1963 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Quote

Apollo missions tracked by independent parties

Observers of all missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".[25] Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back. The NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) was a world-wide network of stations that tracked the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab missions. Most MSFN stations were only needed during the launch, Earth orbit and landing phases of the lunar missions, but three "deep space" sites with larger antennas provided continuous coverage during the trans-lunar, trans-earth and lunar mission phases.

Today, these three sites form the NASA Deep Space Network: the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Goldstone, California; the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex near Madrid, Spain; and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, in Tidbinbilla, near Canberra, Australia.

On Eagle's Wings: The Parkes Observatory's Support of the Apollo 11 Mission

Abstract

At 12:56 p.m., on Monday 21 July 1969 (AEST), six hundred million people witnessed Neil Armstrong’s historic first steps on the Moon through television pictures transmitted to Earth from the lunar module, Eagle. Three tracking stations were receiving the signals simultaneously. They were the CSIRO’s Parkes Radio Telescope, the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station near Canberra, and NASA’s Goldstone station in California.

During the first nine minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals being received by the three stations. When they switched to the Parkes pictures, they were of such superior quality that NASA remained with them for the rest of the 2-hour moonwalk. The television pictures from Parkes were received under extremely trying and dangerous conditions.

A violent squall struck the telescope on the day of the historic moonwalk.

http://www.publish.c...per/AS01038.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 August 2012 - 06:23 AM.

[turbonium]

 mrbusdriver, on 18 August 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

One photo with something that looks like a C. Tell us again why this is evidence, if not proof, of a hoax conspiracy? Why no other letters? There are tons of photos, surely they screwed up elsewhere???

And perhaps some testimony from numerous professional propmasters that would corroborate this "prop labeling" scheme as being routine would also help.

This argument is so amature, like Kaysing's billowing red exhaust smoke expectations for the LMs APS.

Why can't there be a single case of this screw-up? Or perhaps there were a few other screw-ups like that, but they detected them before they were released to the public. But one wasn't caught in time - a single 'C' rock photo.

Btw - Care to address the 'halo' issue?

[skyeagle409]

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Why can't there be a single case of this screw-up? Or perhaps there were a few other screw-ups like that, but they detected them before they were released to the public. But one wasn't caught in time - a single 'C' rock photo.

Since the original photo did not depict the letter "C," there is no argument in that respect because some of my old photos depicted similar fibers, which were not evident in my original photos.

Click on the attachment and note the fibers on the photo of my flight helment, which was a copy of the original photo and similar to the fiber contamination on the moon rock photo.

Attached Files

•  T-34 helment.jpg   7K   14 downloads

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 August 2012 - 07:01 AM.

[Czero 101]

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

A previous issue came to mind - the Apollo 15 LM and it's supposed 'halo'...

Oh look... Turbs is changing the topic again since he's lost his little pet "C Rock" discussion and is now backpedaling claiming that contacting NASA to see if he can get the information he needs wants demands would be a waste of his time:

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

 MID, on 18 August 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

It really i that simple, as is this:

What did they tell you when you called them for that "evidence"?

Disregard.
I know you didn't call them.

Why do you bleat on and on about this? It's a waste of my time, period. Get over it.

...

And on top of that... he's so desperate to change the topic, he's **SNIP** hounding someone to address the topic:

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

 mrbusdriver, on 18 August 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

One photo with something that looks like a C. Tell us again why this is evidence, if not proof, of a hoax conspiracy? Why no other letters? There are tons of photos, surely they screwed up elsewhere???

And perhaps some testimony from numerous professional propmasters that would corroborate this "prop labeling" scheme as being routine would also help.

This argument is so amature, like Kaysing's billowing red exhaust smoke expectations for the LMs APS.

Why can't there be a single case of this screw-up? Or perhaps there were a few other screw-ups like that, but they detected them before they were released to the public. But one wasn't caught in time - a single 'C' rock photo.

Btw - Care to address the 'halo' issue?

who hasn't been online since the topic has been brought up...



If he it wasn't so sad and predictable, it would be laughable....





Cz

EDITED to add the image showing Mr. B's last online time...

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 18 August 2012 - 11:56 AM.
personal attack removed.

[postbaguk]

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Not sure about other stage sets, like Hollywood. But it makes sense, placing props to lend authenticity, give continuity to any movies. Another 'C' was on the ground below the 'C' rock, which indicates it is a prop rock.

That is how you would fake lunar photos and films? In order to "give continuity to movies", you would label every single rock with a letter or combination of letters. You'd write the same letter on the ground. You'd take the photos. You'd airbrush out any letters. Then you'd make sure you put back any rocks that had been moved out of position. Then you go round and do the filming.

Seriously?

Surely a much simpler method, that would ensure continuity, is to fake it as if it was a real EVA, i.e. take the photos and the video at the same time. Continuity is assured.

Oh, and please DO explain how marking a rock with a letter, putting the same letter on the ground, and putting the rock next to the letter, "lends authenticity"!

C on the ground? Have you even bothered looking at high resolution scans? It's obviously a crack in the regolith.

Quote

I'm asking for the original, for that alone would settle this issue. But NASA won't show it to us.

You're not asking for the original. You're not asking for anything. You're refusing to ask. And if you did, what do you expect NASA to do, defrost the original, send you the original by FedEx with an RMA label once you've satisfied your curiosity?

[mrbusdriver]

Halo...are we talking about the lightened area around the LM, as seen from above, caused by the regolith disturbed during descent? It was a pretty large area, and doesn't show up in the surface pictures. Might perhaps be visible in some of the later flight pics, when they ventured further from the LM.

But, yeah, the C rock is deceased, passed on, no longer with us...it is a "late" argument...unless Turbo can bring us some propmasters who will tell us about how they would label rocks on such a set...

[MID]

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

I'm asking for the original, for that alone would settle this issue. But NASA won't show it to us.

Oh right...NASA won't show "us" that evidence.

To a more recent post.....

This, in response to me asking you once again to call them and ask for what you want (I gave you detailed instructions)

Quote

Why do you bleat on and on about this? It's a waste of my time, period. Get over it.

Ah, yes!
You ask why I bleat on (i.e., insist you call them, since they're obviously hiding the evidence), and  say it's a waste of your time.





This response shows your fear.


But your right.  It is a waste of your time.   You won't see anything on that film showing your beloved "C", just like so many people who have seen it maintain.

It's similar to your response to being asked to prove your case.

You can't, because Apollo happened as advertised, but you seem to insist that it didn't, and open yourself for another suggestion where you might learn something about that which you're obviously ignorant of.

And when you get information, you avoid it, and it's pretty obvious why you do.

You won't call NASA.  That's pretty obvious by the little-kid fear response you've just issued.
But...

...If you insist on saying innanities, like NASA's hiding "evidence", then you'll  be challenged and provided with what you seek.
I did just that for you, and now, you dare to come here and wonder why I keep asking you if you callled?

Turb,

You lost your attempt a long time ago.
You are now wasting your time, and ours.

As for getting over it; I can fully accept the fact that you're afraid to call NASA, and that you'll tell people to "get over it" who have nothing to get over, and that you'll never realize that it's YOU who will need to get over it, "it" being a combination of yourself-- your utter lack of subject matter knowledge, your gullibility in adhering to the rantings of morons, the fact that you cannot even approach proving your case one bit, and that your imaginary contructs are laughable--  and the fact, established here in the U.S., and the world over, that we actually did this amazing thing called Apollo from  Spring,  1961 Until late Autumn, 1972.


It was fun, it was challenging every day, and I guess you just had to be there, like millions of Americans and people around the world were.

