NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

[turbonium]

We have no reference other than your own visual interpretation of the image against which to compare said interpretation, threfore you can claim the faces, shirts, hands, and whatever else, to be in whatever configuration might be necessary to fit the image.

We DO, however, have plenty of references for what the features of the LM look like and their positions relative to each other. How do you explain not only the presence of the features I have described above, but also their relative placement being precisely where they should be on the LM... if we are not looking at the LM?

Obviously we would have no references to people and chairs and a shade being in the Apollo journals! The fact is that there are colors and shapes which perfectly correspond to where they should be if they are people.

And as far as the lem and relative placement - again, look at all these frames - there is a wide field of view that the camera images as it is moved around. The lem was 14 feet in diameter. The camera had a lot more than 14 feet in its field of view as it moved all around in these sequences, in addition to before and after these stills. You are saying that the astronaut, as in the image below, took the camera from here and moved it all around, but only within the confines of the gold foil area. I don't buy it, sorry to say. Btw, for the fourth time, what is the reference for your gold foil photo you posted way back? I'm still waiting for a reply.

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

I see you did a good job of just ignoring my proof that we did land. Then you went ahead and posted some more pictures of men sitting in chairs and such. I have presented PROOF to you. Not just some photo that doesn't look right.

[turbonium]

I agree with you, but most do not discuss they flame, and i try hard to never be rude to other's.

When you say the pole was made to look as if it was waving, I am still un sure of. The shadow's where also wrong, it looks as if a black back drop is in place. I know this has been asked over and over again since we where suppose to have landed.I can see Kennedy ling about the moon landing because of the Russia.

820652[/snapback]

Don't be put off by naysayers, isis. You are looking at the issue with an open mind, and are not convinced about things such as the reason given for the waving flag. Even though I haven't talked about the flag, I remain skeptical about the amount of 'whipping' the flag does simply from the astronaut twisting the flag pole.

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

If Nasa was to fake the moon landing in a bunker they wouldn't be stupid enough to leave a fan or something on to blow the flag about. They know the public are not a bunch of idiots.

[turbonium]

I see you did a good job of just ignoring my proof that we did land. Then you went ahead and posted some more pictures of men sitting in chairs and such.  I have presented PROOF to you. Not just some photo that doesn't look right.

822236[/snapback]

Really, such an extreme lack of patience while you sit and monitor my posts! Minutes later, here I am!

To the question of tracking the Apollo missions, your source states....

The only way this could have worked is for the Russians to be in on it.

That is a standard claim to 'prove' the landings weren't faked. It doesn't hold though. The Russians could have easily brought up the numerous fallacies of the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination. Even a rookie forensic investigator can blow that story out of the water. The Russians had countless qualified people that could have spoken out on all the ridiculous claims being made. But they didn't. There are other events, like the OKC bombing, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, etc. that Russia and other countries have remained silent on. But there are so many holes in the official stories, they could have done so easily. But they didn't. Silence is not proof.

[Nameless]

Not trying to be point or anything but don't you think that the "cameraman" took the picture while the camera was vertical?

Edited September 2, 2005 by Nameless

[turbonium]

Now, as to the moon rocks. Your source compares just two samples - an Earth rock and a Moon rock, to then claim the Apollo rocks are genuine proof.

That is ridiculous. There are even recent findings of many moon rocks at Antarctica and elsewhere. Here is a link to one such find...Moon Rocks Found

It states.."This was one of about 50 that were sent on to the Smithsonian — we knew it was something special when we found it."

Here is a link to another moon rock found in the Omani desert...

Moon Rock

And, as I already pointed out, unmanned missions could have also been used to bring back moon rocks.

In the end though, it doesn't matter, since I remain convinced those are people in the video clip. The other issues are irrelevant in that case. And, I have yet to see how the people could be gold foil.

[Nameless]

That is merely an meteorite.

[turbonium]

Not trying to be point or anything but don't you think that the "cameraman" took the picture while the camera was vertical?

