1967 replies to this topic

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

That video was right on the mark!! It was easier to fly a man to the moon than to hoax a moon landing in 1969.

We could fake a moon landing years before 1969 -  movies proved this, beyond any doubt.

With a much bigger budget, Apollo would be simple to fake, in comparison to the smaller budget flicks.


A genuine moon landing is much much harder - it's still beyond our reach.

Over 40 years of excuses show it.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

We could fake a moon landing years before 1969 -  movies proved this, beyond any doubt.

You have been watching too many Hollywood movies because scientific means could have detected a hoax.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

A genuine moon landing is much much harder - it's still beyond our reach.

Over 40 years of excuses show it.

Well, let's take a look at what has occurred since 1969.

Quote

China publishes high-resolution full moon map

BEIJING, Feb. 6 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday published a full coverage map of the moon, as well as several high-resolution images of the celestial body, captured by the country's second moon orbiter, the Chang'e-2.

The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project.

http://news.xinhuane...c_131393210.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 08:48 AM.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

That won't work because you have proven to us that you are not interested in facts and evidence. Your previous claims have been shot down by people using facts, evidence and the laws of physics.

Here is real evidence.




And, my current flying buddy flew the Apollo 14 astronauts back to Houston after their moon flight. On another note, my flying buddy received a special invitation to Washington D.C. recently and met with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden this past Monday.

Nice little dots....so, where's the "real evidence" you told me about??  


So this must be another thing that's harder to do than a real moon landing? Just like the fake landing is harder?

Now I get it...

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Well, let's take a look at what has occurred since 1969.

So another country has discovered little dots, too?

It must be harder to photograph the landing sites than to do a real moon landing!!

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

So another country has discovered little dots, too?

A lot more than dots; Proof-positive of Apollo moon landings.





The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image.

This was an image processed by the SELENE mission instrument team from the observation data of the Apollo 15 landing site on the moon (the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium close to Hadley Rille). This is the world's first report on the detection of the "halo" through observations after the end of the Apollo program.

Through the produced three-dimensional image of the same landscape as that of the picture taken by the Apollo 15 crew, the spatial accuracy of the TC observation was verified. The three dimensional view of the TC clearly shows the layers of lava flows that erupted approximately about 3.2 billion years ago in the upper part of the Hadley Rille.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

A lot more than dots; Proof-positive of Apollo moon landings.

The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image.

This was an image processed by the SELENE mission instrument team from the observation data of the Apollo 15 landing site on the moon (the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium close to Hadley Rille). This is the world's first report on the detection of the "halo" through observations after the end of the Apollo program.

Through the produced three-dimensional image of the same landscape as that of the picture taken by the Apollo 15 crew, the spatial accuracy of the TC observation was verified. The three dimensional view of the TC clearly shows the layers of lava flows that erupted approximately about 3.2 billion years ago in the upper part of the Hadley Rille.

I see little blobs and specks - nothing more.

To call this evidence is just laughable.

Anything can be interpreted from it - how about aliens?...

It's also very easy to fake dots and blobs.

No go...

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

I see little blobs and specks - nothing more.

Of course you do because you are not knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

It was determined the landing site was that of Apollo 15, which goes to show that you are not interested in facts and evidence. So once again, you have been proven incorrect with evidence. Are you implying that Russia, China, India, Japan, Australia, and the rest of the world are lying for confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions?

Remember, you are the minority with no evidence to backup what you say.

On another note:

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 11:55 AM.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

To call this evidence is just laughable.

What is truly laughable lies in the fact that it was the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency that reported the landing site as that of Apollo 15,  and look what you posted.

Once again, you have failed to override reality, so the question is; are you going to accuse the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency of lying?

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 12:25 PM.

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 26 January 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

I understand it's your excuse to not conduct this experiment.

So if you could...have a go at it, please..

I've shown you how you can prove something to yourself. You've made it perfectly clear over the years that you don't agree with anything I have to say on Apollo, so why would you believe me now? You wouldn't. I was hoping you might believe your own eyes by doing your own experimentation. I was wrong. Meh.

Quote

Also, do you have any other examples of this happening? There should be many, no?

You asked for another example, you were shown it. Now you want many other examples, even though you refuse to believe the data that's been spoonfed to you? You can keep on pulling, Turbs, but it ain't gonna ring...

Simple scientific principles, and the available data, prove that sunlight can indeed reflect off a bright white spacesuit (fancy that!), and reflect off another surface several feet away. What you choose to believe is entirely your own prerogative, but facts are facts. Groves analysis is flawed because he didn't even address the possibility of the side of Armstrong's suit closest to the light-source being responsible for the highlight in Aldrin's boot, despite all the effort he put in to accurately determining where the light-source was. There is ample evidence to support the fact that spacesuits do reflect enough light to illuminate another surface at a distance of several feet.

Join the dots, follow the evidence, see where it leads you. What you shouldn't do, is push the evidence in the direction you would like it to go. You are coming from the angle of "I must prove at all cost that a spacesuit cannot cause the reflection seen in Aldrin's boot". Hence, you come out with woolly statements such as "It could be a slip-up in the stage lighting", or "it's a glitch", which is a poor excuse.

Yet again, this is absolutely nothing to do with discussing the evidence in a rational, objective way. It's purely to do with not losing the argument, at all costs. In other words, it boils down to ego. Your ego won't allow you to admit that Armstrong's suit could indeed reflect sunlight onto Aldrin's boot. I find that quite strange, since it would sign of strength of character to admit you were wrong. Further, admitting you were wrong does not mean you need to admit that Armstrong was indeed the first man on the moon. You could simply shift your position to say, OK, the highlight in Aldrin's boot could indeed be caused by bright light reflected off Armstrong's suit, but whose to say it isn't the bright superlight that Percy alluded to, rather than the sun? That would be the intellectually honest way out for you, which has been offered up to you on a plate, and which you refused to accept.

As I said, you're not following the evidence.

You're trying to force the evidence where you want it to go, which is something akin to herding cats: amusing for the rest of us to watch for a while, but ultimately an exercise in futility.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 26 January 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

You have been watching too many Hollywood movies because scientific means could have detected a hoax.

So true...and the Apollo movies are superb examples of that!! .

[turbonium]

postbaguk, on 26 January 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

I've shown you how you can prove something to yourself. You've made it perfectly clear over the years that you don't agree with anything I have to say on Apollo, so why would you believe me now? You wouldn't.

Yes, it's the perfect excuse for all occasions!

Making claims was never so easy.



Thank you, 'ExcuseTool 3.0' !!

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 27 January 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

So true...and the Apollo movies are superb examples of that!! .

Apollo 13 was a great movie based on a true event.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 27 January 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

Making claims was never so easy.

And since scientific facts and evidence have successfully debunked your claims, you have shown and proven to us that you are not interested in facts and evidence.

[Obviousman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would advise against trying to enagage Turbs in a rational debate. They have shown themselves to be intellectually dishonest in this area, dismissing or refusing to acknowledge clear evidence presented to them when asked for, as well as demonstrating a number of logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, argument from silence, shifting the burden of proof, equivocation, kettle logic, etc).

I, for one, don't waste my time on them anymore.