1963 replies to this topic

[MID]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 07 October 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Please forgive me as being a new member and I don't have the time or inclination to read this entire topic at this time.

I've  had moments of skepticism and questioned whether or not the USA landed men on the moon.  When the conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork and started pointing out anomalies and discrepancies with various facts, photographic evidence etc., it did get me thinking.  There did seem to be cause for questions....

Understand this, Bigfoot:

No CT has ever put forth any "anomalies".  There haven't been any.   What the CT-ists put forth is illusion, and fabricated nonsense .   It's all been based upon what they don't understand.

Quote

However, my beliefs about the moon landings and visits go beyond what we have been conditioned or led to believe. I DO believe that the USA and NASA went to the moon and the astronauts saw things up there.

And they most assuredly did!

Quote

Again, we have one side that discredits the whole lunar missions as being impossible at that time and for various reasons, then we have the other camp that has factual scientific evidence that it was possible. It comes down to what to believe as fact, sorting out cover-ups, conspiracies and science frauds, versus true science and what knowledge could be kept from the general public.

I'll tell you what!


If you want to know something, just let me know...let us know, and I guarantee you you will receive help!

This thread's long been about education, and those of us who know are more than happy to help someone out!

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Thank you MID for your detailed response.  Believe me, you don't have to convince me of anything!  I am a believer that NASA went to the moon and even after all the many assertions that those missions never took place.  I find that people (unfortunately) cannot believe in things without more definitive proof and rather than listening to pseudo-science, they can't be objective or pragmatic to testimonials and factual information.  We live in a world where nothing can be taken as fact or believed unless there is tangible proof in our hands.   What many don't seem to realize is that facts are hidden and twisted and the average person won't ever be able to know the difference.  I am a person who takes in the information, thinks about the facts logically and with a dash of common sense, much can be sorted out, IMHO

[MID]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 07 October 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Thank you MID for your detailed response.  Believe me, you don't have to convince me of anything!  I am a believer that NASA went to the moon and even after all the many assertions that those missions never took place.  I find that people (unfortunately) cannot believe in things without more definitive proof and rather than listening to pseudo-science, they can't be objective or pragmatic to testimonials and factual information.  We live in a world where nothing can be taken as fact or believed unless there is tangible proof in our hands.   What many don't seem to realize is that facts are hidden and twisted and the average person won't ever be able to know the difference.  I am a person who takes in the information, thinks about the facts logically and with a dash of common sense, much can be sorted out, IMHO

Very cool, Bigfoot!
I'm impressed, and I think you're right!

you know, interesting stuff sometimes comes out of this thread.  For instance, Neil Armstrong, who recently passed away, had a single greatest accomplishment in his life!
Everybody thinks that it was the fact that he was the first man to walk on the Moon!  And of course, we all heard that the first man to walk on the Moon had died!
But it was not that distinction for Neil.  He rated that a 1-3 on a scale of 10.

But Neil was a pilot, and for him, being the first man to land on the Moon was his life's accomplishment.  That was a 10 out of 10!

that's why I have always said that Neil Armstrong was the first man to land a craft on another world!  And if anyone asks me, I say, Neil Armstrong was the first man tio land on the Moon!
He would have preferred that, and he did until he passed on.

And when I look at that Moon, I wink at the first man to land on it...a man I shall never forget!



But seriously, Bigfoot, I'm dead serious when I say you are welcome here, and if there's ever a question, just ask!!!

[turbonium]

Chrlzs, on 07 October 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

I'm happy to look at what MID said IN CONTEXT but I have no intention of encouraging your disgraceful behavior.  BTW, did you happen to miss the qualifier "clearly" in the sentence you are 'quoting'?  Why do you think he used that word?  I know why he used it - it isn't a difficult concept.

And if you had the intestinal fortitude to actually debate the topic properly, you too would see why it can be difficult to see CLEARLY in close ups.

Here is MID's quote, again...

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times,  then it's just fictional."

Maybe you should take your own advice, and "look at what MID said IN CONTEXT",

Bolding mine... ...

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times,  then it's just fictional."

IN CONTEXT, the word "clearly" seems to mean 'obviously'. MID says "it's not visible" in "that sort of photo" (ie:close range photos), but "it's often visible" in photos taken from 60 to 1000 miles away (ie: longer-range photos).