822284[/snapback]

You mean he took photos while the camera was pointed upwards? No, these are still frames I've posted, taken from a video. The video camera was, at first, stationary, then was taken and moved around while filming occurred.

[frenat]

Moon rocks found on earth have very different characteristics from actual moon rocks. No geologist worth anything would mistake the two. The Russians used unmanned missions to returns some samples from the moon. They returned only a few grams worth. From all the Apollo missions, more than 800 pounds of moon rocks were returned. This is way more than any sample found in Anarctica. Also, the US samples were composed of more than just random rocks. Core samples were included as well. Are you really trying to say that all of that could have been brought back with an unmanned probe? You should be a comedian because you're making me laugh.

Saying the Russians could have blown other conspiracies means nothing. They had a lot invested in the race to the moon. They had first hand tracking of the missions. They had direct evidence that everything went exactly as the US said it did.

[turbonium]

That is merely an meteorite.

822316[/snapback]

Meteorites are rocks that have landed on Earth from other celestial bodies. There are rocks that have been discovered on Earth that originated from the Moon, Mars, and other bodies. They are all meteorites, and they are also known as Moon rocks, Mars rocks, etc.

[Nameless]

How would we know what a moon rock is if we never landed on the moon?

[turbonium]

Moon rocks found on earth have very different characteristics from actual moon rocks.  No geologist worth anything would mistake the two.  The Russians used unmanned missions to returns some samples from the moon.  They returned only a few grams worth.  From all the Apollo missions, more than 800 pounds  of moon rocks were returned.  This is way more than any sample found in Anarctica.  Also, the US samples were composed of more than just random rocks.  Core samples were included as well.  Are you really trying to say that all of that could have been brought back with an unmanned probe?  You should be a comedian because you're making me laugh. 

Saying the Russians could have blown other conspiracies means nothing.  They had a lot invested in the race to the moon.  They had first hand tracking of the missions.  They had direct evidence that everything went exactly as the US said it did.

822328[/snapback]

First, as to the Russians - they were considered the "mortal enemy" of the US, and to say they ignored the JFK assassination but wouldn't ignore a moon hoax is ridiculous. The US and the Russians even worked together in 1975 for the Apollo-Soyuz project. Doesn't seem like they were such great arch-enemies since they undertook a joint space mission only three years after Apollo 17!!

And coming back with over 100 pounds of rocks on average per mission? Where did they pack 100+ lbs. of rocks in the lem? Weren't they concerned about the excees weight compromising the safety of the takeoff from the Moon? Why take such a needless risk, when a few rocks would be the same as over 100 lbs. worth? Seems like extreme redundancy for the very real risk of safely returning to Earth. Did they carefully place them all over the inside of the lem to lessen the risk of instability for takeoff and manouvering from lack of proper weight distribution? They would need to tape them in place everywhere so the rocks wouldn't fly around inside the module, wouldn't they?

Edited September 2, 2005 by turbonium

[Nameless]

But then how would you tell the difference between real moonrock from earth moonrock if the Appolo mission never existed?

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

Turbo, what we have given to you is proof, you wont accept it now matter how stupid your arguement against it is. I figured it all out, in your head you feel you are special, you have knowledge that needs to be spread throughout the free world. That is why you continue with these pathetic little pictures that even though they have been explained. Either that or deep down you know you are wrong but have too big of an opinion of yourself to admit it. You are simply wrong turbo, face it.

Edited September 2, 2005 by lonelyalpacafarmer

[frenat]

Did the Russians have radio tracking of the bullets that hit JFK? They have access to the same information that everybody else has and even the conspiracy theorists can't agree on what happened.

Do you really think the extra weight of the rocks wouldn't be planned for? Grasping at straws much? I don't know exactly how they were secured but I'm sure they would have planned for that as well. A quick search returned some information about sample bags. Is Google not working for you?

Returning samples was one of the mission objectives on every trip. The samples ranged from dust to large and small rocks to core samples. We don't have unmanned probes now that could return a core sample but according to you we must have then.

