| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/7/2007 11:59 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
How did the the Lunar Rover leave tracks in front of the LEM when it is clearly still in its original packaging?
[ link to www.aulis.com]
I can't imagine how the debunkers will explain this, but they'll surely try!
[link to apollohoax.proboards21.com]
This is a Jack White study. He's clueless. He claims to be an expert on photography and Apollo, and he still doesn't know the difference between the Rover and the MESA. The object he identifies as the rover is the MESA, the rover was on the other side. The photos are from EVA 2, well after the rover was unpacked and used, [but] Jack just doesn't have a clue. Quoting: Apollo Hoax forum |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/7/2007 2:22 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
To the poster earlier that thought that the LM was "to small".
Actually, that "aluminum box" wasnt a box, but a highly irregular combination of cylindrical (and other) sections which resulted in ~ 235 cu.ft. of volume....the same as a 6'x6'x6' cube.
That was alot smaller than anyones living room (more like a reasonable walk-in closet space).
COMMUNICATION WITH EARTH.
I thought Id answer another post from page 8 (I think)...It was a radio in the PLSS...but it was a small piece a rather complex system, involving transmitters in the suits and in the LM, and a couple of different spacecraft antennae, as well as a huge network (MSFN) composed of many worldwide receiving and processing stations (3 of which were used for lunar operations).
The radios were Collins radios by and large, as far as I remember (although I think JPL was involved in the ranging system development).
An astranaut could select between a couple modes right on his Remote Control Unit, and talking was actually transmitted via the LM power amps and transmitters via the VHF antenna and/or the deployable S-Band antenna (all comm, data, and TV was via S-Band (~2 Ghz) because of its minimal attenuation in the Earth's atmosphere) to one of the MSFN stations used for lunar activities (Madrid, Goldstone, or Canberra) to MCC, and the reverse took place from MCC to the suit receivers. The LM was the go-between in these cases.
Communications was a really complex operation.
LIFTOFF.
Someone were wondering why the whole liftoff from the moon wasnt filmed.
It took me about 3 min to find this clip, its Apollo 17 on its way home.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 309222
10/7/2007 4:08 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You have to love how folks defend this sham.
The film looks almost as bad as old Buck Rogers films.
Ever see the "astronauts" in interviews when asked about the stars?
They kind of look at each other, while being interviewed, and then say something like, "I didnt really see any stars, did you?", turning to the other "astronauts".
Hell, even Star Trek had reasonable enough fake stars. Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space, claimed the stars were brilliantly bright. But the Apollo "astronauts" just never saw them.
The fake airconditioner backpacks.
The non-pressurized space-suits.
The slow motion video to make it look like 1/6 gravity.
The diverging shadows from the moon pics. (Indicates a second light source, as shadows normally only go in one direction when lighted from the sun. IE, Movie set lights)
And, they cant go back there. Shame, really.
Read Ralph Rene's "NASA mooned America".
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 309222
10/7/2007 4:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"An astranaut could select between a couple modes right on his Remote Control Unit, and talking was actually transmitted via the LM power amps and transmitters via the VHF antenna "
VHF transmissions, huh? Going 244,000 thousand miles?
From his Magic Space suit?
LM power Amps?
That must have had one hell of a battery. Must have been the size of New Jersey.
"Transmitters via the VHF antenna?"
Must have been some antenna. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 309272
10/7/2007 5:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What about the number of photographs being taken during the missions? there were too many photographs for the limited amount of time for each mission.
Why does NASA have all these errors in the photographs? it's strange.
But, on the other hand, perhaps people at the end of the 60s could not imagine how powerful and widespread computers would be after 40 years...so they did not paid much attention to details. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/7/2007 7:15 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hell, even Star Trek had reasonable enough fake stars. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
Now, you see, if you're using a science fiction show with warp drives and phasers as an exemplar of reality, then your problem is obvious.
Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space, claimed the stars were brilliantly bright. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
Sure, from the dark side of the Earth. Bit different from being in constant sunlight at the Moon.
The fake airconditioner backpacks.
The non-pressurized space-suits. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
If the space suits are fake, how do the ISS astronauts cope? Rene's 'tests' did not even attempt to replicate the actual conditions the astronauts encountered.
The slow motion video to make it look like 1/6 gravity. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
Which actually looks completely unrealistic if you do it to portions of the video other than the short bites offered up by the hoax proponents. Watch the astronauts arms flail about like the Keystone Kops. Nothing natural looking about it at all.
