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

Brian O’Leary NASA astronaut during 1960s and Science Adviser during Apollo mission him self wasn’t sure that men walked on the moon …

He was science adviser during Apollo mission I have seen him on TV saying “ Regarding to the Apollo mission I can’t say of 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon”

So for HP group he must be nut ?

Since he disowned the way that the hoax proponents took his remark out of context, no.

http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to return to the claim by turbonium that the fact that an expert identified an incorrectly labelled image as not being a real image of the moon as supporting his view that experts would not be able to tell the difference between a fake image and the real thing.

It is noticable that turbonium has produced absolutely no evidence to support his claim and has simply passed of his fabricated back story as if it was more than pure speculation on his part. turbonium NEVER supports his nonsense with genuine evidence for the simple reason he can't.

I have decided to spend several minutes doing his research for him. There are two people that should know the reality of the situation, Eric Jones who wrote the words turbonium wrote, and David M. Harland, who noticed that the image was misidentified. I sent an email to them both. Both kindly took the time to reply.

The only editing I have done to the following email messages is to remove my full name and address:

Email to Eric Jones:

Dear Mr Jones,

I am writing to you in the hope that you can provide me with a little information about one of the images linked to in the "Landing at Fra Mauro" article on ALSJ. The image in question is the one described as showing "a portion of the plaster-of-paris landing site model used during training simulations."

My interest in this image is the result of my participation on a web site called unexplained-mysteries.com where I post as Waspie_Dwarf. I have, for several years now, been involved in the long and on going debate with hoax-believers about the genuine nature of Apollo. Recently on of the hoax-believers, who goes by the name of turbonium, used the image I have mentioned and the following quote from ALSJ and claimed it supported his case: "My thanks to Journal Contributor David Harland who noticed that this is not a photo taken from lunar orbit."

From this single sentence quote he has made the following claim: "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."

I would be grateful if you could provide in information as to the history of this image and the circumstances which lead to Mr. Harland's identification of this image not being taken from Lunar orbit. I also ask permission to post your reply on the unexplained-mysteries web site.

I intend to email Mr. Harland and ask him for his recollections of this image.

Thank you in advance for any help you can give me.

Yours sincerely,

Martin

His reply to me:

Hi Martin,

Thank you for your note.

I have no interest in getting involved in the "debate". To do so would be a complete waste on my time.

What you can say is that I added the image to the Apollo 14 folder on my Mac on the 23 of December 1998 but I don't have a record of who provided it. It could have been Harland.

I just looked at the ALSJ CD set, which shows the Journal as it was in late May 1999:the image is there along with the credit to Harland. Looking at the image, it's obvious to me now that it is a photo of the model. Perhaps I thought otherwise in 1998. At that time, I was still getting familiar with the photographic record and was, by no means, an "expert". On the other hand, nobody on the technical side of NASA ever would have thought it was an orbital photo.

I have no doubt that the image was taken during preparation for use of the plaster-of-paris landing-site model during training for either Apollo 13 or 14. After the Apollo 13 accident and the safe return of the crew, NASA decided to send the Apollo 14 to the Fra Mauro landing site intended for Apollo 13. The landing site model would have been completed sometime before the end of Apollo 13 training and, therefore, before the Apollo 13 launch on 11 April 1970. It is certainly possible that the US Geological Survey updated the model before the end of Apollo 14 training in January 1971. Unfortunately, the only model that has survived is the one for Apollo 15.

Sorry I can't be more specific. Perhaps David Harland's memory or records are better than mine.

All the best,

Eric

My email to David Harland was identical to that sent to Eric Jones, except that the names were (obviously) changed. I accidentally got Mr. Harlands email address wrong and so it was a further 24 hours before I contacted him. In the meantime Mr. Jones had copied his reply to me to Mr. Harland. It was to that copy, which included my email and Eric Jone's reply, which David Harland replied to (I post this seemingly irrelevant detail this so that there is absolute transparency and so that turbonium can not claim that details were kept from him).

Here is David M. Harland's reply:

Martin

As Eric says, he added the picture to the alsj in good faith. He would have been posting lots of stuff over a short period of time to get that part of the journal up. The whole point of the plaster model was that it should accurately depict the landing site and it was illuminated in a manner designed to show the shadows as they would be at the time of landing. So at first glance it looks like an orbital shot. But when I was writing my book "Exploring the Moon - The Apollo Expeditions" in 1998 (published in 1999; first edition) I had more time to study each image that I wanted to use. I realised it was a shot of the plaster model and told Eric. He changed the caption. End of story.

dmh

I have thanked the two gentlemen for taking the time to reply.