Seriously, are you trying to make me laugh again? Suggesting that the rocks were rolling around loose inside the cabin? How ludicrous can you get?

[Nameless]

Children, play nicely. Just because we don't beleive him does not give us the right to ridicule him. It is, after all, a good subject.

Edited September 2, 2005 by Nameless

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

Him being an idiot gives us the right to ridicule him though. =P

[frenat]

Since Google must not be working for Turbonium here are some interesting pages regarding some of the sample collecting tools used on Apollo.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/GALLERIES/ATTM/a11.om.sm.1.html

http://www.nasm.si.edu/GALLERIES/ATTM/a11.om.sm.2.html

http://www.nasm.si.edu/GALLERIES/ATTM/a11.om.sm.3.html

http://www.nasm.si.edu/GALLERIES/ATTM/a11.om.sm.4.html

http://www.nasm.si.edu/GALLERIES/ATTM/a11.om.em.1.html

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) goes into much detail concerning the return of samples. You might want to look at it sometime. You might actually learn something.

[Nameless]

I'm curious where Turbonium is. He lasted 27 pages. Surely he could last for more.

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

He is currently searching his family photos for orbs.

[Nameless]

Hehehe

[turbonium]

Seriously, are you trying to make me laugh again? Suggesting that the rocks were rolling around loose inside the cabin? How ludicrous can you get?

I actually was trying to on that one - I forgot my sarcastic smiley face emoticon!

But seriously - you didn't respond to my comments about the Apollo-Soyuz joint space mission. That was merely 3 years after Apollo 17. Arch-rivals in space programs and feared enemies would not conduct a mission together. The US, by supposedy having landed men on the moon while the Russians had not, actually sharing in a space mission with the now inferior Soviets?

[DataCable]

Look at the sequence of stills I posted.

I've looked at the stills. I've looked at the RealVideo. I've looked at the DVD. The camera is in constant motion.

And as far as the lem and relative placement - again, look at all these frames

I have... In fact, I've looked at more than just the few you're showing here, which is how I know what I'm looking at.

there is a wide field of view that the camera images as it is moved around.

How wide? What is the FOV angle of the TV camera lens at the time these images were captured? And explain how you arrived at your number.

The camera had a lot more than 14 feet in its field of view

14 feet at what distance? FOV measured in linear distance units is meaningless, which is why FOV is measured in angular units (degrees, for example)

You are saying that the astronaut, as in the image below, took the camera from here...

I am absolutely NOT saying that.

Because this astronaut (Buzz Aldrin) is standing at the ALSEP bay in Quad II (rear-left), not at the MESA in Quad IV (right-front), where the TV camera was stowed. (see photo linked below)

...and moved it all around, but only within the confines of the gold foil area.

Nor have I said this... ever. Read my last post. I clearly identified a number of distinct LM features visible in the entire sequence (not just the fragments you are showing here), only one of which was the aluminized kapton insulation on the descent stage.

Btw, for the fourth time, what is the reference for your gold foil photo you posted way back?

Y'mean this one?

It's from this photo... which, BTW, was taken from roughly the same angle (in terms of yaw relative to the LM) as the segment of TV footage in question (but from a greater distance), and shows every single feature I described in my last post, with the exception of the oxydizer tank skin front face, only the inboard-most edge of which is visible to the right of the plume deflector.

[The Silver Thong]

Maybe the cold war was a manufactured war? The soviets and the u.s. working together under wraps, ohh the money to be made by the 2 most powerful nations?

War=$

They did land on the moon IMO but what was discovered was shared with both nations and together what was found could not be told to the public. So thousands of feet of footage is now under lock and key and they had to come up with something. How do you explain 100's of hours of footage when most can't be showen? you manufacture it ! Some is very real and some is very fake. The truth could not be told to the meat puppets, me and you. so in comes the t.v. crews to make up for the missing footage.

I think both sides of this dibate are valid.

keep it up, love it

Edited September 2, 2005 by The Silver Thong