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This topic has been archived.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

#1951    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:04 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 18 May 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

You arrogantly presume that I have any need to refute or provide any counter-argument to the willfully ignorant, kindergarten-level conspiracy theory tripe you continue to regurgitate here... ?

lol... :rofl:

It was an observation, and a correct one at that, about the level of hypocrisy you present when you talk about other people running and hiding from dealing with you, when you, Turbs, are the master of running and hiding when the discussion gets to tough for you and your limited set of predefined answers is no longer relevant. How long has it been since you've addressed the questions you left unanswered at the Apollo Hoax board? 4 years? Longer perhaps?

Please, Turbs... get over yourself. You're not that important, but you are still good for a laugh now and then....



Same old garbage - you say I don't answer questions, while never supporting that claim with any examples of it. You bring it up every time you see your side avoiding my questions, of course.

Your juvenile tactics went stale long ago.


#1952    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:30 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Here's my post with your bolding:
flyingswan, on 04 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:
You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA.  Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up.  I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying.

Here's the actual thread:
http://www.unexplain...c=113834&st=405
You say "mostly tongue in cheek" in post #406.
I query the specific quote in post #407.
You admit making it up in post #408.
I accuse you of trolling in post #409.
Waspie says you have effectively admitted to lying in post #410.

Where in my bolded claim is there any inaccuracy?

You left out the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF POST #406!!

Once more, I'll spell it out for you. Let's start with your recap of my post

"You say "mostly tongue in cheek" in post #406."

I did say that it was "mostly meant to be tongue in cheek", for sure.

Now, what else did I say in that post? Do you know? I said it right after the part about tongue-in-cheek..

My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

Now, read the following very carefuly... the most important part is in large font...

""Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said.....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Now, that one should have clued you in!!


You're much too serious these days, my old friend...."



Okay, now. Do you understand what I said in the passage with large font?

I'm pointing out the quote, do you see that?

Do you see why I'm pointing it out?

I was explaining how the quote was meant to be taken - as tongue-in-cheek. Not serious, in other words.


Do you have any questions about what I've told you here?


#1953    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:42 AM

One more thing to help you out..

Do you see where I said "Now, that one should have clued you in!!"??

The "one" refers to the quote. To wit --- "Now, that quote (that one) should have clued you in!!"

What should the quote have clued him in about?

Yes! It should have clued him in that it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek!!


Quite simple to grasp my point now, isn't it?


#1954    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:51 AM

So in post #406, I'm pointing out the quote was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I specifically point out the quote, as well as "running on fumes" were meant in jest.

In the NEXT post, #407, you query me about the quote I'd already said was meant in jest.

I hope this is getting through to you, because I've tried everything possible to help you out...


#1955    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,848 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:47 AM

So you DID lie. Glad we cleared that point up.


#1956    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 18 May 2013 - 11:32 AM

View PostObviousman, on 18 May 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

So you DID lie. Glad we cleared that point up.

No, you lied right now


#1957    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,298 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009

Posted 18 May 2013 - 11:49 AM

OK, I'm back, although it's late here, so there will probably another delay before I get any teeth into those images...  I've taken a quick look at them, and to be entirely fair I haven't looked at any prior debunking of these images if such exists - I can't be much fairer (or braver!) than that.  I'll be happy to work through an analysis from first principles of photogrammetry, but with a few provisos, see below..

Initially I'll just make a couple of comments - First up, I don't see any immediate 'anomaly', just three images that show slightly overlapping areas of the background mountains.  The images are very clearly taken from different places, and at different angles - I don't think anyone would dispute that?  So I presume the question in Spinebreaker's mind is why the foregrounds look different, yet the backgrounds look (sorta) the same..

The key here will relate to the stuff already brought forward, namely the lack of atmospheric clues to the distances involved to the background and the simple fact is that the background *does* in fact change - if you look carefully you will easily see that this is definitely no 'painted backdrop'!  The next step would be to examine the images carefully for all the clues to where the images were taken (eg terrain features, rocks, etc plus an examination of the Lunar Surface Journals and maps of lunar surface activity will probably help), and see if we can align/identify features in such as a way as to nail down where each shot was taken in relation to the other.  Then by examining the fore-, mid- and back-ground features, we can see if they are consistent with the camera locations and angles.

As I said, I haven't looked to see if these particular images have been analysed this way before - I know that at least one such analysis does exist (but on a different set of images - see below).  Like I said, I'm happy to proceed and see where we end up but before doing so, I would like to ask Spinebreaker two questions:

1. Where did you come upon these images initially?  I presume you weren't just browsing through every image in the Apollo gallery..

