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

Yes, I see I mixed up the terms. I was very tired and worked a long day and I think my brain was on fizz mode.

Sorry for getting you guys ticked here. My sincere apologies.

If I may ask, for my own clarification;

Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are promoting "bunk" that the Apollo Moon landings were somehow faked?

Debunkers here are discrediting the CT's claims of fakery by NASA?

For the record I am not a troll. I believe that when I was 6 years old and sat on my Father's lap watching as they landed on the Moon, I was not watching a Walt Disney production. The Apollo landings were not faked IMHO, and I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.

I thought these silly claims were settled when Buzz punched that twit jamming a camera in his face and screaming at him to swear on the Bible he was on the Moon?

Check this out.

Apollo 15: Confirmed Times Three

There’s certainly no shortage of independent confirmation of the Apollo missions. From ham radio operators to the Jorell Bank Observatory, plenty of independent observers received the radio communications. Others tracked the missions optically. The missions relied on centers located in Madrid, Australia, California, Guam, Madagascar and elsewhere to track and maintain communications with the spacecraft. Since then, lunar samples, observations and data have been confirmed by independent scientists and other national space programs.

However, one mission stands out as having been confirmed more than any others.

Apollo-15, the third to touch down on the lunar surface and the first to use the Lunar Rover, has been imaged by at least three different space agencies. Nasa took images of the area during the mission, and these images were confirmed as accurate by later probes including the DOD’s Clementine probe and probes sent by the European Space Agency, Indian Space Agency, Soviet Union and Japanese Space Agency.

At least three of the probes have had imaging capabilities of sufficient resolution to see traces of the mission activities. The best images come from NASA’s

LRO, the only spacecraft able to return images of a high enough resolution to recognize the equipment left behind. However,Japan’s SELENE probe confirmed the profile of the area and imaged the “halo” caused by the engines of the LEM disturbing the lunar dust, which had been undisturbed for millions of years, causing the top most layer to have different reflectivity due to the time spent exposed to the solar winds and intense sun light. SELENE also saw the outlines and shadows of equipment, but without high enough resolution to definitively tell they were man-made.

More recently, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe provided slightly better images than SELENE, providing additional detail and confirming the observations already made by the two previous imaging missions.This was announced in early September, but the images were not immediately avaliable.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbonium, how can you possibly claim that a model fooled all the experts when the very quote you provide is thanking the expert that noticed it wasn't a genuine Apollo image?

The reason I can claim a model fooled all the experts is because it did fool them, for many years.

If we assume this photo was taken around the same time as Apollo 15 (in 1971). The ALSJ began in 1995, according to the copyright on their site.

We don't know when Harland noticed that photo was a fake, but it was not until 1995, at the very least.

So all the experts looked at a fake moon photo for 24+ years, and every one of them thought it was 100% genuine moonscape.

If that's not a prime case of being 'fooled', then I'd sure like to know what is!!

What if this guy hadn't noticed it was a fake? All these 'experts' would still say it's 100% genuine moonscape, probably. In other words, they'd still be fooled by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, nice signature, beale - perfectly applicable, and is why I no longer engage with Turbonium. He is very clearly not debating in good faith.

The Apollo denial is effectively finished. Every single former doubter/denier that has even the vaguest intelligence and honesty has now realised and acknowledged that Apollo happened exactly as historically recorded. The only ones left, like Turbonium and Patrick Tekeli (aka Patrick1000/fattydash/dastardly) have nothing left to put on the table, except embarrassing ignorance and deceitful claims.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you not see the irony in these posts?

It is not up to us to disprove the moon landing was a hoax. It is up to you to prove there was one. That is how debating works, you made the claim, you have to back it up. Not only have you failed to do that more times than wile-e-coyote failed to catch Roadrunner, you are now simply going "Its my opinion, I don't need proof!!" That isn't debating.

Now for the wires thing, you say its an opinion, and it is wrong none the less. We can barely edit stuff out of live feeds today. Even if the film was delayed and even had the best camera angels to reduce the exposure back then, it was pretty much impossible. Why do you think they've gone back over the years to stuff like Thunderbirds to remaster and remove the strings you can see in the episodes. There was simply not the technology back then to scrub stuff like wires out of pre-recorded stuff, let alone a live feed, which is still bloody difficult today with Photoshop and other programs.

