Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Waspie_Dwarf

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

2,594 posts in this topic

I don't think you're getting my point.

In a field, you can see some patches of grass are lighter and others darker, but it takes the aerial view to show that some, but not all, of the darker patches outline a building's foundations.

On the moon, you can see that some parts of the surface are lighter and others darker, but it takes the orbital view to show that some, but not all, of the lighter patches combine to form a halo around the LM.

In both cases, the variation seen close up swamps the overall pattern which can only be seen from above. Your claim that if it's visible from above then it's visible close-up is incorrect.

The "overall pattern" of an area is lighter than the surrounding area. From orbit, the entire area appears lighter than the surrounding area. And it has a distinct boundary. And it's the boundary that defines it as completely different than the darker area surrounding it.

And that boundary is distinctly seen from close range, or from orbit. The "overall pattern" of the area is lighter than the "overall pattern" of the surrounding area. You don't have to be in orbit to see that. It will be quite noticeable from close range.

Another point - it is not just distinct because it is lighter, like your lighter/darker patches of grass analogy. In that case, the grass blades are the same physically. The only difference is their shade

But the lunar area is a genuine physical disturbance. It has a different physical composition than the surrounding area. And that's what makes it appear lighter than the area surrounding it. So even if it wasn't lighter, it would still have a different physical appearance. Indeed, the ONLY way to see the different physical composition of that area is from close range. From orbit, it just looks lighter than the rest of the surface. But it has an actual physical difference, and that would make it even more distinct, more noticeable, from close range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is MID's quote, again...

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times, then it's just fictional."

Maybe you should take your own advice, and "look at what MID said IN CONTEXT",

First up you STILL didn't cite the post.

CQ1. Do you seriously not understand what that word means, or are you deliberately attempting to misdirect the forum?

Please consider that a 'formal' question - I will keep repeating these numbered questions until you answer them properly..

Anyway, yes, I have looked at it. And, for a start, I see the words 'SEE IT', followed by the word 'CLEARLY'.

IN CONTEXT, the word "clearly" seems to mean 'obviously'.

To you, of course it would. But surely the words immediately before it, namely SEE IT, might just suggest that he is referring to seeing it clearly, rather than seeing it indistinctly. The word DUH seems to be appropriate here. In other words it is not an absolute - he is just pointing out that you won't see it clearly in CERTAIN images. And that is correct. Unlike a simpleton who thinks in black and white and absolutes, MID knows that in SOME images, especially close range images, the halo effect won't be visible. You need to consider all the relevant information. Why is it that you are NOT WILLING TO DEBATE THE TOPIC FULLY? And why are MID's words so important to you - can't you simply use your own logic to address issues? Or is that you are absolutely desperate to find any sort of 'contradiction' that you can try to make mileage of, even when such 'contradictions' are only in your misinformed world-view?

Here's a VERY simple challenge for you.

Answer the following question, which is ABSOLUTELY key to understanding the visibility of anything (yes, ANYTHING) in an image. It's a really simple question, and should only take about 30 seconds to answer - there aren't all that many factors. Let's see how you go:

CQ2. What are ALL of the factors that affect the visibility of any feature in a photographic image?

I've even made it easy for you - up above in various posts, I've told you the answers. So, LIST THEM OFF, and we'll start the debate. Are you afraid to do that? If you don't, I will go ahead without you - and you won't be living that down...

And even if it's meant in the way you suggest..

Aha - a concession. So we'll consider that silly claim withdrawn, then. Yep, I can play games too - but I'd rather debate issues fully and comprehensively - how about you?.

I'm obviously referring to the so-called 'halo' phenomenon. How do YOU expect to be taken seriously, if you don't even know what our common talking points are?.Sheesh.

CQ3. Do you admit that the disturbance IS visible in SOME photos at reasonably close range? And in MANY photos at long range?

(Be VERY careful with that question, Turb...) BTW, 'halo' is a VERY poor descriptor - did you come up with that term?

Please answer all the questions, Turbonium. Properly. They won't be going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was a fake scene, turb, how did John Young do this???

On Earth, 1 g, a 180+ pound suit and PLSS strapped to him, and he jumped a foot and a half off the ground! How'd he get that 300 pounds up off the ground like that???

Same way as Peter Pan appears to be flying above a stage. Wires.

And yes, it was easy to make the wires 'disappear' from view. It was already being done in old sci-fi movies, well before the Apollo project began.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh...looks like someone forgot to show evidence for a claim!! So if it's not too much trouble...