2. Are you willing to properly and fairly engage in the debate and go through a process where each step of the analysis is agreed upon as being valid and accepted, right up to the final conclusion?

If that isn't going to happen, then I'm not sure the effort is warranted...

In the meantime, interested readers might like to take a look here, where a similar 'anomaly' (but from another Apollo mission) was raised at Abovetopsecret:
http://www.abovetops...ead566601/pg449
Scroll down to the excellent post by JRA, that contains animated overlays of two images that are rather like the ones raised here.  Those images very clearly show:
- that the backgrounds do vary slightly, and that it is very obviously a true 3-dimensional scene
- that the foregrounds vary drastically, as the shots were taken from different locations
- the the mountains are in fact quite distant, despite 'looking close' due to the lack of atmosphere

I think those images demonstrate the effects very well indeed - the Moon is nothing like the earth, and using earthly techniques to apply 'common sense' just won't work.  You have to use REAL analytical techniques that take into account the environment and how it changes the appearance of imagery. Yes, it's rocket science!

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#1958    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:44 PM

View Postturbonium, on 18 May 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Do you have any questions about what I've told you here?
What has any of that to do with my quote that you bolded because you claimed it was false?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1959    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 18 May 2013 - 08:23 PM

"YES" :alien: :tu:  for the last time

This is a Work in Progress!

#1960    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 19 May 2013 - 05:30 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

What has any of that to do with my quote that you bolded because you claimed it was false?

Once again, here's what you said....

"You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA.  Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up.  I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying."


Now, let's revise your passage by adding the relevant point I made in my post, and you'll see the problem..It's the part bolded below.....

"You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA.  Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. You specifically pointed out that the quote was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up.  I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying."

So now,do you understand that there was absolutely no reason for you to query the specific quote, since I had already pointed out the quote was meant to be tongue-in-cheek?

Let me break it down further, so it's crystal clear.

You said.....

"At that point I queried the specific quote.."

For you to say you queried the specific quote "at that point" was disingenuous, since I had already explained the quote was meant in jest - that it wasn't meant to be serious or genuine. You had no reason to see it as something meant to be genuine.  

Let's continue with the next part ..

"...and you admitted that you had made it up..".

Nonsense..There was nothing to be "admitted" to, I had already explained the quote was meant in jest. For you to claim I "admitted" to making it up impies there was deception on my part. That is completely false.

Next you said..

"I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying."

We'll let Waspie answer for his accusation that I lied, and focus on your accusation...

You accused me of trolling, which I've proven is blatantly false. I was completely forthright in saying the quote was meant in jest, so your accusing me of trolling was complete nonsense.


Are you a mature adult? Will you finally own up to your false accusations?.  

.

Edited by turbonium, 19 May 2013 - 05:33 AM.


#1961    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 19 May 2013 - 06:34 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 18 May 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

"YES" :alien: :tu:  for the last time

Sending men to the moon was an exciting time for mankind.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1962    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:14 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 May 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Sending men to the moon was an exciting time for mankind.

We were quite naive. Ignorance is bliss, as they say!


#1963    shrooma

shrooma

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,985 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:43 AM

well, i'm glad this thread hasn't descended into pointless bickering & petty name-calling guys, keep up the good work......
*insert sarcastic smileyface here*

"Get off your knees, the party's over."
.
-How do you sleep-
The Stone Roses.

#1964    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 19 May 2013 - 10:19 AM

View Postturbonium, on 18 May 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Quite simple to grasp my point now, isn't it?
Does the fact that you've had to repost this so often give you even the tiniest hint that it was poorly phrased in the first place?

View Postturbonium, on 19 May 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Will you finally own up to your false accusations?
I've presented the actual interchange and I'll let others judge for themselves which of us has been making false accusations, both in the original thread and more recently here:

View Postturbonium, on 11 May 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

You also said that I included some genuine quotes in the same post - that was another false claim, no?
Do you want to stand by it , or admit that you made it up?

View Postturbonium, on 12 May 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

You don't even remember your own posts, obviously, since you DID say it.,

You falsely accused me of something, forget you did, and make yet another false accusation! Now, that's quite something!
before finally admitting it:

View Postturbonium, on 16 May 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

You're right, it was Waspie's post.


"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1965    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:46 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 19 May 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Does the fact that you've had to repost this so often give you even the tiniest hint that it was poorly phrased in the first place?
I've presented the actual interchange and I'll let others judge for themselves which of us has been making false accusations, both in the original thread and more recently here:
before finally admitting it:

The most SHOCKING thing I have ever read!!! :o

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX