[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

[skyeagle409]

ITs how the ball bounces here in the Good Old U/M sometimes ! When we refer to some of our members that have that zeal for the dramatic One never knows what one might get to read from these spinners of tales !

I heard that!!

[skyeagle409]

Hard line CTs normally don't like to research their subjects too deeply in case it brings up evidence that contradicts their beliefs. For example, anyone who had read Boris Chertok's memoirs on the Soviet space programme (Rockets & People) would be under no illusions regarding the effort put into the Soviet lunar programme nor the reasons for its failure.

Right on!

I have often said that conspiracist don't bother to do homework, nor do they do it properly when they do.

Edited May 5, 2013 by skyeagle409

[flyingswan]

Wrong.

If you go back to MY original reply, rather than YOUR selective repeat of it in this thread, you'll see the problem.

Unlike you, I gave a link back to the original so everyone could see it for themselves before I gave my version. I stand by what I said above: you let your fabricated quote stand for several days and didn't admit that you were, uncharacteristically, jesting until others queried your post.

[DONTEATUS]

Wow ! TH eMoon dust thickens ! Turboman is going to jump into that phone booth and blast out with da Whommpin !

[postbaguk]

I'm patiently waiting for Turbonium to admit he was jesting about the space suit knee bend and the beardy man.

[DONTEATUS]

I remember some where that Turbo-man & Babe were off to Atlantic City for a Night on the Town with the Real Aliens,and C.T`s ?

Or was that a Dream ?

[ellapenella]

The Benghazi Cover Up What happened to the thread ?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Reann

[DONTEATUS]

This is the Moon Cover up, Lets not get sside tracked on all this Actual turthing going on in here LoL ! Remember the Moon is really a Space Station and the Dark Lord Vader is Deep inside at his cryo chair slurpping on a Veggie-mix dinner !

And The Russians are really the ones that do all his work for him due to they have the best out fits !

[turbonium]

Unlike you, I gave a link back to the original so everyone could see it for themselves before I gave my version.

Your "version" of it was proven wrong.

you let your fabricated quote stand for several days

I wasn't aware of MID's reply, or any others, since I wasn't even on the forum over that period! If you see when I posted the joke post, it's on the weekend, right? And my reply to MID's post is the weekend after, when I returned.

It's that simple.

and didn't admit that you were, uncharacteristically, jesting until others queried your post.

I explained it was meant in jest when the first person (MID) mistook it as a serious post instead. I didn't admit[/b] anything here. It was meant in jest, others didn't get it, so I explained what I meant to them.

The quote was meant in jest.

You stuck with your version - that I made up the quote intending to deceive others it was a genuine quote. But I was caught, when you queried me on it. At that point, I said it was meant in jest. So then I'm called a liar, for all these years later.

You queried me about the quote - AFTER I'D ALREADY EXPLAINED THE QUOTE WAS MEANT IN JEST!

So you made a false claim here, right?

You also said that I included some genuine quotes in the same post - that was another false claim, no?

Do you want to stand by it , or admit that you made it up?

Note I said 'admit', not 'explain'

[flyingswan]

You also said that I included some genuine quotes in the same post - that was another false claim, no?

Do you want to stand by it , or admit that you made it up?

I didn't say that, you're fabricating quotes again.

Edited May 11, 2013 by flyingswan

[Czero 101]

I didn't say that, you're fabricating quotes again.

Leopards and spots...

Cz

[DONTEATUS]

Zebra`s & Stripes !

[turbonium]

I didn't say that, you're fabricating quotes again.

You don't even remember your own posts, obviously, since you DID say it.,

The link to your entire post follows the relevant part noted below. I've bolded the quote you think I "fabricated"...

..

For it to be slander it has to be false. You and I both know that you tried to pass off a false quote as genuine (something the Mayor of London got sacked from the Times of London for doing. He's not been allowed to forget it so why should you?)

The facts are that:

• You included the quote amongst several others which were genuine.
  
• You claimed the quotes supported you.
  
• You only admitted that the quote was false AFTER you were asked to provide a source.
  
• Having been caught out only then did you claim that it was a joke.
  
• At the time this site had a rule expressly forbidding posting information that was known to be false.
  

I told you at the time that the reason you were not being punished for rule breaking was because the damage it would do to your credibility would be greater than anything I could dish out as a moderator. That still holds true.

You can claim it wasn't a lie all you like, the fact is you invented an untrue quote and you were caught out. No slander to you character, you damaged your own reputation.

http://www.unexplain...30#entry4731434

Your first two "facts" listed were about genuine quotes I supposedly included in my post. You falsely accused me of something, forget you did, and make yet another false accusation! Now, that's quite something!

The next two "facts" you listed are also false, as I've previously explained to you.

Indeed, the only "fact" you listed that isn't false is the last one, about a forum rule!

You've brought all this on yourself, flyingswan. It's up to you to admit what you've done...

Edited May 12, 2013 by turbonium

[flyingswan]

You don't even remember your own posts, obviously, since you DID say it.,

The link to your entire post follows the relevant part noted below. I've bolded the quote you think I "fabricated"...

That's not my post. You really do have this problem with facts, don't you?

[DONTEATUS]

Wow ! THe Plot Thickens ! But as far as Did we Land on the Moon ! Yes we did ! THe Proof is in every aspect of our modern Lives ! Just Do the Research !

Read, Look, Listen, Learn !

[ChrLzs]

...

...

That's not my post.

That is possibly the most hilarious self-immolation I've seen at an Internet forum. Turbonium's (misplaced) outrage was just so convincing - what a shame that in his final coup-de-grâce he neatly hit himself smack in the face with a very blunt sword..

(Thanks for the post, btw, flyingswan - I've got Turbs on ignore so I wouldn't have known without going back to take a look.. I'm still chuckling... )

[DONTEATUS]

Auh ! the plot thickens ! Alien Government agents are running around gathering up all the lack of actual proof for Turbo-and babe and a few others to present a case for Government Moon Cover up .

Or would that in its self be self de-feating?

[Spinebreaker]

I have not read the full 128 pages of this thread, or the preceding 128,000 pages that came before. I have skimmed about 30 pages from various places and I don't think this has been suggested anywhere. This is my very own personal theory, based on 2 things I consider absolute fact.

1 - In July, 1969. Edwin, Michael and Neil went to the moon. They collected data, rock samples, did other aspects of their job, and then came home. Basically, we have been to the moon.

2 - Some of the photo's taken by Apollo 11's crew are incredibly odd/anomalous. These anomalies have not been explained to my satisfaction. (Your satisfaction level may be different...)

So, my theory...

Collins and the other 2 nipped off to the moon, and did their jobs, just as the official story records. Now, the camera's used by the Apollo missions at the time, were 70mm Hasselblad camera's; Chest mounted. Pretty damn good at the time. Now I dunno if any of you have left a roll of film in a suitcase that gets X-Rayed at an airport... It ruins the pictures.

Is it possible, that after getting to the moon and back, safely, within the decade JFK said it would happen, our heroes return to Terra Firma only to discover that the Camera's were not shielded enough from X-ray's and other forms of radiation/energy they would encounter and the film was blank? Rather than admit this pretty basic error, someone at NASA chose to fake some photo's to keep the people happy... Probably not possible, probably not likely. But a lot more likely than the whole mission being fake...

It's just a theory...

[DONTEATUS]

I have not read the full 128 pages of this thread, or the preceding 128,000 pages that came before. I have skimmed about 30 pages from various places and I don't think this has been suggested anywhere. This is my very own personal theory, based on 2 things I consider absolute fact.

1 - In July, 1969. Edwin, Michael and Neil went to the moon. They collected data, rock samples, did other aspects of their job, and then came home. Basically, we have been to the moon.

2 - Some of the photo's taken by Apollo 11's crew are incredibly odd/anomalous. These anomalies have not been explained to my satisfaction. (Your satisfaction level may be different...)

So, my theory...

Collins and the other 2 nipped off to the moon, and did their jobs, just as the official story records. Now, the camera's used by the Apollo missions at the time, were 70mm Hasselblad camera's; Chest mounted. Pretty damn good at the time. Now I dunno if any of you have left a roll of film in a suitcase that gets X-Rayed at an airport... It ruins the pictures.

Is it possible, that after getting to the moon and back, safely, within the decade JFK said it would happen, our heroes return to Terra Firma only to discover that the Camera's were not shielded enough from X-ray's and other forms of radiation/energy they would encounter and the film was blank? Rather than admit this pretty basic error, someone at NASA chose to fake some photo's to keep the people happy... Probably not possible, probably not likely. But a lot more likely than the whole mission being fake...

It's just a theory...

Im really sorry you never got to meet Mid Spinebreaker,He would of helped you out on all of that miss-conception ! And You would now be so much better for it ! THe Moon Missions were and always be THe Facts that Mankind Did Wonderous things in the Late 60`s and 70`s

[karrde]

Spinebreaker,

May i ask you to show an anomaly you can't process, i could be able to explain to you.

[Obviousman]

Ditto. I have covered them extensively, so figure I might have an answer to anything you think is strange. BTW, it is really good etiquette when you do show a photo, quote its NASA ID number, if known (e.g. AS11-123-56770).

Thanks!

[Spinebreaker]

Im really sorry you never got to meet Mid Spinebreaker,He would of helped you out on all of that miss-conception ! And You would now be so much better for it ! THe Moon Missions were and always be THe Facts that Mankind Did Wonderous things in the Late 60`s and 70`s

Hmm. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

What I sad was... " I consider absolute fact.

1 - In July, 1969. Edwin, Michael and Neil went to the moon. They collected data, rock samples, did other aspects of their job, and then came home. Basically, we have been to the moon."

At no point in my post did I say otherwise. I believe we went to the moon.

[Spinebreaker]

Obvious and Karrde - I'll get back to you with some pics later. Gotta go and pick my son up from playgroup.

[ChrLzs]

Add me to that list - I'l be happy to explain any allegedly anomalous image in terms of real photographic knowledge - I even used to shoot using a very similar Hasselblad back in the 70's and 80's... Well, OK, so it wasn't on the Moon and mainly involved people in suits and long white gowns..and I used a Bronica more often than the Hass... but nevertheless, I'm pretty handy when it comes to film, cameras and photography in difficult conditions.. What's more, over they years I've pored over all of the Apollo images - some shallowly, some in excruciating detail..

And do I think there are any anomalous images in that massive collection, all of which are documented and easy to access/verify?

Nope.

To be fair though.. there is one that is, in my opinion, a trifle odd and worthy of a question.. but there is an answer! Is it 'anomalous'? No. In any way evidence of any misbehavior? No. (Which one do I think is odd? No, I'm not telling publicly - I don't feed Apollo-denying trolls.. PM me if you are genuinely interested.)

Spinebreaker, can I please suggest that you choose carefully - have you actually researched this area before? If you just repeat stuff that has already been covered here, there will be loud groans and potential embarrassment..

[ChrLzs]

And to address what was already posted:

I have not read the full 128 pages of this thread, or the preceding 128,000 pages that came before.

Well, perhaps you need to. Or at least visit the many sites around that deal with the silliness of Apollo denial...

1 - In July, 1969. Edwin, Michael and Neil went to the moon. They collected data, rock samples, did other aspects of their job, and then came home. Basically, we have been to the moon.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

2 - Some of the photo's taken by Apollo 11's crew are incredibly odd/anomalous.