Well, you have been asked to provide evidence of a Apollo moon hoaxes and you have been having trouble providing such evidence. and one reason why you have been unable to provide such evidence is because no evidence exist.

The moon hoax folks are in the same boat as those who continue to claim the earth is flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same way as Peter Pan appears to be flying above a stage. Wires.

And yes, it was easy to make the wires 'disappear' from view. It was already being done in old sci-fi movies, well before the Apollo project began.

Sounds like the fantasy stage of the moon hoax folks, and apparently you didn't catch the hint when it was revealed to you that the Apollo landing sites have been photographed. In other worlds, you, and the other moon hoax folks have lost the case already.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same way as Peter Pan appears to be flying above a stage. Wires.

And yes, it was easy to make the wires 'disappear' from view. It was already being done in old sci-fi movies, well before the Apollo project began.

GOTCHA!

wires!

Already done in old sci fi movies before Apollo eh?

Show me that, but more importantly,

Show me the wires in this picture! After all, they should be visible clearly in a color photo taken by a 70mm Hasselbelad 500 camera!!!

C'mon. show me a wire (no, not the OPS antemnna clearly visible), but the wires that suspended this 300+ pound fellow...!

Oh, well, I know, there aren't any!

:w00t: ...see ya turb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, good ole gort

G ot

O nly

R ejected

T estimony

Sorry, it took me all of 5 seconds to come up with this acronym, but, it fits.

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbs,

I know you have trouble with this whole evidence / burdon of proof concept, so I'll summarise it for you.

1. You claimed NASA controlled the ground tracking stations (you may have mentioned Honeysuckle; I can't recall).

2. I pointed out that this was not true in Australia, that although they were built to support Apollo (and Mercury and Gemini before them), the stations were owned by the Australian government, and run predomonently by Australian government - not NASA - employees and contractors from the private sector. I gave official references for this as well as other confirmation from the Honeysuckle website as well as from reference books about Carnarvon.

3. You gave a link to a NASA document and said it confirmed what you said.

4. I asked you to point out where in the document it supported your claim.

5. You gave quotes which not only did not support your claim but actually supported what I had previously said: that they had been run by Australians to support the Apollo missions.

If you ever want to win an arguement, you have to get this proof thing sorted out, okay?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been mentioned to Turbs.

But if he is implying that the moon landing was staged in a studio here on earth.

Anyone mention that the moon sand/regolith cannot act the way it did when being pushed out by the tires of the buggy in the kind of gravity found here on earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been mentioned to Turbs.

But if he is implying that the moon landing was staged in a studio here on earth.

Anyone mention that the moon sand/regolith cannot act the way it did when being pushed out by the tires of the buggy in the kind of gravity found here on earth?

Oh he's been told several times about that and pretty much everything else that proves how wrong he constantly is with his theories.

Turbs just seems to have a forcefield around him that makes him impervious to facts and evidence and keeps him safe and happy in his own delusional, willfully ignorant little world.

Cz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is MID's quote, again...

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times, then it's just fictional."

Maybe you should take your own advice, and "look at what MID said IN CONTEXT",

Translation:

Maybe you should take advice, and look at what MID said in MY CONTEXT...

It helps me when someone falls for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been mentioned to Turbs.

But if he is implying that the moon landing was staged in a studio here on earth.

Anyone mention that the moon sand/regolith cannot act the way it did when being pushed out by the tires of the buggy in the kind of gravity found here on earth?

I am sure many times Raptor...

I've done it in some depth...long ago. But, people like turb ignore such things for their illusions!

They don't understand the desire to do it.

They don't understand dedication.

They don't understand the trainng.

They don't understand the SaturnIB and V.

They don't understand the lauch into LEO, TLI, TPD, or translunar coast, the ecliptic plane, mid-course correction, and LOI.

The don't understand orbital maneuvering.

They don't understand flying in space at all.

They can't understand the basic principals of the Lunar Module.

They don't understand how six men ciould've flown one of these things down, and (!) LANDED IT ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON!!!!

Most of them don't understand how it could fly in space! They think it was never tested!...

...I know, that last one sounds impossible, but it's not. These people think that the LM should've been test landed on Earth!... :w00t: Can you imagine that???...Getting a 35,000 pound non aerodynamic craft off the ground here on Earth with a 10,000 pound thrust engine? :innocent: / :clap: ....

Believe it, this pure space ship has been discussed in exactly that fashion here by HBs.

It gets embarrasing when I think of this again.

Edited by MID
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First up you STILL didn't cite the post.

CQ1. Do you seriously not understand what that word means, or are you deliberately attempting to misdirect the forum?

Someone here is not understanding,

Recall my post, and your reply?... .

MID said..

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo"

Turbonium, CITE your quotes. CITE YOUR QUOTES. Not doing so is intellectual laziness at it's worst, and is the usual methodology of those who would deceive and misinform.

Cite:

1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority

2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite

So, I did cite MID's quote.

You seem to know it, because you've changed your request - first it was a quote, and now it's a post.

Clearly, you should try answering your own question....

Anyway, yes, I have looked at it. And, for a start, I see the words 'SEE IT', followed by the word 'CLEARLY'.

To you, of course it would. But surely the words immediately before it, namely SEE IT, might just suggest that he is referring to seeing it clearly, rather than seeing it indistinctly. The word DUH seems to be appropriate here. In other words it is not an absolute - he is just pointing out that you won't see it clearly in CERTAIN images. And that is correct. Unlike a simpleton who thinks in black and white and absolutes, MID knows that in SOME images, especially close range images, the halo effect won't be visible. You need to consider all the relevant information. Why is it that you are NOT WILLING TO DEBATE THE TOPIC FULLY? And why are MID's words so important to you - can't you simply use your own logic to address issues? Or is that you are absolutely desperate to find any sort of 'contradiction' that you can try to make mileage of, even when such 'contradictions' are only in your misinformed world-view?

Just ignore the "..not visible.." part! Pretend it's not really there. Let;s move along, folks!

It is there. You know it. So deal with it.

CQ2. What are ALL of the factors that affect the visibility of any feature in a photographic image?

I've even made it easy for you - up above in various posts, I've told you the answers. So, LIST THEM OFF, and we'll start the debate. Are you afraid to do that? If you don't, I will go ahead without you - and you won't be living that down...

It's your own list, maybe you are afraid of showing your own work? Scary list, eek!

CQ3. Do you admit that the disturbance IS visible in SOME photos at reasonably close range? And in MANY photos at long range?

Only the images from orbit. Not any of the images (claimed) from the lunar surface, ie: close-range.

BTW, 'halo' is a VERY poor descriptor - did you come up with that term?

No. That term came from your pro-Apollo side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the images from orbit. Not any of the images (claimed) from the lunar surface, ie: close-range.

No. That term came from your pro-Apollo side.

NASA's Apollo Landing Sites Will Be Protected

Last week, the Google Lunar X Prize Foundation announced that it will recognize the guidelines NASA has established to protect historic sites on the moon.

For the 26 teams currently vying for the prize, this means their attempts to land on and rove around the moon have to stay clear of the Apollo landing sites. After all, it’s not just technological relics that rest on the surface; there's a human record tied into those sites, too.

http://news.discover...tes-120528.html

Apollo 14

201px-Apollo_14-insignia.png

Apollo 14 was the eighth manned mission in the United States Apollo program, and the third to land on the Moon. It was the last of the "H missions", targeted landings with two-day stays on the Moon with two lunar EVAs, or moonwalks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_14

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is evidence, or analysis of evidence, about Moon landings that does not come from either NASA, the U.S. government (the first party), or the Apollo Moon landing hoax theorists (the second party). This evidence serves as independent confirmation of NASA's account of the Moon landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOTCHA!

wires!

Already done in old sci fi movies before Apollo eh?

Show me that, but more importantly,

Show me the wires in this picture! After all, they should be visible clearly in a color photo taken by a 70mm Hasselbelad 500 camera!!!

C'mon. show me a wire (no, not the OPS antemnna clearly visible), but the wires that suspended this 300+ pound fellow...!

The 1950 movie 'Destination Moon', up to Kubrick's '2001', several films of that period were hiding wires - before Apollo 11.

http://zipcon.net/~swhite/docs/filum/sci-fi2.html

You really think a photo couldn't edit out wires in 1969, but a low-budget 1950 sci-fi flick could???

Well, I guess you do.

So it's your turn to show evidence, hmm..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1950 movie 'http://zipcon.net/~swhite/docs/filum/sci-fi2.html

You really think a photo couldn't edit out wires in 1969, but a low-budget 1950 sci-fi flick could???

Well, I guess you do.

So it's your turn to show evidence, hmm..

