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 agree, and that is why I stopped responding to them when they displayed their dishonesty regarding the ground tracking stations. Evidence was provided and they completely - and I believe deliberately - misinterpret documents and claim they are right. At that stage I saw no point in trying to debate an issue with someone who will simply ignore any inconvenient facts and distort reality.

I agree. He has ignored evidence and dismissed facts and evidence and from this point on, I see no reason to respond to him at all.

A few more Parkes FACTS:

  • The Parkes radio telescope was first proposed by Australia's CSIRO in the early 50's, and the design contract was developed from 1956 - 1959.
  • Britain's Barnes Wallis (of 'DamBusters' fame) was responsible for a significant part of the telescope's design, including some quite radical engineering concepts.
  • The company that built it was the same company that built the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
  • It was completed in 1961.
  • Its development was not owned or funded in any way by NASA.
  • Because of its remarkable success, NASA used the same design for its own Deep Space Network of radio-telescopes.
  • NASA paid the CSIRO/Parkes a fee of $3500 per day, plus a one off fee of $15000 for equipment required for receiving the Apollo signals, in order to use the Parkes telescope when it became clear that their own network wasn't going to be ready in time.
  • Parkes is still using the same dish and mechanism, even though much of the electrics and electronics have been replaced/upgraded multiple times.
  • It still welcomes visitors, and is an awesome sight when approaching it - it really is pretty much in the middle of a sheep paddock...
  • Despite the fact that officially, the CSIRO denies it ever happens, I have it on very good authority that both cricket and tennis were played on The Dish in the 60's (taps nose knowingly).

Sources:

Building the Parkes Telescope (CSIRO)

Parkes Observatory Fact Sheet (PDF)

My own knowledge..

BTW, I visit this remarkable place periodically when I 'commute' from Brisbane to Adelaide. May I thoroughly recommend the excellent film "The Dish" to those interested - it is not exactly historically correct in a number of ways (there was no power failure and they didn't 'lose' the Moon or fake the Neil Armstrong conversation!), but is a wonderfully quirky comedy that captures the feel of Australian country towns in the late 60's. It's a heartwarming film that gives an idea of just what those historic times were like and how proud the Aussies were to be involved.

Thanks! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You first asked me...

I told you it was done with wires.

You asked me where the wires are in some Apollo photos and images.

I told you the wires were edited out of them.

Now, if you consider that to be "mystically erased", you clearly need a reality check.

I've shown you that wires have been edited out of films since 1950. What is so 'mystical' about it??!?

You can't see wires because they remove them in the editing process . Whether it's a low-budget 1950 sci-fi flick, or it's a big-budget 1968 sci-fi movie, or it's Apollo-era photos/film clips....the wires are removed by editing.

It would be called sorcery, or 'mystical' - in 17th century England. A primitive tribe may believe it's a gift from the gods.

But what is your excuse for it?

Oh, me?

I just realized you'd said something.

What's my excuse for "it" (I guess the wires not appearing in the films and photos)?

Well, I don't have an excuse for anything. I did this stuff, and I know there were no wires in place, ever, anywhere in space flight imaging (so do all the men who took the photos and films, and all the men pictured in those films and photos).

It's been explained to you in detail time and again how gravity works, and how, if your "wires" :w00t: were actually there, how you'd have been able to see their effects. Those effects oddly never appear in the films made, and, the "wires" don't either, just as they didn't on the original video broadcasts.

Your excuse is nothing: that they used wires, and of course, hid them....as we've been doing in movies since 1950.

It's almost worthless attempting to teach you anything, and it's worthless talking about your nonsensical, elementary school mental creations.

I can say this though: IF you applied yourself to science and mathematics as we all did way back in the couple decades before Apollo, you'd could actually talk about something here and have an ear listen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You first asked me...

I told you it was done with wires.

You asked me where the wires are in some Apollo photos and images.

I told you the wires were edited out of them.

Yes, and you were utterly wong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you here - at close-range, the larger shape isn't seen. It is seen only from high above.

But you DO see it from close-range, one part of it, and that's the point I'm making. Maybe you see a line or two, going off at an angle. But it's still a part of the feature, and it's seen.

Just like a physical feature would be seen on the moon from close-range.

:w00t: ...trying to convince people that you actually know something about lunar surface photography is not a really good idea! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm referring to the 'halo' phenomenon. We're not disputing whether or not the 'halo' is in images from orbit. It is. The issue is how the 'halo' is not seen in the close-up Apollo images, and even the claims it is seen do not hold. They do not match up with the 'halo' feature seen in the orbit images.

And I still wait for any source which explains this phenomenon actually exists. So?

Yes, that was pretty much a big part of that which you've never actually answered:

So what?