The diverging shadows from the moon pics. (Indicates a second light source, as shadows normally only go in one direction when lighted from the sun. IE, Movie set lights) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
If you actually ask someone with lighting experience (Hi nomuse), then they will tell you that multiple light means multiple shadows. You don't see that in the Apollo photos, you just see shadows falling on uneven grouind. Numerous shots of the same phenomena her on Earth can be provided in dsupport of this.
And, they cant go back there. Shame, really. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
They can. It just costs a lot of money.
Read Ralph Rene's "NASA mooned America". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
Read clavius.org |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/7/2007 7:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"An astranaut could select between a couple modes right on his Remote Control Unit, and talking was actually transmitted via the LM power amps and transmitters via the VHF antenna "
VHF transmissions, huh? Going 244,000 thousand miles?
From his Magic Space suit? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
No, via either the LM or the rover as repeater stations.
LM power Amps?
That must have had one hell of a battery. Must have been the size of New Jersey. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
The electrical subsystem specs are openly available. How come no electrical engineer has ever questioned them?
"Transmitters via the VHF antenna?"
Must have been some antenna. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309222
Sounds like you haven't actually botherd to look up the facts. If transmissions from such a distance are a problem, how do communications satellites and space probes cope? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/7/2007 7:20 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What about the number of photographs being taken during the missions? there were too many photographs for the limited amount of time for each mission. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309272
[link to en.wikipedia.org] |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/7/2007 9:25 PM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I love the bits in the below quotes where Buzz Aldrin & Alan Bean didn't even practice just once in the lunar landing training Vehicle (LLTV). Hell they were both co-pilots of their respective Moon Landing missions! What happens if the pilots had become incapacitated in some way, they both had no idea how to pilot it! That is just truly insane or a complete hoax!
--------------------------------------
[link to www.aulis.com]
"On top of the intense (if not super human) schedule, as already described Neil Armstrong at his own insistence, also flew the lunar landing training Vehicle (LLTV). Described by Andrew Chaikin in A Man on The Moon as ‘the most unforgiving flying machine ever built’ (p177). Of course Neil luckily survived a fortunate last moment ‘bale out’ on one occasion.
One can imagine most men, subjected to this punishing daily regime, would have difficulty simply driving home at night, yet alone setting off for the Moon on July 16th 1969, the day after their last simulator session.
Buzz Aldrin, who achieved only one hour less in training than Neil (1,297 hours) was not inspired by NASA or his own ‘hyper’ self determination – as emphasised by Professor Hansen – to put in even one flight in the admitted deadly LLTV.
Buzz is in fact joined in this almost unique feat of co-pilot indifference by Apollo 12 legend, Alan Bean, lunar module pilot who actually watched Conrad and ‘wondered what [he] was doing’ when flying the LM on their Moon landing descent (A Man on the Moon p259) – Bean also never having flown the LLTV. This statement of course conflicts with Armstrong’s belief that the ‘trainer’ was absolutely essential. Neil had been the prime advocate for its continued usage.
Of course, all commercial airline pilots train on simulators and various types of aircraft before working together as pilot and co-pilot. It would have been unthinkable for NASA astronauts to suffer such unequal preparation for the most hazardous expedition ever undertaken by man. The only explanation being that the Lunar Module (LM) like the LLTV was indeed ‘unservicable’, and therefore the procedure of using more than a ‘token’ number of pilots to risk their lives in the uncontrollable LLTV was simply never implemented.
Alan Bean admitted to video producer Bart Sibrel that the LM legs were not strong enough to support the vehicle simply standing in Earth’s gravity. Is it credible to assume that the named Apollo astronauts would have been prepared to accept the risk of ‘impacting’ such a fragile landing mechanism on the surface of the Moon? Clearly any compression of the legs would have exceeded the advantage obtained from the Moon’s reduced gravity, with fatal effect.
Questions, as put to Professor Hansen, remain unanswered (see letter below). It is possible that the many inexplicable anomalies of the Apollo space program will also continue to go unchallenged by the mainstream media, ensuring the continued apathy, as displayed by the public in general to this subject." |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/7/2007 9:30 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"Letter
The following was sent by post and email to Dr James R Hansen, Professor of History at Auburn University Alabama USA. As an historian for NASA, Dr Hansen recently published the first authorised biography of Neil Armstrong: First Man. Among other aerospace books he has also produced a study of the Apollo program’s lunar landing method.
16th November 2006
Dear Dr Hansen,
I have just read your new work First Man, congratulations on such a detailed definitive and thoroughly entertaining book.
