Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

nasa apollo hoax

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2593 replies to this topic

#1501    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 7,777 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:06 PM

what was the point of this?


#1502    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,031 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:08 PM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 29 December 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

what was the point of this?
That... THERE IS NO MOON! What? Yes!

We couldn't land on it because... IT'S JUST NOT THERE! At least that's my theory. Anyone else support it?

Posted Image

~MEH~


#1503    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,598 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:08 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

skyeagle409 - you mean the tracks, that are allegedly photographed by the very same NASA that claim it can got to the Moon back in 1969 and now it can't get Man even to LEO orbit of Earth? ROFL!
I mean - these tracks aren't here in the first place and are actually missing in many of the LRO photos (Photoshopping is hard work...), but this is nothing new :)


Rover ride on the Moon w/o leaving tracks - damn, it can fly! :D

Posted Image
( http://spaceflight1....7-137-20979.jpg )

Posted Image
( http://upload.wikime...5LunarRover.jpg )
( http://theflatearths...-88-11902HR.jpg )

Posted Image
( http://www.hq.nasa.g...143-21932HR.jpg )

( http://apolloanomali...sing_tracks.htm )
( http://www.aulis.com...er_findings.htm )
( http://theflatearths...nbuggy_Problems )

:clap:

These tracks on the moon. Yes indeed, definitely look like the tracks of the lunar rover.

Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 December 2012 - 07:27 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1504    trodas

trodas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:10 PM

Apollo "Sun":
Posted Image
( http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg )

Apollo "Sun":
Posted Image
( http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg )

...and similar "Suns"... (for example http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6766.jpg )


Now what's there to be seen? A hell lot! First at all, Sun does NOT contain a - lightbulb!
(lightbulb is "árovku" in Czech)

Posted Image

Posted Image

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :) my config - my caps

#1505    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,598 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:15 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Apollo "Sun":
Posted Image
( http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg )

Apollo "Sun":
Posted Image
( http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg )

...and similar "Suns"... (for example http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6766.jpg )


Now what's there to be seen? A hell lot! First at all, Sun does NOT contain a - lightbulb!
(lightbulb is "žárovku" in Czech)

Posted Image

Posted Image

What lightbulb? Do you really think that anyone would try to hoax such a  thing using a real lightbulb??? :w00t:  :lol: :lol:

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 December 2012 - 07:16 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1506    Iron_Lotus

Iron_Lotus

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:16 PM

View PostHasina, on 29 December 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

That... THERE IS NO MOON! What? Yes!

We couldn't land on it because... IT'S JUST NOT THERE! At least that's my theory. Anyone else support it?

Posted Image

interesting indeed.


#1507    trodas

trodas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:21 PM

skyeagle409 - LOL! Bad news for you. First - where you see the tracks on the hi-res quality photos?
Second - what blurry crap you posted? I did not see much from that lowres... I mean, come on! From LEO thru atmosphere (!) we can read what time is on man watches (in ideal conditions). From few miles LRO can't make a better picture? :)
Third - bad news again - according to astrophysics, disturbed Moon surface is lighter that the untouched one, because the untouched one was darkened by Sun for millions of years. So, these tracks should be lighter that the undisturbed surface. The very fact that they are darker means that they are Photoshopped ;)


Real Sun in space:

Posted Image
( http://ww1.prweb.com...958/Slide42.JPG )

Real Sun in space (STS mission):
Posted Image
( http://www.nasa.gov/...900_ys_full.jpg )

Sun from Earth:
Posted Image

Sun from Earth behind clouds:
Posted Image
(they are not on the Moon :P )

So, no image of Sun looks like the Apollo "Sun's." That itself is a red flag. How to see the lightbulb in the images? Open a 12MB jpeg from NASA: http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg or this one: http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg and in Photoshop use curves input 247 - 249, output 0. Now you can see, that there is hotspot in the middle of the NASA "Sun's" - on the first image you can even see the reflection near the left side of the reflector!

However what will real Sun look like in this settings?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Quite different from NASA "Sun's" :) Busted again :D

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :) my config - my caps

#1508    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,226 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:22 PM

View PostHasina, on 29 December 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

That... THERE IS NO MOON! What? Yes!

We couldn't land on it because... IT'S JUST NOT THERE! At least that's my theory. Anyone else support it?

You might be interested in this site.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#1509    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,598 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:24 PM

View PostHasina, on 29 December 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

That... THERE IS NO MOON! What? Yes!

We couldn't land on it because... IT'S JUST NOT THERE! At least that's my theory. Anyone else support it?

There are those who love to prove to readers how have been duped and not on the same page as reality. For an example, they have said that radiation of the Van Allen belts were too high for astronauts to safely transit the area, but it seems they were unaware the astronauts did not stick around long enough to absorb enough radiation to cause harm. Perhaps they should understand why they are not seriously harmed by X-rays duirng their exams.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1510    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,598 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:25 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

skyeagle409 - LOL! Bad news for you. First - where you see the tracks on the hi-res quality photos?
Second - what blurry crap you posted? I did not see much from that lowres... I mean, come on! From LEO thru atmosphere (!) we can read what time is on man watches (in ideal conditions). From few miles LRO can't make a better picture? :)
Third - bad news again - according to astrophysics, disturbed Moon surface is lighter that the untouched one, because the untouched one was darkened by Sun for millions of years. So, these tracks should be lighter that the undisturbed surface. The very fact that they are darker means that they are Photoshopped ;)


Real Sun in space:

Posted Image
( http://ww1.prweb.com...958/Slide42.JPG )

Real Sun in space (STS mission):
Posted Image
( http://www.nasa.gov/...900_ys_full.jpg )

Sun from Earth:
Posted Image

Sun from Earth behind clouds:
Posted Image
(they are not on the Moon :P )

So, no image of Sun looks like the Apollo "Sun's." That itself is a red flag. How to see the lightbulb in the images? Open a 12MB jpeg from NASA: http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg or this one: http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg and in Photoshop use curves input 247 - 249, output 0. Now you can see, that there is hotspot in the middle of the NASA "Sun's" - on the first image you can even see the reflection near the left side of the reflector!

