1957 replies to this topic

[turbonium]

Obviousman, on 08 December 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

"I’m glad to see that your comprehensive analysis of Project Apollo isn’t complicated by any knowledge of the subject.”

I can't comprehend why you'd quote me if you feel a need to bleat on aimlessly. I'd prefer you actually address my quotes should you ever post them in the future. That way, your bleating isn't complicated by any knowledge of the subject.

[flyingswan]

turbonium, on 08 December 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

We DO have experts in photo analysis who conclude Apollo was faked. Based on these experts alone, Apollo has a big problem.   

You have people like Jack White who claim photo expertise, but I'm not aware of a single person with real photogrammetry qualifications who supports you.

Just to remind you:
Mr. GOLDSMITH: Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?
Mr. WHITE: No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?
Mr. WHITE: No.

[Obviousman]

To call Jack White incompetent is being generous.

[taniwha]

A friend and self confessed photography nerd once showed me blow ups of the moon and pointed out 'fuzz / blurs' he said were air brushed bases NASA didnt want anyone to see.

Regardless it did not stop him from 'seeing' them, and for me to see them he said, all you have to do is 'stretch your imagination'

I stretched and saw not.

Many people, he explained dont understand the perplexities of photography and photoshop, the reality of what is or isnt in a photograph does not reveal itself as obvious to the inexperienced.

Excitedly he pointed out straight NAZCA type lines he had recently discovered, 'roads' as he put it, traversing the powdered surface, the detail of which was missed by the NASA airbrush employee/robot/supercomputer? but was clearly visible even to myself!

AAum,I said, arent those lines where NASA have joined together multi images to get one big picture? LOL and so it was!

'SEEING' is 'BELIEVING' and for just as many, 'BELIEVING' is 'SEEING'...

[skyeagle409]

Seems to me  the Apollo hoax folks haven't figured out why there is no evidence of moon mission hoaxes.

[turbonium]

flyingswan, on 08 December 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

You have people like Jack White who claim photo expertise, but I'm not aware of a single person with real photogrammetry qualifications who supports you.

I'm aware of two such experts who support me...


David S Percy FRSA, ARPS was born and educated in London. An Associate of the Royal Photographic Society, Percy was nominated Film Cameraman of the Year at BISFA (forerunner of the IVCA). An award winning film and television producer, Percy is a well-established professional communicator in the world of commerce, working with multi-national corporations as well as not-for-profit organisations.

http://www.aulis.com/nasaauthors.htm

From the RPS handbook...

The Royal Photographic Society Distinctions are recognised as some of the most prestigious in the photographic world. The Associateship is the second level of The Society’s Distinctions and is a significant step up from the first level, the Licentiateship. While in the Licentiateship we are looking for a basic competence and skill, to be successful at Associateship level you need to provide evidence of creative ability and the development of a personal style. You also need to be able to show that you are in complete control of the technical aspects which allows you to produce quality which is entirely ‘fit for purpose’ i.e. it suits the subject. Your work should be consistent and make a statement of a strong personal style. A high standard of presentation is expected.

http://www.rps.org/r..._5_May_2012.pdf

Dr. David Groves -

From the book Dark Moon (Percy, Bennett),...:

...Quantec Image Processing in the UK carried out a series of laboratory tests on a number of NASA photographs from 'Apollo 11'. David Groves PhD who founded Quantec is more than adequately qualified to undertake such a project. He has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and his PhD was in Holographic Computer Measurement. He is also a Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Institute of Physics.



So now you' know of two experts who supports me.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 09 December 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

So now you' know of two experts who supports me.

There are hundreds of experts who don't.

[flyingswan]

turbonium, on 09 December 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

I'm aware of two such experts who support me...

Sorry, which of those is supposed to have a qualification in photogrammetry?

As far as I can discover, Percy is just a photographer and Groves describes himself as a computer programmer.

Edited by flyingswan, 09 December 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[WWu777]

Apollo defenders claim that the flag flutters on the moon because the astronauts are twisting the pole. But in many clips, they are barely moving it at all yet the flag flutters sharply. Here is one example. As you can see, there is no twisting of the pole and very little movement, yet the corner of the flag is fluttering up sharply.



There is also video clips of the Apollo astronauts where you can see wires attached to them from above. Here are some video stills where you can see the wires attached to them.





In short, there is very little solid evidence that we went to the moon, and A LOT of evidence that we didn't. This means the evidence that the moon missions were a hoax heavily OUTWEIGH the little or no evidence that we went. People seem to only believe it out of faith, emotion and pride.

[WWu777]

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures on each side. This indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example from a famous Apollo photo of an astronaut saluting next to an American flag. Notice that the backdrop also looks like a wall that is just behind the astronaut, rather than actual scenery in the distance. And notice the distinct line between the dirt and the white layer behind it.



White carpet layer placed over dirt behind astronaut – New discovery!