In conclusion, Eric Jones takes responsibility for the mistake, it was his and his alone. It happened in 1998 and was discovered in 1999. So much for turbonium's 24+ years claim.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In conclusion, Eric Jones takes responsibility for the mistake, it was his and his alone. It happened in 1998 and was discovered in 1999. So much for turbonium's 24+ years claim.

135110283268.gif

Well done, Waspie... :)

I've got $5 say Turbs tries to claim that both those emails actually support his claim.... Any takers...? B)

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I`ll throw in A Million bucks,from THe Trump master Himself ! THis guys a real case for the Eons !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sur eI could produce enough youtube videos of 80's scifi movies where wires are readily visable. I'm not going to bother, however. If you don't want to show any evidence, why should I?

You don't get it.

This is the point

1. Wires ARE used in sci-fi movies,

2. These wires ARE EASILY REMOVED BY EDITING.

3. Wires CANNOT be seen at all, in most cases.

That doesn't mean every single sci-fi movie done since 1950 iwas absolutely perfect in that respect. Hardly so. But the fact remains that some of these sci-fi movies DID remove all visible evidence of wires, and you surely know that!

If you could prove that wires are visible in every single sci-fi movie made before1969 (prior to Apollo 11), at least one wire visible, a case could be made. If wires can be seen in a few (most likely) low-budget sci-fi flicks is quite meaningless.

You've moved past it, just like you've "moved past" every claim you have made up that you cannot support.

Much irony on display here. You don't see it? ....

You make a claim - that I don't support my claims.

But you don't even support your OWN claim!!!

See the hypocrisy, yes?

Have you ever taken as astronomy course or gone to a observatory? I've done both. I know it has been mentioned here before, but there's this really neat thing you can do with reflectors that were left on the moon by Apollo astronauts. You can bounce a laser off of them. I have done this. Multiple times. You can do it yourself, too, though I'm sure any result will just be lies, right?

Are you aware that it's been done without using any reflectors at all, before Apollo? And that Russians used probes to place reflectors there, too?

Dead issue..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to return to the claim by turbonium that the fact that an expert identified an incorrectly labelled image as not being a real image of the moon as supporting his view that experts would not be able to tell the difference between a fake image and the real thing.

It is noticable that turbonium has produced absolutely no evidence to support his claim and has simply passed of his fabricated back story as if it was more than pure speculation on his part. turbonium NEVER supports his nonsense with genuine evidence for the simple reason he can't.

I have decided to spend several minutes doing his research for him. There are two people that should know the reality of the situation, Eric Jones who wrote the words turbonium wrote, and David M. Harland, who noticed that the image was misidentified. I sent an email to them both. Both kindly took the time to reply.

The only editing I have done to the following email messages is to remove my full name and address:

Email to Eric Jones:

His reply to me:

My email to David Harland was identical to that sent to Eric Jones, except that the names were (obviously) changed. I accidentally got Mr. Harlands email address wrong and so it was a further 24 hours before I contacted him. In the meantime Mr. Jones had copied his reply to me to Mr. Harland. It was to that copy, which included my email and Eric Jone's reply, which David Harland replied to (I post this seemingly irrelevant detail this so that there is absolute transparency and so that turbonium can not claim that details were kept from him).

Here is David M. Harland's reply:

I have thanked the two gentlemen for taking the time to reply.

In conclusion, Eric Jones takes responsibility for the mistake, it was his and his alone. It happened in 1998 and was discovered in 1999. So much for turbonium's 24+ years claim.

I am not surprised! Good work!! :tu:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I`ll throw in A Million bucks,from THe Trump master Himself ! THis guys a real case for the Eons !

There are those who have said that the Apollo moon missions were faked, but reality does not agree with them. Check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your claim of wires. You prove it.

A "claim of wires"? I claimed wires could have been used, to simulate the 'big jumps' seen in Apollo clips. I can't prove it, as I've told you many times now. I do think wires were used, imo.

All I added was something your claim must account for if you ever decide to actually prove it (which we know you won't). We all know this is just another way for you to avoid proving something. We'll just add it to your long list of abandoned claims shall we?

You "added" something, alright. It is "something" called A CLAIM. You "added" a claim - that the Apollo videos were shown to us 'live', in 'real-time'. And you must account for that claim in the first place!

It is your claim, and it is you must prove that claim.

So do you understand why I've asked you for specific examplles to support the claim? As it's your claim. Not mine - yours.