And even if it's meant in the way you suggest, it makes no difference to what I said - that it's not visible in close-range photos. I stand by that claim, regardless of MID's (or anyone ese's) position on it.

Chrlzs, on 07 October 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

But you DIDN'T STATE what particular phenomenon or aspect of it you were disputing - ie MORE intellectual laziness.  Please DO SO if you expect to be taken seriously.

I'm obviously referring to the so-called 'halo' phenomenon. How do YOU expect to be taken seriously, if you don't even know what our common talking points are?.Sheesh.

[turbonium]

Obviousman, on 07 October 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Amazing! Once more, you have done it: you have taken a statement which disproves your assertions and claim they support your claims!

Uh oh...looks like someone forgot to show evidence for a claim!! So if it's not too much trouble...

[turbonium]

flyingswan, on 07 October 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

I don't think you're getting my point.

In a field, you can see some patches of grass are lighter and others darker, but it takes the aerial view to show that some, but not all, of the darker patches outline a building's foundations.

On the moon, you can see that some parts of the surface are lighter and others darker, but it takes the orbital view to show that some, but not all, of the lighter patches combine to form a halo around the LM.

In both cases, the variation seen close up swamps the overall pattern which can only be seen from above.  Your claim that if it's visible from above then it's visible close-up is incorrect.

The "overall pattern" of an area is lighter than the surrounding area. From orbit, the entire area appears lighter than the surrounding area. And it has a distinct boundary. And it's the boundary that defines it as completely different than the darker area surrounding it.

And that boundary  is distinctly seen from close range, or from orbit. The "overall pattern" of the area is lighter than the "overall pattern" of the surrounding area. You don't have to be in orbit to see that. It will be quite noticeable from close range.

Another point - it is not just distinct because it is lighter, like your lighter/darker patches of grass analogy. In that case, the grass blades are the same physically. The only difference is their shade

But the lunar area is a genuine physical disturbance. It has a different physical composition than the surrounding area. And that's what makes it appear lighter than the area surrounding it. So even if it wasn't lighter, it would still have a different physical appearance. Indeed, the ONLY way to see the different physical composition of that area is from close range. From orbit, it just looks lighter than the rest of the surface. But it has an actual physical difference, and that would  make it even more distinct, more noticeable, from close range.

[Chrlzs]

turbonium, on 08 October 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Here is MID's quote, again...

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times,  then it's just fictional."

Maybe you should take your own advice, and "look at what MID said IN CONTEXT",

First up you STILL didn't cite the post.

CQ1. Do you seriously not understand what that word means, or are you deliberately attempting to misdirect the forum?

Please consider that a 'formal' question - I will keep repeating these numbered questions until you answer them properly..

Anyway, yes, I have looked at it.  And, for a start, I see the words 'SEE IT', followed by the word 'CLEARLY'.  

Quote

IN CONTEXT, the word "clearly" seems to mean 'obviously'.

To you, of course it would.  But surely the words immediately before it, namely SEE IT, might just suggest that he is referring to seeing it clearly, rather than seeing it indistinctly.  The word DUH seems to be appropriate here.  In other words it is not an absolute - he is just pointing out that you won't see it clearly in CERTAIN images. And that is correct.  Unlike a simpleton who thinks in black and white and absolutes, MID knows that in SOME images, especially close range images, the halo effect won't be visible.  You need to consider all the relevant information.  Why is it that you are NOT WILLING TO DEBATE THE TOPIC FULLY?  And why are MID's words so important to you - can't you simply use your own logic to address issues?  Or is that you are absolutely desperate to find any sort of 'contradiction' that you can try to make mileage of, even when such 'contradictions' are only in your misinformed world-view?

Here's a VERY simple challenge for you.

Answer the following question, which is ABSOLUTELY key to understanding the visibility of anything (yes, ANYTHING) in an image.  It's a really simple question, and should only take about 30 seconds to answer - there aren't all that many factors.  Let's see how you go:

CQ2. What are ALL of the factors that affect the visibility of any feature in a photographic image?

I've even made it easy for you - up above in various posts, I've told you the answers.  So, LIST THEM OFF, and we'll start the debate.   Are you afraid to do that? If you don't, I will go ahead without you - and you won't be living that down...

Quote

And even if it's meant in the way you suggest..

Aha - a concession.  So we'll consider that silly claim withdrawn, then.  Yep, I can play games too - but I'd rather debate issues fully and comprehensively - how about you?.