However what will real Sun look like in this settings?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Quite different from NASA "Sun's" :) Busted again :D

More nice lighbulb photos?!  :w00t:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1511    trodas

trodas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:28 PM

What is the image, that convinced me most, that this is a hoax? The famous Buzz Aldrin portrait:

Posted Image

Fake! In shadow side, the astroNOT could not be light up like a Xmass tree. Shadows from sun are never cast in different directions, as we see (Aldrin shadow vs. rock in back shadow). And also Moon should not end at about 10meters from the camera :)


More Photoshopping? NASA deliver! :D

Posted Image
( http://grin.hq.nasa....2000-001104.jpg )
curves input 9, output 255 ;)

Posted Image
( http://spaceflight.n...7-134-20382.jpg )
curves input 24, output 255 ;)

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :) my config - my caps

#1512    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,598 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:29 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

What is the image, that convinced me most, that this is a hoax? The famous Buzz Aldrin portrait:

Posted Image

Fake! In shadow side, the astroNOT could not be light up like a Xmass tree. Shadows from sun are never cast in different directions, as we see (Aldrin shadow vs. rock in back shadow). And also Moon should not end at about 10meters from the camera :)


More Photoshopping? NASA deliver! :D

Posted Image
( http://grin.hq.nasa....2000-001104.jpg )
curves input 9, output 255 ;)

Posted Image
( http://spaceflight.n...7-134-20382.jpg )
curves input 24, output 255 ;)

Try this on for size.



Quote


Chang'e 2

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landings.

Posted Image

  Posted Image


Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum. Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969. These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions

"50th anniversary of first microbes in orbit". Astronomy 35 (11): 22

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings


Edited by skyeagle409, 29 December 2012 - 07:56 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1513    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,598 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:44 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Take a picture from Great Images in NASA page:
http://grin.hq.nasa....2000-001137.jpg

(backed up on not-NASA owned sources for example here: http://farm9.staticf...e64c3c4af_z.jpg )
...and apply a high contrast on it :D Too lazy? Okay, I done it for you already:

I like this photo of the Apollo 14 astronauts in the hangar of my flying buddy, Lt. Colonel James C. Warren. After all, he was on the Apollo 14 recovery crew from my base, and whom flew the astronauts back to Texas after their moon flight. In other words, the Apollo moon missions were not hoaxed.

Attached Files


Edited by skyeagle409, 29 December 2012 - 07:58 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1514    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:46 PM

View Postturbonium, on 29 December 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

The ISS suit is just a few inches away from the surface - such close proximity allows it to reflect some light.

But you are claiming a spacesuit is reflecting light onto a subject 15+ feet away. And that is quite a different thing.

That's what you need to show. So how about it?....  

You already accept that the heel can reflect light photons from that distance back to the camera. You accept that a spacesuit can reflect light sufficient to be re-reflected off another surface. Yet you seem to be saying that light reflected off a spacesuit can't be reflected back to the camera, but light from a source dim enough not to cast shadows can be reflect back?

Quote

You first need to prove a spacesuit reflection of 15-20 feet. If you can't prove it, then your case fails,  the arm is moot.

The spacesuit reflects light. The heel reflects light. What's to prove?

Quote

But let's say it is indeed possible, for argument's sake.

His right arm could indeed extend 23.6 - 34.0 cm from the centre of his camera lens. And you know the arm must be such a distance at the time he took the photo - at least the 23.6 cm minimum, anyway.  

The right arm would be at a right angle in such a position, so any reflections veer off to right. Away from the LM. You'll think up some untenable excuse for that problem, I'm sure.

If this is symptomatic of your understanding of simple optical properties, no wonder you think the photos are faked.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine you're in the scene in question. Your eyeball is where Aldrin's boot is. You're looking directly toward Armstrong. When he bends his arm to take the photo, does it magically disappear from view? Of course not! Why? Because it is reflecting light form the sun into your eyeball (where Aldrin's heel is). This guff about reflections "veering off to the right" is nonsensical. Light is reflected in any direction you could see his arm from, since his suit is acting as a diffuse reflector. If he was wearing a highly polished suit or armour then you may have had a point: but he isn't, ergo you don't.

Quote

The light is not directly behind the photographer, it's to his right, as close to him as possible. The ideal position for it, as Groves noted.

So he says. Problem is, he never even examined the possibility that the light source could be Armstrong's suit. You seem to be dismissing this possibility simply because you want Groves to be right, as well as trying to reverse the burden of proof. After all, Grove's being wrong about extra lighting being used doesn't disprove a hoax. Does Groves analysis prove that Armstrong's suit cannot be the cause of the highlight in Aldrin's heel? If not, why are you dismissing it as a possibility?

Quote

Why is it ridiculous?

I addressed this in an earlier post. The obvious and sensible way to ensure complete congruity between the photos and the film/TV footage is take the photos at the same time as the scene is being filmed. In addition, you only want one light source to simulate the sun. If I can understand the stupidity of using extra lighting, then the people involved in the filming of the scene must also have known that.


#1515    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,583 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:52 PM

See ! You Guys ran Off one of the Greatest Members ever ! Our "MID" see what pushing all the wrong key strokes can do !

This is a Work in Progress!