Wires have been used in movies since 1950. IThat's with just 60-year-old technology

Do we really need to discuss if we had the technology to edit wires 20 years later during Apollo?

No. It's quite silly to do so.

As for claims that have no proof, I suggest you look at the 'halo' phenomenon. It's a perfect example of an unfounded claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK! Well, turb would be a fool to engage again, I think. It has been rather obvious that he really has no sense of what evidence is about, nor how to use it.

I will look forward to his typical attempts with a forensic scientist.

:tu::w00t::clap::-*

Men have walked on the moon since 1969 and the Apollo moon missions were amazing feats, which underlines why the conspiracist have been unable to produce a shred of evidence to backup their claims.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, nice signature, beale - perfectly applicable, and is why I no longer engage with Turbonium. He is very clearly not debating in good faith.

The Apollo denial is effectively finished. Every single former doubter/denier that has even the vaguest intelligence and honesty has now realised and acknowledged that Apollo happened exactly as historically recorded. The only ones left, like Turbonium and Patrick Tekeli (aka Patrick1000/fattydash/dastardly) have nothing left to put on the table, except embarrassing ignorance and deceitful claims.

DITTO!!! :clap:

Their claims have been shot down with facts, and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, nice signature, beale - perfectly applicable, and is why I no longer engage with Turbonium. He is very clearly not debating in good faith.

The Apollo denial is effectively finished. Every single former doubter/denier that has even the vaguest intelligence and honesty has now realised and acknowledged that Apollo happened exactly as historically recorded. The only ones left, like Turbonium and Patrick Tekeli (aka Patrick1000/fattydash/dastardly) have nothing left to put on the table, except embarrassing ignorance and deceitful claims.

Thanks for presenting your invisible evidence.

And here's my invisible reply...

Back to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of many of why the moon hoax folks have been unable to provide evidence of Apollo moon mission hoaxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we landed on the moon, but even if it was proved a hoax? who freaking cares?? I would totally support this kind of 'conspiracy' because we needed the credibility in the space race. And it doesn't hurt anybody IMO so it's no big deal to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. MID asked me how it could be faked. I said it could be faked with wires. And I do think wires were used to fake it.

And I said it was my opinion. I just said it again, now.

Get it?

Then show how it was done in real time on demonstrably live video. Get it? Support your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wires have been used in movies since 1950. IThat's with just 60-year-old technology

Do we really need to discuss if we had the technology to edit wires 20 years later during Apollo?

No. It's quite silly to do so.

As for claims that have no proof, I suggest you look at the 'halo' phenomenon. It's a perfect example of an unfounded claim.

You obviously didn't read my post well enough because I said it was hard enough back then to do it in Pre-Recorded Shows. I never said they never used them, in fact I mentioned things that did. Live feeds are a completely different matter though.

Turb you can't weasel your way around this with me. Evidence and Facts are my job. And I do this in court.

Please prove they used wires, and prove they could edit them out on a live feed 40 years ago.

Edited by beale947
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:yes::w00t::yes::tu:

It's that proof thing again, Turb.

Try not to be nasty (you've already dug yourself a deep hole with your great attitude), just attempt, briefly, to address your responsibility here.

As I've asked (but fully know now that I'm not going to get an attempt from you...and why), prove your case...or at least offer up something that might even hint at a proof.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wires have been used in movies since 1950. IThat's with just 60-year-old technology

Do we really need to discuss if we had the technology to edit wires 20 years later during Apollo?

No. It's quite silly to do so.

You're right.

It's silly. And you don't have to discuss anything. You do have to respond to direct queries put to you. Especially when you're asccusing the United States of faking Apollo!

... :w00t: ..I know folks, it seems like a wierd dream now, but he has made the accusation, repeatedly. And each time he's violated the standard protocol for making such a declaration:

Now Turb, not that I'm particularly interested in you, but it's just normal and required that when you accuse, you should be prepared to prove your accusation, or, be prepared to lose your case and be dismissed.

You failed to do so so many times, directly and simply, that you were dismissed.

Now you sit here and attempt again?

One more time:

Prove your case. At least attempt to, or good bye...

As for claims that have no proof, I suggest you look at the 'halo' phenomenon. It's a perfect example of an unfounded claim.