Apollo 16 Ultraviolet photographs

603px-Apollo-16-LOGO.png

Long-exposure photos were taken with a special far-ultraviolet camera by Apollo 16 on 21 April 1972 from the surface of the Moon. Some of these photos show the Earth with stars from the Capricornus and Aquarius constellations in the background.

The joint Belgian/British/Dutch satellite TD-1 later scanned the sky for stars that are bright in UV light. The TD-1 data obtained with the shortest passband is a close match for the Apollo 16 photographs

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbs,

I know you have trouble with this whole evidence / burdon of proof concept, so I'll summarise it for you.

1. You claimed NASA controlled the ground tracking stations (you may have mentioned Honeysuckle; I can't recall).

2. I pointed out that this was not true in Australia, that although they were built to support Apollo (and Mercury and Gemini before them), the stations were owned by the Australian government, and run predomonently by Australian government - not NASA - employees and contractors from the private sector. I gave official references for this as well as other confirmation from the Honeysuckle website as well as from reference books about Carnarvon.

3. You gave a link to a NASA document and said it confirmed what you said.

4. I asked you to point out where in the document it supported your claim.

5. You gave quotes which not only did not support your claim but actually supported what I had previously said: that they had been run by Australians to support the Apollo missions.

So it's "run" by Australians? If you mean by operating some controls they "run" it. But NASA controls it, period.

NASA feeds in signals to Aussie tracking station, data is processed, and it's sent off to NASA...

Who is in control? NASA.

It's a NASA project, not an Aussie one.

NASA says a simulation will be run, and NASA sends signals to the Aussie tracking station.

NASA says a real mission will be run, and NASA sends signals to the Aussie tracking station.

And the Aussies at the tracking station have no way of knowing sim from 'real'.

Only NASA knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been mentioned to Turbs.

But if he is implying that the moon landing was staged in a studio here on earth.

Anyone mention that the moon sand/regolith cannot act the way it did when being pushed out by the tires of the buggy in the kind of gravity found here on earth?

The very same behavior, but in slow-mo. We'd notice a vast difference if it was genuine lunar soil. And we certainly don't see that in the Apollo footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite obvious this alleged 'halo' phenomenon doesn't hold up.

It isn't found in any scientific documents, nor do any articles mention it. It's only found here on this thread.

Tis only found in one's dreams, methinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tis only found in one's dreams, methinks.

Dreaming is what Apollo moon hoaxers are guilty of doing.

It's quite obvious this alleged 'halo' phenomenon doesn't hold up.

Japanese Lunar Probe Confirms Apollo Missions

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

Images from he Indian Space Agency’s Chandrayaan-1 Spacecraft

Comparison of the various instrument cameras on the probe:

Comparisonview.jpg

SELENE photographs

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings. On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3-D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 meters.

  • 119px-Apollo_15_with_lunar_rover.jpg
    Apollo 15 rover
  • 119px-Apollo15_Moon_photo.jpg
    Apollo 15 photo
  • 120px-JAXA_Moon_photo.jpg
    The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of manned landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo Program.

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very same behavior, but in slow-mo. We'd notice a vast difference if it was genuine lunar soil. And we certainly don't see that in the Apollo footage.

Existence and age of Moon rocks

A total of 382 kilograms (842 lb) of Moon rocks and dust were collected during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions.

Some 10 kg (22 lb) of the Moon rocks have been destroyed during hundreds of experiments performed by both NASA researchers and planetary scientists at research institutions unaffiliated with NASA. These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica

Apollo Photographs

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories.

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

Apollo 12

300px-Surveyor3camera.jpg

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

Paul Maley reports several sightings of the Apollo 12 Command Module. 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

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's "run" by Australians? If you mean by operating some controls they "run" it. But NASA controls it, period.

NASA feeds in signals to Aussie tracking station, data is processed, and it's sent off to NASA...

Who is in control? NASA.

Observers of all missions

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". 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

China

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.

Spain

The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11

Larry Baysinger

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.

Germany

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.

Japan

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

Australia

Several other Australian sites which are no longer part of the Deep Space Network were also involved in relaying Apollo lunar transmissions.

The deep space (lunar) tracking station was originally Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station. Carnarvon Tracking Station was one of the smaller and more numerous MSFN sites used primarily to support the near-earth segments of Apollo missions, though it also relayed data from the ALSEP lunar surface experiments.