Who cares much about halos here, and how is such a naturally occurring thing seen to be significant to your idea on this stread--that the Moon landings were faked !! :cry::no::w00t::td: (yeeeaaah?!)?

But gee...The halos wouldn't be there if we hadn't landed on the Moon. Indeed, they're there because we landed on the Moon.

Just wondred if you'd ever considered that rather obvious fact as you make this stuff up, and deliberately igore what you've been given on it.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it boggles the mind,Too think anyone on this world dosnt understand that we did land on the Moon,walk and bring back rocks from the Moon,take thousands of photos from the Moon,and actually have said actual proof of the the entire event,Well Its just insane ! It just goes to show you that some people are not quite all there on this Rock !

I say to these people,waist not others time with your inability to research,and enjoy the Real world. Better fine a dark cave to live your days out in ! It wont let you see the Light of Reality ! :tu:

p.s. And you will miss out on the Best Texas B.B.Q ever by doing so ! :whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it boggles the mind,Too think anyone on this world dosnt understand that we did land on the Moon,walk and bring back rocks from the Moon,take thousands of photos from the Moon,and actually have said actual proof of the the entire event,Well Its just insane ! It just goes to show you that some people are not quite all there on this Rock !

I can add no more to that, D!

Some people aren't quite all there on this rock!

I say to these people,waist not others time with your inability to research,and enjoy the Real world. Better fine a dark cave to live your days out in ! It wont let you see the Light of Reality ! :tu:

p.s. And you will miss out on the Best Texas B.B.Q ever by doing so ! :whistle:

Missing Texas BBQ!!!...? :no::cry::no:

Trust me, I ain't missing that stuff! I believe it!

If Texas BBQ's a reward for believeing in Apollo, I'll do it, even though I know we did Apollo!!

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Happen"? Can you be more specific?

I know it's a complex issue, so I'll try to detail it.

I am not referring to the mechanics involved in pointing and focusing and pressing the appropriate button to expose the surface to the lens.

I was more inclined to how it was possible for their landing site to be photographed as I told you it was...well prior to them landing there, in other words, how'd they get there to photograph where they were going to land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what?

Who cares much about halos here, and how is such a naturally occurring thing seen to be significant to your idea on this stread--that the Moon landings were faked !! :cry::no::w00t::td: (yeeeaaah?!)?

But gee...The halos wouldn't be there if we hadn't landed on the Moon. Indeed, they're there because we landed on the Moon.

Just wondred if you'd ever considered that rather obvious fact as you make this stuff up, and deliberately igore what you've been given on it.?

Let's recap what I've been "given on it", shall we?

Micro-fine particles are significant because they allow thinner lsyers of material to be dispersed out, and to lay in dirsrupted layers, appearing , again (and why, I don't really know) depending on lighting conditions and angle, as they do in many images we've shown from the surface, and from on orbit altitudes.This basic physical principal.

Self adherent particles make a difference in respect to the fact that they allow those crisp footprints to be created, and, they risist low energy disruptive blasts (like a LM DPS from hundreds of feet up ). This results in a thinner dust sheet being dispursed as the craft descends.

Let's begin with a basic premise - that a distinct physical disturbance (ie:300m x 600m) on any Earth surface (rock, soil, sand, etc.) - will be seen from both close-range and longer distance (ie: 1000 ft. alt.).

You have proposed a phenomenon which is unique to the moon's surface, which I refer to as your 'halo' phenomenon. You claim a distinct physical disturbance (ie:300m x 600m) can be seen from long-distance (ie: lunar orbit), but NOT (or not clearly) seen from close-range.

You claim this is because of the unique particles on the lunar surface , which are both "micro-fine" and "self adherent". Depending on lighting conditions and angle, the physical disturbance may 'disappear' entirely, or much less defined.

Now, let's return to your questions...

"Who cares much about halos here..?

I do.

"...and how is such a naturally occurring thing.."

Excuse me? What makes it a "a naturally occurring thing"?? Because you say so? That's all you have so far...

I'm still waiting for you to show me evidence that this 'halo' phenomenon is a "naturally occurring thing", MID!!!

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, I'M ASKING YOU AGAIN TO SHOW YOUR SOURCES, MID!!

"...seen to be significant to your idea on this stread--that the Moon landings were faked?"

It's quite simple to understand the significance of it.

So far, you've not proven this phenomenon, or "naturally occurring thing", actually exists (that's why I keep asking you for sources on it). Unless you finally do come up with those sources, we must conclude it is a failed, unsubstantiated claim.

You can preach all you want about it with your gigantic fonts, it's still a failed argument without genuine sources.

Now, if this phenomenon doesn't exist, which seems to be the case, then we must conclude that the Apollo surface images were faked. We know from orbit images that a distinct physical disturbance exists in the exact location where the Apollo 15 LM (supposedly) landed.

