, but im going on facts :)\n\nps...dont mind my spelling
1122982
Debatable. It does just look like a bunch of rocks...what is stranger though, is why NASA keeps doctoring the raw images before releasing them to the public? A good example of this is the 'true' colour of mars. It's not a 'Red Planet' at all-it has a blue sky for one and why are some things masked over? Hmm...
800227
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-earthmoon.html\n\nThis site (above) lists some of the probes/satellites your asking about and shows the pictures they've taken.  Hope this helps!
1000313
No one that I know of has been by Remus. This little moon was \ndiscovered in August of 2005 and as of yet has only been visited \nby an astronomer´s telescope. Sorry!
769587
do you have any pictures of it? come on..show us
359912
did u try google images?
235900
Well, I don't know here you can find anything out for it, but I'm sure you can find lots of pictures at this site. \n\nhttp://budk.com/Default.asp?bhcd2=1141246331
658399
I've never seen it, but I have heard of it many times.\n\nHere are a couple of sites with more information if you want it.  The first one apparently has pictures of it.
1077212
It wasn't faked. I agree, the technology involved was bare bones but still capable. Here are some quotes that help counter some of the conspiracy theories:\n\nIn some photos, the crosshairs appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.\n\n        * In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles. Ironically, this saturation effect would not happen if the crosshairs were drawn on in post, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that already have crosshairs would make the compositing process far more difficult.\n\nThe quality of the photographs is implausibly high.\n\n        * The astronauts were trained in the use of their gear, and shots and poses were planned in advance as part of the mission. NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.\n\nThere are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows. \n\n         *Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at night. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on Earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film.\n\nhe color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.\n\n        * Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon itself. \n\n The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.\n\n        * There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. \n\nThe launch rocket produced no visible flame.\n\n        * Hydrazine (a fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer) were the Lunar Module propellants, chosen for their reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without a spark. Hypergolic propellants happen to produce a nearly transparent exhaust. Hypergolic fuels are also used by several space launchers: the core of the American Titan, the Russian Proton, the European Ariane 1 through 4 and the Chinese Long March, and the transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos.\n\nThe flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.\n\n        * The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph.\n\nThese are only a few quotes. They all seem much more convincing then the arguments the conspiracy theorists present.
21709
The link below is to a moonbow in epod (earth picture of the day).\n\nEnjoy!
355609
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy/UNIVERSE/MOON.HTML\nhttp://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/luna.html\nhttp://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm\nhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/
490479
Yes, it is absolutely beautiful. I love watching the moon through my telescope. Each of her craters are beautiful, everything about her makes you want to continue watching her. I hope everyone has a good day :)
216038
http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Apollo1.rm \n\nNow you decide:) And why are the stars absent? The Lunar camera crosshairs:\n-If you examine the Lunar Landing pictures carefully, you will notice that the lenses were fitted with crosshairs. Examine them even closer, and you will find that several items, such as the American Flag and the Lunar Lander, are actually over the crosshairs. How can this be?  But since I was not there on the moon myself then I would never say I am 100% sure it did not happen.