Due to its location on Australia's west coast, Carnarvon played a special role in the Apollo trans lunar injection and atmospheric reentry phases. Deakin Switching Centre routed the Apollo television broadcasts

India

Indian satellite confirmed US moon landing: scientist

India's first lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax, the country's state-run space agency said Wednesday.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news171102159.html#jCp

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think a photo couldn't edit out wires in 1969, but a low-budget 1950 sci-fi flick could???

Well, I guess you do.

So it's your turn to show evidence, hmm..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX5fICBmn6I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's "run" by Australians? If you mean by operating some controls they "run" it. But NASA controls it, period.

NASA feeds in signals to Aussie tracking station, data is processed, and it's sent off to NASA...

Who is in control? NASA.

It's a NASA project, not an Aussie one.

NASA says a simulation will be run, and NASA sends signals to the Aussie tracking station.

NASA says a real mission will be run, and NASA sends signals to the Aussie tracking station.

And the Aussies at the tracking station have no way of knowing sim from 'real'.

Only NASA knows it.

Thank you for confirming once and for all that you have *Snip* not read the document you provided as evidence for your position, the very same document that contains extensive details on how the equipment was installed and tested and how simulations were run.

*Snip*

Cz

Edited by Karlis
Deleted derogatory comments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1950 movie 'http://zipcon.net/~swhite/docs/filum/sci-fi2.html

You really think a photo couldn't edit out wires in 1969, but a low-budget 1950 sci-fi flick could???

Well, I guess you do.

So it's your turn to show evidence, hmm..

I asked you to show the the evidence of wires in the Apollo footage or on a photo.

This isn't an answer. It is more of your boring litany about things you know nothing about!

Watch the film posted above and re-learn something again.

It's actually kind of comical in places, as is the idea of "wires" being used on the Moon.

And, I need show no evidence of anything. But, you most certainly need to produce lots of it, to support your claim that this thing was faked.

You haven't really posted anything yet along those lines.

I know you won't, because that stuff doesn't exist.

But do watch that film. The re-education will only help.

That's as much as we can hope for. A little humor is worth it!

And it's always enjoyment watching Geno and Jack out there (it was 40 years ago and it still is today!)

This discussion of yours I understand is a way of avoiding your real burden here, Wires on suits that never existed...?

:w00t: ...Maybe you'll tell me, since I know something about wires, and cables, how you'd find a wire that could lift and articulately move a man weighing in at over 300 lbs, and still be invisible (the Apollo videos, films, and photos show absolutely no evidence of any structures or procedures used to hide things. This of course, being because they'd need 2 150lb. test cables, each being about 0.0625 in. in diameter minimum. Stainless steel cables? 7 strand, or 49 strand, shiny silver reflec tive cables Invisible???

Yea, right Turb.

Cable_seals_Steel_wire_seals.jpg

And where do you see any evidence of that stuff below...just a few places where you'd have to see it:

5875.jpg

6729.jpg

20384.jpg

Where are the cables?

Any evidence of their hook ups to the suits?

Of course you can't see them. Not because they've been mystically erased from the images, but because they didn't exist, as didn't the people above Geno there, that would've been necessary, nor the equipment necessary...can't see that anywhere either....

The only things there were Moon dirt and rocks, astronauts, an advanced LRV,a LM, and a flag, with something only possible to photograph on the surface of the Moon...

...THE EARTH IN THE DARK SKY ABOVE.

And by the way the sky is dark black because there's no atmosphere out in space, no clouds, no blue sky...makes for some really detailed photos. Thought you'd like to know.

Maybe you'd want to ask to meet with Gene Cernan when you call NASA and ask about that evidence you need from them?

Maybe you'd like to tell him he faked the whole thing?

600px-AS17-145-22224.jpg..the man stands inside the LM, after midnight EST on December 14, 1972. Try to deny his accomplishmnts and he'll make you look very poorly!

This man would make you into a thin sauce for suggesting that what he SACRIFICED A DECADE OF HIS LIFE FOR WAS A FAKE.... :no::clap::no:

But fret not. I wouldn't even suggest such a thing, despite the fact that it would be fun watching.

But if Al Shepard was alive?

Whoo, I know you'd never have the guts to challenge him. Death would be swift and sure, if that's any consolation! :clap:

alan_shepard.jpgOne of the nicest guys around, but you just didn't screw with him. The boss just wouldn't tolerate that kind of stuff. It would've been fun to watch him dismantle you! :tsu: _____________________________________________________________________________

OK, this issue is now over...again.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.