Oh, and none of this disjointed banter, designed to divert people, including yourself from the real issue, your ability to prove your contention...which is non-existent at the moment...as if it ever really existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I can claim a model fooled all the experts is because it did fool them, for many years.

If we assume this photo was taken around the same time as Apollo 15 (in 1971). The ALSJ began in 1995, according to the copyright on their site.

We don't know when Harland noticed that photo was a fake, but it was not until 1995, at the very least.

So all the experts looked at a fake moon photo for 24+ years, and every one of them thought it was 100% genuine moonscape.

If that's not a prime case of being 'fooled', then I'd sure like to know what is!!

What if this guy hadn't noticed it was a fake? All these 'experts' would still say it's 100% genuine moonscape, probably. In other words, they'd still be fooled by it.

Once again we have a turbonium claim that is 1% fact and 99% invention. You can't just make up claims turbonium (oh sorry, you got caught doing exactly that didn't you).

Let's have a look at what that quote says in full shall we?

[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. Compare with the corresponding mosaic of Lunar Orbiter strips.]

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14.landing.html

Now you admit that we don't know when Harland noticed this was not a photograph of the lunar surface... but by the same token we don't know when the mistake happened. There is nothing in that quote that says that this picture was misidentified by any other NASA or non-NASA sources. The only thing we do know is that at some stage it was misidentified and then an expert correctly identified it.

Your claims of it fooling "all the NASA experts for 24 years" have no supporting evidence at all. It could just as easily been spotted within ten minutes by the first expert to view it.

It is difficult to know with you whether you genuinely do not know the difference between wild speculation and evidence or if your tactics are a result of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, but unless you can produce ACTUAL evidence to support what you are claiming here this will just have to go in the ever expanding file of turbonium epic fails.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again we have a turbonium claim that is 1% fact and 99% invention. You can't just make up claims turbonium (oh sorry, you got caught doing exactly that didn't you).

Let's have a look at what that quote says in full shall we?

[/i]

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.g...14.landing.html

Now you admit that we don't know when Harland noticed this was not a photograph of the lunar surface... but by the same token we don't know when the mistake happened. There is nothing in that quote that says that this picture was misidentified by any other NASA or non-NASA sources. The only thing we do know is that at some stage it was misidentified and then an expert correctly identified it.

Your claims of it fooling "all the NASA experts for 24 years" have no supporting evidence at all. It could just as easily been spotted within ten minutes by the first expert to view it.

It is difficult to know with you whether you genuinely do not know the difference between wild speculation and evidence or if your tactics are a result of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, but unless you can produce ACTUAL evidence to support what you are claiming here this will just have to go in the ever expanding file of turbonium epic fails.

Thank you! :tu:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say it's wrong all you like, but so far it's merely your personal opinion. No more.

If it's wrong, show the evidence. Just saying it's wrong, over and over again, is getting very tiresome

So, do you think they had any sort of 'moon' models, or none at all? Clarify your position on models - if you could.

Have you seen any photos of huge moon models, btw?

This is what happens when you get shot down, huh?

You become an administrator. You repeat things that fit what you've been chastized for, and then persist in that aspect. :yes:

You can't produce your evidence, and you do not answer questions put directly to you...on purpose. :yes:

A childish tactic, but one you've done over and over again.

I won't waste any real time re-responding to things I long ago did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel quite certain that most, if not all here has read through this site;

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

I did years ago but did a rereading recently, lots of good stuff.

From the page:

My name is Robert A. Braeunig and I earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 1981. My formal university education includes such subjects as Astronomy, Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Soil Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Structural Analysis, and Electrical Networks. I have received training in the basics of Photography with emphasis on exposure control. I have been an avid amateur astronomer since 1989, having served as both president and vice-president of the Birmingham (Alabama) Astronomical Society. In additional to my formal training, I am self-taught in the basic principles of Orbital Mechanics and Rocket Propulsion. I am in no way affiliated with NASA or any of its subcontractors.

Why do people believe this stuff?

I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore.

The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.

The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it.

Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

Many hoax believers are well meaning people who have been duped into believing the hoax theories by what they perceive to be compelling evidence. Although I may not agree with their views, I mean these people no malice. There are other hoax advocates, often representing themselves as experts, who publicly make claims based on erroneous conclusions resulting from a lack of proper research, scientific ignorance, or extreme prejudice. I find these people to be very dangerous because they possess the power to sway people into accepting their assertions as fact. A third possibility is that there are those who may believe the moon landings were real, but intentionally try to persuade people otherwise for some sort of attention, fame or profit. These people I believe are especially loathsome.

