1963 replies to this topic

[The New Richard Nixon]

what was the point of this?

[Hasina]

The 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?

[skyeagle409]

trodas, 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!


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


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


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

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

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

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

[trodas]

Apollo "Sun":

( http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg )

Apollo "Sun":

( 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)

[skyeagle409]

trodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Apollo "Sun":

( http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg )

Apollo "Sun":

( 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)

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

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

[Iron_Lotus]

Hasina, 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?

interesting indeed.

[trodas]

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:


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

Real Sun in space (STS mission):

( http://www.nasa.gov/...900_ys_full.jpg )

Sun from Earth:


Sun from Earth behind clouds:

(they are not on the Moon )

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?







Quite different from NASA "Sun's" Busted again

[Lilly]

Hasina, 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.

[skyeagle409]

Hasina, 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.

[skyeagle409]

trodas, 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:


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

Real Sun in space (STS mission):

( http://www.nasa.gov/...900_ys_full.jpg )

Sun from Earth:


Sun from Earth behind clouds:

(they are not on the Moon )

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?







Quite different from NASA "Sun's" Busted again

More nice lighbulb photos?!  

[trodas]

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



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!


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


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

[skyeagle409]

trodas, 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:



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!


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


( 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.



  


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.

[skyeagle409]

trodas, 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 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

•  APOLLO 14 ASTRONAUTS.jpg   32.38K   4 downloads

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

[postbaguk]

turbonium, 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.

[DONTEATUS]

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