But I don't think you have all too much challenge and fun.
Dreaming up the stage hands and TV monitors that should have clearly appeared in this picture--(AS12-46-6724)--taken by Pete Conrad (rest his ever outrageous soul)  somewhere around 7:00 am EST on 11-19-69 near the rim of Surveyor Crater, on the Moon--had to be no fun for you, especially since you saw them also on a TV broadcast that didn't show them, and you were called on about that, and then insisted on continuing a mindless discussion about it--as it it were true, or substantiated in the least!


No, that can't have been fun, especially the fact that you never got over it!



...and I just haven't been able to see those monitors or stage hands there.  I can't find them!



You'll just have to get over it Turb.

Sorry.

[MID]

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

I'm asking for the original, for that alone would settle this issue. But NASA won't show it to us.

You think maybe in the next week you take off, you could do something original and stop allowing old nonsense to fester so that you'll  just to post it again?

You just mentioned Rene!

I am betting you learned alot from him, didn't you?
I mean, studying with a self-taught Engineer  with ideas that came from a Vodka bottle must have been an honor, eh?
Did you buy his "book"?

[mrbusdriver]

Turbo,

There are two shots of the rock called the "C rock"...AS16-107-17445 and -17446. I would assume that somewhere there should be copies of these photo where they BOTH show the C, as one would expect if the C was actually on the rock, and not simply on one of the negatives.

Show them to us please...(and if you come back claiming they have been removed from the internet, I will squirt blood from my eyeballs all over you while my head spins!! (don't make me do this, it really, really hurts...)

[turbonium]

 MID, on 18 August 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

But your right.  It is a waste of your time.   You won't see anything on that film showing your beloved "C", just like so many people who have seen it maintain.

I "won't see anything on that film"? Don't you really mean I [i]won't see that film"?

Yes, that's really what you're saying.

And thar's why it's a waste of time. NASA has the only piece of evidence which resolves this issue. They won't show that evidence, and you see nothing wrong with that.

Then your side claims victory.

It's all so typical. Sad. Delusional.

So now, will you address the questions I raised about the 'halo', instead of avoiding it?

[skyeagle409]

 turbonium, on 19 August 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

I "won't see anything on that film"?

Putting it in another way, there is no letter "C" on the rock in the original photo.

Quote

Then your side claims victory.

What do you mean by that?! Reality was never on the side of the moon hoax folks in the first place.

Quote

Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions


Apollo 16

Dale Ireland reports observing the Apollo 16 spacecraft (CSM+LM) and S-IVB using the 12-inch f/15 Clark refractor at Jewett Observatory at Washington State University. Each was typically magnitude 11 or 12.

http://www.astr.ua.e...ace/apollo.html

_________________________________________________________________


SELENE photographs

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.

http://www.jaxa.jp/p...0_kaguya_e.html

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 August 2012 - 07:08 AM.

[Obviousman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't know why your people engage Turbo; they will not listen to anything that might force them to alter their beliefs, even if it mean accepting obviously flawed and wildly fantasic stories. Their claims are so ridiculous that it isn't even worth your time pointing out how silly they are. It's like trying to talk to John Lear: a waste of time.

[postbaguk]

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

A previous issue came to mind - the Apollo 15 LM and it's supposed 'halo'...

It's only seen in high-orbit images - Clementine, Selene, LRO

But not a single Apollo image shows this 'halo'.

That's wrong. It's clearly visible in AS15-P-9430, an Apollo panoramic image taken from orbit after the LM landed. (The halo wasn't visible in Hasselblad images taken prior to landing).

You can also spot an object casting a shadow that exactly conforms to the location of the LM, by comparison with LRO images.

http://wms.lroc.asu....ame=AS15-P-9430

That's amazing attention to detail those fakers have gone to, given that they decided to release footage of a screen flipping up revealing a startled man behind the LM, and have left the footage online for all to see!

[MID]

 turbonium, on 19 August 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

I "won't see anything on that film"? Don't you really mean I [i]won't see that film"?

Yes, that's really what you're saying.

Well, if "I" and "i" means "you", then I really wasn't saying that at all--despite the fact that it's true.