Any example of 'live' video must have similar sort of 'jumps', to be relevant to the debate about wires.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can it bee any clearer ? :no:

Apparently, there are those who are too blind to see the facts and evidence for what they are as far as the Apollo moon missions are concerned. They claim wires were used to support the astronauts, yet cannot provide a shred of evidence to backup what they say. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Waspie, that was a job well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that vein I might suggest a rereading of my post #1293

An excerpt:

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.

Let's review...

" 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,"

In a simulation, it doesn't matter where the antenna is being pointed. A sim spacecraft signal containing sim data is received at the HC station, a sim astronaut signal feeding sim commands, and so on.

So they point the antenna during a 'genuine' mission, but they don't point it during a 'sim'? To a sim, it matters not where you point the antenna, as I've noted above.

"Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake."

This seems to be the clincher - the doppler frequencies (and two way range delays) are impossible to fake. But is that really true, now? Read on...

"However, as the downlink is derived from the VCXO, a separate voltage may be summed with the error voltage to simulate doppler on the transponder downlink. This allows the simulation of doppler out to lunar distances and is controlled from the transponder control panel"

http://www.honeysuck...tion_System.pdf

So it's obviously NOT "impossible to fake".

Hey, Czero! Do you like the part about "the simulation of doppler out to lunar distances"? Probably not, I'd wager.

A further note - the simulation commands having "2% sec. delay" to account for range.

Apollo can't be a sim, my butt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: ...The more you decide to speak, the stupider everything you say sounds. Seriously. You actually are claiming that slowing down a film to about 2/3 normal speed proves your case?

What was that again, anyway??? :cry::whistle:

Look at this clip, specifically the comparison to Apollo's jump (about the 6:00 mark on)..

Nothing stupider than someone who keeps on putting his foot in his mouth, is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In conclusion, Eric Jones takes responsibility for the mistake, it was his and his alone. It happened in 1998 and was discovered in 1999. So much for turbonium's 24+ years claim.

My claim stands.

We know this phot was taken around the time of Apollo 13 or 14, ergo, no later than 1971.

We know it went into the ALSJ in 1998 as a 'genuine' moon photo.

We know Harland noticed it was a fake moon photo a year later.

We know there is a gap of 27 years, plus a gap of one year. A total of 28 years.

We know in those 28 years, it was never deemed to be a 'fake' or a 'model'. If it had been, it would certainly not have been kept in the 'genuine' group.

We know Harland then told Jones about the fake photo.

We know Jones credited Harland for noticing the fake photo.

We know only one person - Harland - ever noticed it was a plaster model. But even he was fooled by it, for a year.

Who gave them the fake photo?

Jones isn't sure...

I don't have a record of who provided it. It could have been Harland."

Now to Harland..

"As Eric says, he added the picture to the alsj in good faith"

He added it "in good faith"? As in, acting on his belief that it's a genuine Apollo photo, maybe?

Whatever it means, the point is both Harland and Jones were fooled by it, and it was put into the ALSJ as being a genuine moon shot. That much we know for a fact.

We know the photo fooled the people at NASA who sent it off to Harland as 'genuine'. So now at least three people were fooled by it. And how many others who saw it, as a 'genuine' photo, during those 28 years?

There's one more problem - all 'genuine' Apollo images are listed with unique identification numbers. NASA surely archived 'genuine' Apollo images, by Magazine numbers, and the mission it was from, etc. So the Apollo images are all uniquely numbers in 1998, right?

This means ALSJ gets all the 'genuine' Apollo images, with unique Apollo id numbers. So what about the fake photo, then? It can't have a unique Apollo id number, like all the genuine images have. So why is that not a big deal for ALSJ, who somehow still considered it a 'genuine' Apollo image?

Why don't you email them about that? I'd like to know what they say...

If the 'genuine' images are numbered, how could they be fooled so much to iaccept one image without a proper Apollo id number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't prove it,

All you needed to ever say. Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you avoid questions. Thank you for finally admitting it.

Edited by frenat
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blah, blah, blah, blah

So it's obviously NOT "impossible to fake".

blah, blah, blah

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the link.

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?

Here we have experts in the field saying you have to point the telescope at the source to receive a signal. Unlike a car's antennae which is omnidirectional. We have experts in the field saying they did indeed point their telescope at the trajectory and did indeed receive signals. This one expert in particular is explaining how it could not be faked. Get it now?

Edited by Gaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the link.

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?

Here we have experts in the field saying you have to point the telescope at the source to receive a signal. Unlike a car's antennae which is omnidirectional. We have experts in the field saying they did indeed point their telescope at the trajectory and did indeed receive signals. This one expert in particular is explaining how it could not be faked. Get it now?

In addition:

Sternwarte Bochum Observatory

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

http://www.classicbroadcast.de/stories/stories_sternwarte_bochum.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you needed to ever say. Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you avoid questions. Thank you for finally admitting it.

Nice that he has now admitted he can't "prove it." His admission that he can't "prove it" sheds a bit of light as to why his claims have been shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems someone was duped by another flawed video in regards to the astronauts and wires and it also seemed he overlooked the real video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the link.

Not the first time Turbs has done that (remember the "NASA controlled everything" claim?); as a matter of fact, Turbs has a record of doing this: quickly looking at whatever the text may be, then deciding what THEY want it to be saying and asserting that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you needed to ever say. Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you avoid questions. Thank you for finally admitting it.

It's all I needed to say??? Thanks for finally admitting it??

You don't have a clue about what I've said. If you did, you'd have seen me point it out, repeatedly. Here's some examples you obviously didn't read.......

How could it be done? Wires.

I can't prove it, and never said I could.

I do find some great evidence in video clips, but I can't prove it.

So do you get it now?

I suppose you don't even know I DIRECTLY RESPONDED TO YOUR POST ON THIS??....

frenat, on 27 October 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

What does it have to do with wires? Are you just trolling now? YOU claimed they did everything with wires. YOU claimed they were edited out just like any other movie. YOU need to show how they did that in real time on a demonstrably live video. Support YOUR claim.

And here's what I told you, in part.....

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?

And here's one more time I mentioned it, just for good measure...

I might as well be talking to a brick wall, because it gets the same result.

I'll go over it one more time -

No evidence of wires can be seen in the Apollo videos. Just like no evidence of wires can be seen in many sci-fi films, either. They edit the wires out of the video frames. I can't prove wires were used in Apollo videos, or in the sci-fi films, since they're not visible in either case.

I mentioned wires as to how it could be done, which is correct.

I never claimed to have evidence to prove it, so don't keep asking for it.

Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you keep asking me the same questions I've already responded to, then you accuse ME of "avoiding" them!!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the link.

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?

Here we have experts in the field saying you have to point the telescope at the source to receive a signal. Unlike a car's antennae which is omnidirectional. We have experts in the field saying they did indeed point their telescope at the trajectory and did indeed receive signals. This one expert in particular is explaining how it could not be faked. Get it now?

First of all, don't alter my own quotes, which you did here. It's a goofball tactic.

As for pointing other radio telscopes, cite the specifc telescopes you claim tracked Apollo to the moon. However, even without seeing them, I'm quite sure a probe coud have easily accounted for it.

I've already shown you one "expert" was wrong abouth being "impossible to fake". And now it seems a second "expert" is wrong about it too.

You also said..

"If we can pull that off, why not send astronauts along for the ride?"

Well, it's obvious that we CAN pull it off, as shown in the document I last cited, and/or using unmanned probes.

Why do you think that's more difficult than actually sending a manned craft to the moon? We already had unmanned probes going to the moon before Apollo In case you aren't aware, those probes also sent signals back to Earth. We also had the ability to do the simulations.

You have it completely backwards, and how.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice that he has now admitted he can't "prove it." His admission that he can't "prove it" sheds a bit of light as to why his claims have been shot down.

It just shows you also have no clue about what I've already said, repeatedly.

Maybe I should be talking to a brick wall - at least I'd be wasting less of my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all I needed to say??? Thanks for finally admitting it??

Given the facts and evidence provided to him by a number of people, he needs to make additional admissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the first time Turbs has done that (remember the "NASA controlled everything" claim?); as a matter of fact, Turbs has a record of doing this: quickly looking at whatever the text may be, then deciding what THEY want it to be saying and asserting that position.

He also ignored the fact that a number of countries and individuals not under the control of NASA, have stated they have tracked the Apollo moon missions and even photographed their landing sites.

Given the fact that the Apollo moon missions have been verified by a number of countries and individuals around the world, why is he still claiming the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed and then, provide no evidence to support his claim?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the first time Turbs has done that (remember the "NASA controlled everything" claim?); as a matter of fact, Turbs has a record of doing this: quickly looking at whatever the text may be, then deciding what THEY want it to be saying and asserting that position.

So who do you think was in control of the Apollo missions, if not NASA?

The Aussies worked for NASA. They were trained by NASA, to operate NASA's equipment, They were hired by NASA. They did whatever NASA told them to do.

Do you think that means the Aussies were "in control"? If so, there's no hope in getting a serious answer from you.

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.