I do have a couple of questions to put to you if you would be so kind as to consider the following. If you will excuse me for first referring to another author’s book: Andrew Chaikin’s A Man on the Moon, I have long been puzzled by the information contained on p172 (English Penguin edition) 20 lines down: ‘By the first part of June [1969] there had been so many ‘crashes’ (LM simulator) that Krantz wondered if he and his team would ever get it right’.
It continues on p173: ‘One day late June [1969],’ going into detail of Armstrong and Aldrin ‘crashing’ again following a stuck thruster simulation. I have a recollection in another definitive account, that basically states the LM simulator couldn’t effect a landing for all practical purposes, right up to two weeks before the historic flight. This being the cause of the much quoted ‘only a 50/50 chance’ (of descent or ascent) by Armstrong and NASA officials.
We now come to First Man (UK paperback edition p383 ‘A few weeks after Apollo 10, Deke Slayton asked Armstrong: “Well how do you feel, what’s your assessment of how you stand. Are you ready?” Armstrong answered, “Well Deke, it would be ‘nice’ to have another month of training but I cannot in honesty say that I think we have to have it.(?)” Then after conferring with Gilruth, Low and Kraft, the announcement was made on June 11th(!) that the launch will be made on July 16th.’
Presumably the ‘few’ weeks after Apollo 10 would date the Slayton question to Armstrong even earlier than the simulator ‘crashes’ quoted above, but even if they were around the same time, how would it have been remotely possible for Armstrong (or NASA) to approve a launch as early as July 16th, given the massive risks involved as indicated by the simulation failures?
The second point, as an ex-pilot, that has always puzzled me is the following. This was again re-activated in my memory after reading the more detailed account in First Man, than the one that first caught my attention in A Man on the Moon. It relates to Buzz Aldrin’s total lack of practise in the lunar landing training vehicle.
As you so clearly emphasised, it was Armstrong’s insistence that the LLTV should continue to fly due to the essential gains to be derived from its use. Before reading your book I had no idea that he was the driving force for its retention. The two pilots did equal simulator time but incredibly only one flew the LLTV, so critical to both Armstrong and Aldrin’s survival should Neil be incapacitated during the descent or ascent.
This would have been contrary to all aviation precedent or natural common sense. Given the ‘drive’ of Aldrin, as you so ably display in the chapter ‘Amiable Strangers’and coupled with Armstrong’s insistence regarding the LLTV usage, plus NASA’s overall commitment to aviation logic, this scenario leaves me totally baffled.
Thank you again for the wonderful read. I look forward to your comments on the questions posed above.
Best wishes,
David Orbell
prettystones@uol.com.br
(No reply received from either the letter or email sent to Dr Hansen at Auburn University)"
[link to www.aulis.com] |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/7/2007 10:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Buzz Aldrin, who achieved only one hour less in training than Neil (1,297 hours) was not inspired by NASA or his own ‘hyper’ self determination – as emphasised by Professor Hansen – to put in even one flight in the admitted deadly LLTV.
Buzz is in fact joined in this almost unique feat of co-pilot indifference by Apollo 12 legend, Alan Bean, lunar module pilot who actually watched Conrad and ‘wondered what [he] was doing’ when flying the LM on their Moon landing descent (A Man on the Moon p259) – Bean also never having flown the LLTV. This statement of course conflicts with Armstrong’s belief that the ‘trainer’ was absolutely essential. Neil had been the prime advocate for its continued usage. Quoting: SpaceCadet
[link to history.nasa.gov]
The reasoning behind giving only Commanders LLTV training, as best I can remember, was a combination of time, cost, and, quite frankly, safety. All the lunar module pilots wanted to fly the LLTV, strictly from a piloting point of view. When I was a lunar module pilot, I wanted to fly it. But, because we didn't have plans to land on Apollo 10, there wasn't any point in either Tom Stafford or I training in the LLTV; and, even for the actual landing missions, quite frankly, there was no need for LMP LLTV training. It would have been nice gravy to put on a chicken fried steak if the LMPs could have flown it as well as the Commanders; but, in reality, there was no need. There were two people to train for each flight anyway: the Commander and the Back-up Commander; and that pretty much took up all the time that was available. There were also some very real safety issues. We started out with four training vehicles, I believe, and we ended up with one. Joe Algranti (a NASA test pilot) ejected out of the first one. He was heading our aircraft operation before Neil ever flew the LLTV. And then two other people had to eject. So I was the last to fly the last one. It was a very unstable vehicle. Quoting: Gene Cernan
Alan Bean admitted to video producer Bart Sibrel that the LM legs were not strong enough to support the vehicle simply standing in Earth’s gravity. Is it credible to assume that the named Apollo astronauts would have been prepared to accept the risk of ‘impacting’ such a fragile landing mechanism on the surface of the Moon? Clearly any compression of the legs would have exceeded the advantage obtained from the Moon’s reduced gravity, with fatal effect. Quoting: SpaceCadet
[link to history.nasa.gov]
Four legs (maximum diameter 9.45 meters), the struts of which were filled with crushable aluminum honeycomb ,for absorbing the shock of landing, were capped by footpads. Quoting: NASA History
They would crush too easily in Earth gravity, but they were just right for the Moon. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/7/2007 10:55 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
They would crush too easily in Earth gravity, but they were just right for the Moon. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
So how did they know they were 'just right' for the Moon Landing? Also how do you simulate a real Moon Landing touchdown when no one had ever done it before, and the total Moon Landing conditions were unknown?