I apologise for such a lengthy post,I just thought these excerpts were particularly relevent and wanted to point to them. (paradraph #4 in particular.)

Edited by Gaden
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From another site for those who haven't bothered to do any real research;

http://www.uwgb.edu/...GototheMoon.htm

Telemetry

The program seems blissfully unaware that any data other than photographs came out of the Apollo flights. But the Apollo craft would have been continuously transmitting telemetry. If Apollo had merely gone into earth orbit as claimed, how was telemetry faked?

For example, amateur radio enthusiasts were perfectly capable of listening in on Apollo transmissions - and did. If the Apollo spacecraft had merely been in earth orbit, as some conspiracy theorists claim, it would have been below the horizon and its transmissions blocked from any given location most of the time.

As the spacecraft neared the moon, its transmission frequency would have changed due to the Doppler Effect. It would have varied as the Command module orbited the moon, becoming higher as the Command Module approached earth and dropping as it moved away. Then the frequency would have changed again after the ship left lunar orbit - the frequency would have increased because the Command Module was headed toward earth, and would have kept on increasing as the Command Module accelerated in the earth's gravity. Any nation with radio telescope capability would have detected these changes. In particular, the Russians would certainly have monitored Apollo. Are we to believe the Russians would have kept silent about a faked mission? It wouldn't have been an issue of us discounting Soviet propaganda. If the Russians detected fakery they could simply have invited journalists and scientists to listen in on the next mission. It would have been their biggest propaganda strike ever. And then there are the British, the French, the Japanese, the Chinese ....

It's not just frequency shifts. A radio telescope is a precise pointing device. At all times the source of the signal would have to have mimicked the position of a spacecraft en route to, orbiting, or returning from the moon, and it would have to be consistent for radio telescopes anywhere on earth. If we can pull that off, why not send astronauts along for the ride?

The only way this could have worked is for the Russians to be in on it. Wouldn't you love to have eavesdropped on the Soviet end of the hot line when the deal went down?

Zdravstvuyte.

Yo, Tricky Dick! What up, ma man?

You're not going to the moon either? Bummer!

But you're going to fake it? And even though space is our big propaganda thing, and even though it's the only thing we ever beat you at, and even though it will look like capitalist science triumphs over socialist science, you want us to play along?

Hey, we're cool with that. Anything else?

Dismantle the Soviet Union? It'll take a while. How about we pencil it in for, say, 1991?

Da svedaniye.

Mike Dinn, of Canberra, Australia, wrote in to say:

Yours is the first I've seen which mentions that telemetry would have to have been faked in some complicated way, or alternatively radio telescopes would have picked up no signal, or one coming from earth orbit (somehow).

But there is an even stronger and more pertinent argument involving "telemetry". There was a world-wide tracking network providing communications to and from the various Apollo mission elements and although the people involved in doing this were indirectly paid by the project, they were not all US government employees or even citizens. So they would have had to have been part of the conspiracy or taken in by it.

And as I was the Australian citizen employed by the Australian government responsible for running the operations at the prime Australian tracking site here near Canberra I can vouch for the scientific/engineering fact that we pointed our antenna at the trajectory to, at and from the moon and transmitted and received radio signals containing commands, telemetry, television together with navigation info from antenna angles, Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake. (quoted with permission)

I also suggest going to the site and reading the part "The Rocks". I believe I posted on this site ( couple of years ago?) a list of geologists (seems like it was over a hundred) from all around the world all agreeing the samples they were given had to be brought from the moon, and that meteorites and manufactured rocks in no uncertain terms could not exhibit the same properties.

Edited by Gaden
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel quite certain that most, if not all here has read through this site;

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

I did years ago but did a rereading recently, lots of good stuff.

From the page:

My name is Robert A. Braeunig and I earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 1981. My formal university education includes such subjects as Astronomy, Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Soil Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Structural Analysis, and Electrical Networks. I have received training in the basics of Photography with emphasis on exposure control. I have been an avid amateur astronomer since 1989, having served as both president and vice-president of the Birmingham (Alabama) Astronomical Society. In additional to my formal training, I am self-taught in the basic principles of Orbital Mechanics and Rocket Propulsion. I am in no way affiliated with NASA or any of its subcontractors.