No, they aren't. If you dispute this, please present your best two examples for a start. If those are not anomalous, then it is very likely your (lack of) expertise that is the problem, agreed?

These anomalies have not been explained to my satisfaction. (Your satisfaction level may be different...)

Your satisfaction (or mine) is somewhat irrelevant. ALL of the following is easily accessible and verifiable:

- the actual imagery from Apollo, in the form of historical and more recent high-resolution scans (- you can even get access to the original film if you have a genuine need to verify something)

- the specifications of the cameras, lenses and film cartridges and (in most cases) the settings used for each image

- the films used, including the type of emulsion/base, sensitivity curves, etc

- the lunar conditions, namely the lack of atmosphere, radiation levels (type and intensity), heat loadings, light levels..

So, at any level from simple identification of what is shown and why the images look as they do, right up to fuller analysis of exposure settings / film sensitivity, reseau plate haloing/flare, likely radiation effects and so on - these things can be analysed in exhaustive detail. As you can probably see from those words, this is an area I know very well..

And indeed they HAVE BEEN analysed, not just during the Apollo missions but also, of course, in the use before and after Apollo of similar photographic equipment. We knew BEFORE Apollo pretty much what was needed to be known about the conditions on the Moon and how these cameras would cope - as we had already had cameras in space on previous missions like Gemini, and then in missions like Apollo 10 they had been tested all the way there and back..)

Now, the camera's used by the Apollo missions at the time, were 70mm Hasselblad camera's; Chest mounted.

Yes, but on a quick release mechanism that allowed easy removal. Plus the astronauts had all practised their use beforehand, including basic aiming techniques (the same techniques that us paparazzi use all the time when 'shooting from the hip'...). Not that I can guess what your next claim might be...

Now I dunno if any of you have left a roll of film in a suitcase that gets X-Rayed at an airport... It ruins the pictures.

Well, I now know that you don't really get how radiation works (or in this case - doesn't). First up, yes a luggage xray machine may damage your film, but a carry on xray machine probably won't. Pre-911 I often use to let my films travel thru the carryon xray machines twice when I went on location - and as long as it wasn't high speed stuff, it would be absolutely fine. Nowadays the machines are stronger, so if I was still using film I might be a little more cautious... Thing is, this whole idea is wrong on more than one level..

First, 'radiation' is a general term for a whole range of stuff, from the warmth of a fire, to gentle dawn sunlight, microwaves, torch beams, lasers, radio waves, xrays, gamma ... How many of those wreck film? And second, can you not see that intensity and duration are also critical, not to mention whether that type of radiation even affects the film in the first place?

So you cannot usefully compare a random xray machine to conditions on the Moon - it's just silly. The TYPE and INTENSITY and DURATION of the radiation makes a huge difference (- xrays aren't much an issue on the Moon anyway)... For the actual type, intensity and duration of the actual radiation on the Moon, the standard aluminium housing would have been sufficient to protect the film, but it was thickened and coated with a reflective paint to be extra sure.

Is it possible, that after getting to the moon and back, safely, within the decade JFK said it would happen, our heroes return to Terra Firma only to discover that the Camera's were not shielded enough from X-ray's and other forms of radiation/energy they would encounter and the film was blank?

As stated above, and as proven by the Apollo 11 mission which you accept.., NO, it isn't. We knew then and know even more accurately now what radiation/heat load levels were there - it was barely a problem worthy of concern - and I'm happy to elaborate in detail if needed.

Rather than admit this pretty basic error

But the error is YOURS!

someone at NASA chose to fake some photo's to keep the people happy...

And you will now post your best example of such a faked image and give your technical reasoning..

Probably not possible, probably not likely.

Probably not even worthy of considering, imnsho..

But a lot more likely than the whole mission being fake...

All of the missions being real is a much simpler explanation, and unlike this conjecture, it fits all the facts and evidence.

It's just a theory...

No, a theory is something quite different. This is just idle and uninformed conjecture, I'm afraid..