Very Mickey Mouse-Disneyland behaviour indeed! Talk about being under-prepared & having the wrong stuff! |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/7/2007 11:11 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So how did they know they were 'just right' for the Moon Landing? Quoting: SpaceCadet
How do they know what the maximum load on a bridge is before they build it? It's called engineering. They knew the weight of the LM and the strength of lunar gravity. They also knew the Young's modulus of aluminium and other relevant factors, and they were able to calculate what strength struts were required. They then tested prototypes by mechanically applying the correct forces that would be felt on the Moon.
Also how do you simulate a real Moon Landing touchdown when no one had ever done it before Quoting: SpaceCadet
See above.
and the total Moon Landing conditions were unknown? Quoting: SpaceCadet
The conditions were far from unknown. They had safely performed touchdowns with the Surveyor program. Apart from lunar gravity and surface conditions, both of which were known, what complicating factors can you name? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 143875
10/7/2007 11:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 143875
Sure is interesting how you can post absolute, definitive proof of a faked NASA photo, but the thread keeps chugging along with endless point/counterpoint like it never even happened.
I really think a deathbed confession by Neal Armstrong would be quickly minimized and glossed-over.
I guess these discussions are less about discovering truth than running damage control and molding perceptions. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/7/2007 11:49 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Sure is interesting how you can post absolute, definitive proof of a faked NASA photo, but the thread keeps chugging along with endless point/counterpoint like it never even happened. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 143875
Or maybe you didn't read the links posted in rebuttal. Why would that be? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/8/2007 1:57 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I guess these discussions are less about discovering truth than running damage control and molding perceptions. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 143875
What discussion? Somebody cut-and-pastes a hoax argument from Sibrel or Percy, I or another debunker replies, often in great detail, only to be either ignored or summarily dismissed without explanation as to how we are wrong. A discussion would involve a two way exchange of views. There are precious few HBs who are prepared to do that. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/8/2007 3:11 AM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm glad you read my posts Barls, because I sure as hell never bother reading your dissected posting replies. I just find it amusing that you even bother to reply to my posts at all.
Now who is the greater 'Troll' here?
 |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/8/2007 3:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Who says I'm replying for your benefit? I don't bother responding when you come out with your favourite "down the track" idiocies, or when you say that rockets can't work unless there is air to push against, as onlookers don't need my help in recognising that you are talking crap. I answer ones that are a little higher calibre than that so that other people can see the answer. I take it as read that you will just troll in response, as that's all you post for. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 143875
10/8/2007 7:36 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
[ link to aulis.com]
Sure is interesting how you can post absolute, definitive proof of a faked NASA photo, but the thread keeps chugging along with endless point/counterpoint like it never even happened.
Or maybe you didn't read the links posted in rebuttal. Why would that be?
We got a good laugh from your "lens flare" rebuttal, which as anyone can see, obviously isn't. Or maybe you think it's swamp gas.
It's a large glass globe lamp on the NASA moon set. Not the sun. Not "lens flare."
Busted. |
| Wired
User ID: 180991
10/8/2007 8:13 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I think the best to date "smoking gun" footage is th use of wires to simulate low gravity on the moon. I copied the you tube wires footage for those that have not seen it...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=" [link to www.youtube.com] name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src=" [link to www.youtube.com] type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
[link to www.youtube.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 309560
10/8/2007 8:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"LIFTOFF.
Someone were wondering why the whole liftoff from the moon wasnt filmed.
It took me about 3 min to find this clip, its Apollo 17 on its way home.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] " |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16567
10/8/2007 8:37 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"LIFTOFF.