Since the Apollo close-up images don't show the disturbance, and your supposed phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo images are not from the lunar surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it boggles the mind,Too think anyone on this world dosnt understand that we did land on the Moon,walk and bring back rocks from the Moon,take thousands of photos from the Moon,and actually have said actual proof of the the entire event,Well Its just insane ! It just goes to show you that some people are not quite all there on this Rock !

I say to these people,waist not others time with your inability to research,and enjoy the Real world. Better fine a dark cave to live your days out in ! It wont let you see the Light of Reality ! :tu:

p.s. And you will miss out on the Best Texas B.B.Q ever by doing so ! :whistle:

I heard that!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11718.jpg

A picture for turb:

This shows the Apollo 15 landing site, at Hadley Rille, before Dave Scott and Jim Irwin landed there.

Beautiful shot.

How did pictures like this happen?

Like this...

The accompanying NASA photo, shows a portion of the plaster-of-paris landing site model used during training simulations. The area shown is centered on the landing target and shows Cone Crater at the lower right. My thanks to Journal Contributor David Harland who noticed that this is not a photo taken from lunar orbit.

a14conemodel.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Beautiful shot. It compares quite well to your image.

I'm sure someone would try accusing me of cherry-picking, so here's the rest of the paragraph...

Compare with the corresponding mosaic of Lunar Orbiter strips.

a14lunorb.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

So we have 3 images. We already know one is a fake. And it sure looks like the other two are fakes also.

I liked this part...

My thanks to Journal Contributor David Harland who noticed that this is not a photo taken from lunar orbit

So everybody else - including all the 'experts' at NASA - thought it was a 'genuine' Apollo 14 photo. Later on, this guy said it's a fake, and everybody changes their view of it!!

Beautiful. Just beautifu;/ :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can add no more to that, D!

Some people aren't quite all there on this rock!

The moon hoax folks have proven just how easy they can be duped and proven time after time as they post and I don't think they understand the significance of photographs taken of the Apollo landing sites by the astronauts and other countries. In other words, the photographs alone disproves their argument right from the get-go!

MythBusters, have trashed their idea the moon missions were hoaxed.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the most interesting thing about claims that the Apollo missions were faked, is that it turns the debunkers against each other so we see debunkers being debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if this phenomenon doesn't exist, which seems to be the case, then we must conclude that the Apollo surface images were faked. We know from orbit images that a distinct physical disturbance exists in the exact location where the Apollo 15 LM (supposedly) landed.

Since the Apollo close-up images don't show the disturbance, and your supposed phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo images are not from the lunar surface.

oH, OK!

got it, finally!

Your inimitable logic, lack of subject matter knowledge, and imagination, create another colorful imaginary scenario for us to simply accept,,,

Apollo 15 eh?

11863.jpg11864.jpg11865.jpg

THOSE WIRES, IN ALL 3 OF THESE SEQUENTIAL STILLS TAKEN OF DAVE and JIM, ARE JUST PERFECTLY HIDDEN, EH?

...just like they were in 1950 movies (and you were around for those too???), when lighting and backgrounds like this (high contrast, bright direct sunlighting always) had never been seen before and wouldn't be seen live for another 19 years?

They're not even producing the slightest evidence of holding him up...no connection points or hardware visible...not a trace of the rigging necessary to support him, not a single shadow. No disruption in the slightest of the mountain or the terrain aft of Jim's position.

NASA photo guys did that perfection work? When?

Certainly not when the stuff was being broadcast live on TV?

You obviously weren't around for that TV, which was as spectacular as the photos above were. And it only got better, if that's fathomable (I'm aware it probably isn't to you!). Apollo 15 through 17 had amazing TV from the lunar surface (or, I suppose, from some sound stage in Hollywood, or out at Area 51, or some secret place like that!).

:w00t:

Nice contribution, turb.

Made perfect sense to me.

Now...to go do more important things!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unsatisfactory. If you're going to make things up, it's best to actually answer the question while doing so. It makes incorrect answers seem like they're atleast delivered with a modicum of sincerety.

I asked you how the photo was made, not about photos of models of a fake lunar surface used in simulators, or about pictures of the Moon that aren't showing Hadley Rille. I was sopeaking directly to a photo taken of the Apollo 15 landing area by the men who would be landing there.

The fact is, the photo was made by a rather expensive Hasselblad 500C pointed by a man through a small window in an amazing spacecraft that was on orbit around the Moon in July, 1971. That spacecraft got their by the favors of a fine Saturn V launch vehicle and a very fine S4-B third stage that put the spacecraft on a very precise trajectory to lunar orbit insertion.

I was just getting at the degree of your actual knowledge and the extent you'd go to to post nonsense again.