Quote

I'm obviously referring to the so-called 'halo' phenomenon. How do YOU expect to be taken seriously, if you don't even know what our common talking points are?.Sheesh.

CQ3. Do you admit that the disturbance IS visible in SOME photos at reasonably close range?  And in MANY photos at long range?

(Be VERY careful with that question, Turb...)  BTW, 'halo' is a VERY poor descriptor - did you come up with that term?

Please answer all the questions, Turbonium.  Properly.  They won't be going away.

[turbonium]

MID, on 07 October 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

If this was a fake scene, turb, how did John Young do this???
On Earth, 1 g, a 180+ pound suit and PLSS strapped to him, and he jumped a foot and a half off the ground!  How'd he get that 300 pounds up off the ground like that???

Same way as Peter Pan appears to be flying above a stage. Wires.

And yes, it was easy to make the wires 'disappear' from view. It was already being done in old sci-fi movies, well before the Apollo project began.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 08 October 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Uh oh...looks like someone forgot to show evidence for a claim!! So if it's not too much trouble...

Well, you have been asked to provide evidence of a Apollo moon hoaxes and you have been having trouble providing such evidence. and one  reason why you have been unable to provide such evidence is because no evidence exist.

The moon  hoax folks are in the same boat as those who continue to claim the earth is flat.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 08 October 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Same way as Peter Pan appears to be flying above a stage. Wires.

And yes, it was easy to make the wires 'disappear' from view. It was already being done in old sci-fi movies, well before the Apollo project began.

Sounds like the fantasy stage of the moon hoax folks, and apparently you didn't catch the hint when it was revealed to you  that the Apollo landing sites have been photographed. In other worlds, you, and the other moon hoax folks have lost the case already.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 October 2012 - 02:50 PM.

[MID]

turbonium, on 08 October 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Same way as Peter Pan appears to be flying above a stage. Wires.

And yes, it was easy to make the wires 'disappear' from view. It was already being done in old sci-fi movies, well before the Apollo project began.

GOTCHA!

wires!


Already done in old sci fi movies before Apollo eh?

Show me that, but more importantly,

Show me the wires in this picture!  After all, they should be visible clearly in a color photo taken by a 70mm Hasselbelad 500 camera!!!

C'mon. show me a wire (no, not the OPS antemnna clearly visible), but the wires that suspended this 300+ pound fellow...!


Oh, well, I know, there aren't any!

...see ya turb.

[Philthy]

Ah yes, good ole gort

G ot
O nly
R ejected
T estimony

Sorry, it took me all of 5 seconds to come up with this acronym, but, it fits.

Phil

[Obviousman]

Turbs,

I know you have trouble with this whole evidence / burdon of proof concept, so I'll summarise it for you.

1. You claimed NASA controlled the ground tracking stations (you may have mentioned Honeysuckle; I can't recall).

2. I pointed out that this was not true in Australia, that although they were built to support Apollo (and Mercury and Gemini before them), the stations were owned by the Australian government, and run predomonently by Australian government - not NASA - employees and contractors from the private sector. I gave official references for this as well as other confirmation from the Honeysuckle website as well as from reference books about Carnarvon.

3. You gave a link to a NASA document and said it confirmed what you said.

4. I asked you to point out where in the document it supported your claim.

5. You gave quotes which not only did not support your claim but actually supported what I had previously said: that they had been run by Australians to support the Apollo missions.

If you ever want to win an arguement, you have to get this proof thing sorted out, okay?

[RaptorBites]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned to Turbs.

But if he is implying that the moon landing was staged in a studio here on earth.

Anyone mention that the moon sand/regolith cannot act the way it did when being pushed out by the tires of the buggy in the kind of gravity found here on earth?

[Czero 101]

RaptorBites, on 09 October 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Not sure if this has already been mentioned to Turbs.

But if he is implying that the moon landing was staged in a studio here on earth.

Anyone mention that the moon sand/regolith cannot act the way it did when being pushed out by the tires of the buggy in the kind of gravity found here on earth?

Oh he's been told several times about that and pretty much everything else that proves how wrong he constantly is with his theories.

Turbs just seems to have a forcefield around him that makes him impervious to facts and evidence and keeps him safe and happy in his own delusional, willfully ignorant little world.






Cz