You won't see it---because you'll never ask to see it...because your afraid.

Quote

and thar's why it's a waste of time

You're right. That's why I said you were a waste of time.

Quote

. NASA has the only piece of evidence which resolves this issue. They won't show that evidence, and you see nothing wrong with that.

Nope.
First, there is no issue...only perhaps in your head, even though there shouldn't be, as it's been resolved by independent observers, as you've been shown.
The original film, I've seen, and the original prints are still available to see.
Wanna see one?  I can give you that resource too!




I gave you the number to call, and exactly what to ask for.
But you'd have to be prepared to talk to  people about your request, and why you're making it, and to go to Houston ( if anyone in the PAO is nuts enough to arrange for you to examine that MAGs priceless film!).

Quote

Then your side claims victory.

It's all so typical. Sad. Delusional.

  Indeed, Sad, and delusional, of you.

You lost your argument a long time ago.  We didn't claim victory.  We had nothing to win.  It was already done.  We won the space race.  We landed on the Moon, in July, 1969, and 5 more times between November 1969, and December, 1972.








And you appear, an upstart believer in delusional people like Rene and Kaysing, and you  make up incredibly original  nonsense, decades after we incontrovertibly executed Apollo, exactly as has been explained to you a thousand times, and speak to something we have to win?
What's delusional again?
The fact is, you don't need to see anything from NASA.  You can certainly ask (but you're afraid to do that and may well object to me asking you to do it again--as you've already done-- , probably that many times).

Quote

So now, will you address the questions I raised about the 'halo', instead of avoiding it?

Just looking at the thread this morning for a minute, it appears that I could assuredly sleep in, as our able crew here addressed your halo questions adequately, as I did long ago when you brought it up.
But I may  have something to say about that as well...

Edited by MID, 19 August 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[MID]

 turbonium, on 18 August 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Btw - Care to address the 'halo' issue?

How many times have I said that turb will spend his week off dredging up something old and re-issuing it again?
How many times have I nearly begged for him to at least use his time away to address something that even has a mild similarity to something new, and present it with just a smidgeon of logic or a wee bit of integrity???


And now he's asking people about the "halo issue"?!?!

Oh Lord...


It's just amazing.  An issue...old, tired, a reflection of his abject lack of knowledge, and completely fleshed out...


Something completely explained for him, and which many people learned some neat stuff about-- long ago.

And here it is again, as if it is an "issue".   This is just too typical turb.  You cannot realize that you are borderline trolling with these deliberate disruptions, can you?  And despite that, these good people here are explaining for you about this supposed issue, and you ignore them so as to interrogate others about it...and me???

I must've hit a nerve.
It's all too obvious you learned nothing when this non-issue was explained to you long ago.

I expected a re-hash from you about no stars in the sky in space, the stage hands on Apollo 12, and perhaps some other forgettable gems.  But, this wasn't expected.  Ity was one of the most educationsal discourses I remember being involved in.  We have some real photography  people here and they all chimed in to provide some great information.   It was probably too complicated for you, but again, a pile of folks jumped on it here before I even saw it...so nothing more needs to be repeated.

And it really doesn't matter, because you'll listen to their re-hashing of what was told you long ago, and you'll ignore it, so as to dredge it up again in the future, where you can deny the simple facts as being NASA propaganda and / or lies.


The fact is turb, I am not really certain what your issue was with a perfectly logical "halo" (imagery of disturbed dust) around the Apollo 15 landing site, save that it proved a landing took place there (which would be a significant issue for you I imagine!).
It did illustrate that you knew (probably know) nothing about the lunar environment, albedo, sun phase (just to be clear...the angle of the Sun's rays relative to the angle of the observer on the surface)and representations that were apparent on camera and to the naked eye in such variations on the Moon.


You're finished here...
Really.  You'll not address your nonsense.
You'll not learn anything.
And you'll continue the pointless disruption for your re-hashes of long ago fleshed out matters...