It worked. But, it's boring and there's not much more to say to you. I hoped for a bit better than this, but alas...no chance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11860.jpg

Not even shadows of cables, or rigging, or any evidence of the cables pulling on the suit in any way!

Amazing photo alterations!

I'd love to meet the people who did that stuff!...

...(well, I probably did meet them at one time or another, but they didn't actually alter any photos. (They'd probably have at least looked at me funny, or had me locked up by Mission Operations Brass and recommended psychological treatment if I had!) They basically developed the film according to established photographic methods for developing film...kind of like they do it today. And, the pictures were outstanding, and showed exactly what was photographed, as they were taken, tghrough perhaps the finest land camera on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the most interesting thing about claims that the Apollo missions were faked, is that it turns the debunkers against each other so we see debunkers being debunked.

To me the most damning thing about people who jump onto threads and make throwaway, unsupported, handwaving generalisations, is that it reveals them for their 'methods'...

If a SERIOUS person was to make such claims, they would be SPECIFIC and give examples and refutations.

Synchronomy, please show us how serious you are, and give those specifics. Or you could withdraw the remarks and apologise, if you'd rather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess I was right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waist of broad ban ! :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the most damning thing about people who jump onto threads and make throwaway, unsupported, handwaving generalisations, is that it reveals them for their 'methods'...

If a SERIOUS person was to make such claims, they would be SPECIFIC and give examples and refutations.

Synchronomy, please show us how serious you are, and give those specifics. Or you could withdraw the remarks and apologise, if you'd rather.

The Mythbusters video is attempting to debunk the debunkers theories that Moon landings were faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mythbusters video is attempting to debunk the debunkers theories that Moon landings were faked.

So...your misunderstanding of the term 'debunk' is, in some way, giving us a specific example? See below*.

Again, I ask you to back up what you said with EXAMPLES - let's try slightly different wording:

What, specifically, is your best example showing "..that it turns the debunkers against each other"?

Don't just handwave towards a youtube video - tell us exactly what you are referring to, with quotes and cites. BTW, I'm quite familiar with the Mythbusters look at the myth of the 'moon hoax'.. It was quite well done given the limited amount of airtime they gave it, and the fact that they aren't imaging experts or space scientists...

* And to help your understanding, I'm a debunker. I don't like BUNK (like the Apollo Hoax myth) and I do like to explain why/how the BUNK is wrong and that the folks that push it either:

- haven't a clue, but love to hear themselves talk

- want to make a fast buck from the gullible and uninformed

- are trolls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mythbusters video is attempting to debunk the debunkers theories that Moon landings were faked.

I think that you've proven yourself rather worthless in this discussion.

"...debunk the dedbunkers theories that the Moon landings were faked.?"

Uh...we'll make it as simple as possible--debunkers have no such theories. Debunkers typically, as they have on this thread, shredded the claims of the HB folks, the CT minds, who do say that the Moon missions and landings and all associated with them were faked.

They have nonsensical, and completely disproven claims. Debunkers debunk them, they don't assault other debunkers.

Mthbusters are debunkers.

Maybe that makes it clearer for you?

Of course, Chrlzs above said something very similar. Maybe seeing both of us together will fortify the message??

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why E.T stays away from this Rock ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THOSE WIRES, IN ALL 3 OF THESE SEQUENTIAL STILLS TAKEN OF DAVE and JIM, ARE JUST PERFECTLY HIDDEN, EH?

...just like they were in 1950 movies (and you were around for those too???), when lighting and backgrounds like this (high contrast, bright direct sunlighting always) had never been seen before and wouldn't be seen live for another 19 years?

They're not even producing the slightest evidence of holding him up...no connection points or hardware visible...not a trace of the rigging necessary to support him, not a single shadow. No disruption in the slightest of the mountain or the terrain aft of Jim's position.

NASA photo guys did that perfection work? When?

Certainly not when the stuff was being broadcast live on TV?

You obviously weren't around for that TV, which was as spectacular as the photos above were. And it only got better, if that's fathomable (I'm aware it probably isn't to you!). Apollo 15 through 17 had amazing TV from the lunar surface (or, I suppose, from some sound stage in Hollywood, or out at Area 51, or some secret place like that!).

You really don't get it, MID.

Wires (or anything else, for that matter) could be edited out of any Apollo image/video.

So there is no evidence of wires, period. If a spacesuit shows evidence of wires pulling it up, they just edit the suit. Same as any sci-fi movie does.

Do you 'see' my point now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is rediculous. It isonly speculation at best. Simply making an assertion does not make it true. There is no evidence for wires, no evidence for a conspiracy, no evidence supprting your view at all. Instead of making these ludicrous claims, post some kind of evidence. Do you see our point now? Get it?

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.