Why do people believe this stuff?

I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore.

The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.

The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it.

Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

Many hoax believers are well meaning people who have been duped into believing the hoax theories by what they perceive to be compelling evidence. Although I may not agree with their views, I mean these people no malice. There are other hoax advocates, often representing themselves as experts, who publicly make claims based on erroneous conclusions resulting from a lack of proper research, scientific ignorance, or extreme prejudice. I find these people to be very dangerous because they possess the power to sway people into accepting their assertions as fact. A third possibility is that there are those who may believe the moon landings were real, but intentionally try to persuade people otherwise for some sort of attention, fame or profit. These people I believe are especially loathsome.

I apologise for such a lengthy post,I just thought these excerpts were particularly relevent and wanted to point to them. (paradraph #4 in particular.)

It's not bad.

Not at all. In fact, I'd say this person has simply described exactly what we've always seen of these hoax believer type people. Both types populate this thread. They're both well described and both deserve to be banished. Most either leave themselves, or get their threads closed or eventually get banned.

Interesting, and well put! :tu::yes::tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote Banning ! :clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we landed on the moon, but even if it was proved a hoax? who freaking cares?? I would totally support this kind of 'conspiracy' because we needed the credibility in the space race. And it doesn't hurt anybody IMO so it's no big deal to me.

You think a moon hoax "doesn't hurt anybody"? Seriously?

It certainly hurts American taxpayers, who are fleeced out of billions of dollars on a hoax.

It hurts more as a betrayal of the public's trust, and 'national pride'.

It hurts all 'humanity', in a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then show how it was done in real time on demonstrably live video. Get it? Support your opinion.

What specific video(s) are you referring to here? Show your sources, please....

I'll gladly address it, after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What specific video(s) are you referring to here? Show your sources, please....

I'll gladly address it, after that.

Just pick one. Nearly all of them have the astronauts responding to mission control. But address it? Sure you will. Just like you've addressed all your claims previously? It is YOUR claim that they used wires, YOU need to prove it. I won't be holding my breath though. Keep up the humor Turb!

Edited by frenat
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote Banning ! :clap:

Isn't amazing that despite tons of evidence and the fact that countries around the world have confirmed the validity of the Apollo moon missions, there are still those who claim the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed and do so without evidence?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again we have a turbonium claim that is 1% fact and 99% invention. You can't just make up claims turbonium (oh sorry, you got caught doing exactly that didn't you).

Let's have a look at what that quote says in full shall we?

[/i]

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.g...14.landing.html

Now you admit that we don't know when Harland noticed this was not a photograph of the lunar surface... but by the same token we don't know when the mistake happened. There is nothing in that quote that says that this picture was misidentified by any other NASA or non-NASA sources. The only thing we do know is that at some stage it was misidentified and then an expert correctly identified it.

Your claims of it fooling "all the NASA experts for 24 years" have no supporting evidence at all. It could just as easily been spotted within ten minutes by the first expert to view it.

It is difficult to know with you whether you genuinely do not know the difference between wild speculation and evidence or if your tactics are a result of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, but unless you can produce ACTUAL evidence to support what you are claiming here this will just have to go in the ever expanding file of turbonium epic fails.

The photo was "misidentified" as genuine. It was a "mistake", as in the photo was 'mistaken' as genuine.

Just like I said - the photo fooled them.

You want to avoid the word 'fooled', but it still describes the very same thing.

We don't know exactly how long it managed to fool them, before Harland noticed it.

But we know that 24 years (or more) after the photo was taken, there was one person who wasn't fooled. This much is known.

That's a period of 24+ years. Maybe it took a few minutes for Harland to notice it was a fake, but so what? Nobody else noticed it during the 24+ years.

NASA put the fake photo into the 'genuine' batch, and later on, sent the batch to the ALSJ. Sometime after that, Harland noticed the fake shot. NASA was fooled, since they put it in the batch. It fooled the ALSJ, save for one guy later on.

They are all fakes, and that's why it can fool all the 'experts' into believing it's genuine. It looks exactly like the other fakes do.

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.