Someone were wondering why the whole liftoff from the moon wasnt filmed.
It took me about 3 min to find this clip, its Apollo 17 on its way home.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] ""
Great video.
But one has to wonder how the camera pans out at the exact moment of lift-off, and then pans up as it goes away.
Maybe they left a guy on the mooon to operate the camera?
Like a janitor guy that just came along for the ride?
Lemme guess. They had a super high tech video cam that knew exactly when to zoom out, then automatically pan up as this took place. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 309571
10/8/2007 9:05 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
f you actually ask someone with lighting experience (Hi nomuse), then they will tell you that multiple light means multiple shadows. You don't see that in the Apollo photos, you just see shadows falling on uneven grouind. Numerous shots of the same phenomena her on Earth can be provided in dsupport of this. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
We don't see multiple shadows, but we see shadows that are not parallel. Which means that the light source was very close to the objects that casted the shadows. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 297306
10/8/2007 9:46 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Saturn upper stage plus Apollo stack was a bright naked eye object while it was in Earth orbit before the Trans Lunar Injection that sent them to the Moon. I mean it was really bright. People were told to look out for it, and many, many people saw it at exactly the time that was predicted. Numerous groups, both national and amateur, tracked the signals from the capsule all the way to the Moon. Whether you choose to believe there was anyone on board, there was undeniably a launch to the Moon.
...and people still believe that they witnessed Sputnik's orbit around the earth, but in all reality they were watching the booster. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 297306
10/8/2007 9:53 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
NASA personnel continue to sift through 37-year-old records in their attempt to locate the magnetic tapes that recorded the original Apollo 11 video in 1969. The original tapes may be at the Goddard Space Flight Center, which requested their return from the National Archives in the 1970s, or at another location within the NASA archiving system. Despite the challenges of the search, NASA does not consider the tapes to be lost.
[link to www.nasa.gov]
...they are not lost...we just don't know where they are.......?????????? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 82844
10/8/2007 10:41 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"Bill Kaysing or Bart Sibrel (I forget which) pointed out that the rocket engine on the lunar lander was silent. You can listen to it (actually, you can not listen to it) at this site,"
didn´t get it to work but had to point out that You CANNOT hear anything at space, it´s a vacuum so there is no sound.
-jf |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 258729
10/8/2007 10:59 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
NASA personnel continue to sift through 37-year-old records in their attempt to locate the magnetic tapes that recorded the original Apollo 11 video in 1969. The original tapes may be at the Goddard Space Flight Center, which requested their return from the National Archives in the 1970s, or at another location within the NASA archiving system. Despite the challenges of the search, NASA does not consider the tapes to be lost.
[ link to www.nasa.gov]
...they are not lost...we just don't know where they are.......??????????
Sure, they're not lost. They were destroyed because the quality was too good and they were too incriminating.
NASA tries to make it sound like it's just the Apollo 11 tapes that are 'missing'.
In fact, it's 2,600 BOXES -- over 13,000 original video tapes of EVERY APOLLO MISSION!
This in itself is proof we've been had. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/8/2007 11:15 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
We don't see multiple shadows, but we see shadows that are not parallel. Which means that the light source was very close to the objects that casted the shadows. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 309571
Conspiracy theorists claim that the shadows are in fact caused by studio lighting, either by a light source which is relatively close and/or by multiple light sources.
The truth is that converging shadows are a well-know optical phenomena in photography. There is nothing mysterious about it, in fact you can easily replicate this effect yourself.
This effect is caused by several factors including perspective and the way the surface is inclined relative to the camera and light source.
If this is not proof enough, there are two more points to note, I think that Barls said this in an earlier post. Not that any of you HBs would know that as you only read the posts agreeing with your own beliefs,,,
A light source placed close to the objects would not create converging shadows - it would create diverging shadows.
Multiple light sources create multiple shadows. There are none in the Apollo photo. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/8/2007 11:47 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
We got a good laugh from your "lens flare" rebuttal, which as anyone can see, obviously isn't. Or maybe you think it's swamp gas.
It's a large glass globe lamp on the NASA moon set. Not the sun. Not "lens flare."
Busted. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 143875
Would you care to explain why the long axis of your 'globe' is always in line with the other lens flares, in every single picture? Why would it do that if it was an actual object rather than a photographic artifact? Like the post from Education Forum said, it would require that the globe be specifically aligned with the centre of each and every shot. That's one heck of a 'whistle blow'. Alternatively, it isn't a globe. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/8/2007 1:00 PM | | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