New Discovery! Here is a much larger version of the above image that I want you to open in a new window and click again to zoom in on and look at closely, because it contains a NEW SMOKING GUN that I discovered! If you look at the ground behind the astronaut’s boots, you can see the edge of a WHITE LAYER placed over the dirt! It appears to be some type of carpet, canvas or ledge. You can even see the edges and creases on it at the line where it overlays the dirt! In addition, you can see that the white layer covers the part where the rover tracks end in the dirt. This is a smoking gun I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!

http://upload.wikime...2000-001114.jpg

I brought up this new discovery to David Percy of Aulis.com. He concurred with my finding:

Quote

Hi Winston,

I agree about the apparent ledge in this image. It appears to be the foremost part of the fixed area of the set as opposed to the ‘working area’, allowing footprints, tracks etc. We will add this observation to our studies next time we do an update and of course credit you with this finding.

With kind regards,

David Percy
AULIS Online

For more ironclad arguments and evidence proving the Moon Hoax, JFK assassination conspiracy, and 9/11 conspiracy, see my new Conspiracy Trilogy Report: http:///www.debunkin...onspiracies.htm

Edited by WWu777, 10 December 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[Czero 101]

Cz

[skyeagle409]

WWu777, on 10 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Apollo defenders claim that the flag flutters on the moon because the astronauts are twisting the pole. But in many clips, they are barely moving it at all yet the flag flutters sharply. Here is one example. As you can see, there is no twisting of the pole and very little movement, yet the corner of the flag is fluttering up sharply.



There is also video clips of the Apollo astronauts where you can see wires attached to them from above. Here are some video stills where you can see the wires attached to them.





In short, there is very little solid evidence that we went to the moon, and A LOT of evidence that we didn't. This means the evidence that the moon missions were a hoax heavily OUTWEIGH the little or no evidence that we went. People seem to only believe it out of faith, emotion and pride.

The flag issue has already been addressed.  Check out the video because the Apollo hoax folks have lost the flag waving argument as well and the video will provide evidence as to why they lost the argument.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 December 2012 - 04:39 PM.

[skyeagle409]

WWu777, on 10 December 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

For more ironclad arguments and evidence proving the Moon Hoax, JFK assassination conspiracy, and 9/11 conspiracy, see my new Conspiracy Trilogy Report: http:///www.debunkin...onspiracies.htm

The problem is, you visit the wrong websites. Apparently, you were unaware that some nations around the globe have tracked the Apollo moon flights and even photographed the moon landing sites and confirmed that the United States sent men to the moon. In other  words, you've allowed yourself to be duped by phony websites.

Apollo 11

Main article: Apollo 11

• The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.
  
• A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" in Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–359.
  
• The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11.
  
• Goldstone Tracking Station in California tracked Apollo 11.
  
• At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.
  
• Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module. Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the capsule communicator in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the earth.

Apollo 14

Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14

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

A very close friend of mine was on the Apollo 14 recovery crew and they flew the Apollo 14 astronauts back to Houston after their moon flight. The aircraft was a C-141 that originated from Travis AFB, which is where I was employed for many years. A crew member of that flight, and I, still fly together to this very day and he has photos of the Apollo 14 astronauts placed on the wall of his hangar at the Nut Tree airport and needless to say,  he speaks proudly of his mission to fly the astronauts back to Houston from Pago Pago.


Apollo 16

Main article: Apollo 16
Jewett Observatory at Washington State University reported sightings of Apollo 16.

Honeysuckle Creek tracked Apollo 16 and recorded the audio of the landing.
At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment.

Sternwarte Bochum Observatory in Germany tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observatory

Apollo 17

Sven Grahn describes several amateur sightings of Apollo 17.




Apollo 12 Landing Site


Surveyor 3 Camera



Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 December 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Gaden]

WWu777, on 10 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

In short, there is very little solid evidence that we went to the moon, and A LOT of evidence that we didn't. This means the evidence that the moon missions were a hoax heavily OUTWEIGH the little or no evidence that we went. People seem to only believe it out of faith, emotion and pride.

This beleif is directly proportional to how gullible a person is. Why wouldn't a flag wave? It is absolutely rediculous to think that this is evidence. If it were true that a flag wouldn't move like that on the moon, why would NASA even alow that movement to be shown?
No, the opposite is true. There is a mountain of evidence proving the truth, and absolutely NONE proving a hoax. The solution is simple. Read through some sites that are NOT devoted to the hoax beleivers.

[Gaden]

WWu777, on 10 December 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures on each side. This indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example from a famous Apollo photo of an astronaut saluting next to an American flag. Notice that the backdrop also looks like a wall that is just behind the astronaut, rather than actual scenery in the distance. And notice the distinct line between the dirt and the white layer behind it.

Of course there is a distinct line. That is the edge of the disturbed soil from the thruster blast. If there were no distinct line, then the hoax beleivers would then be saying "if they had landed, there would be a distinct line of soil disturbance".
Again, I would suggest reading some sites that don't spread these ridiculous claims.