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

You have people like Jack White who claim photo expertise, but I'm not aware of a single person with real photogrammetry qualifications who supports you.

I'm aware of two such experts who support me...

David S Percy FRSA, ARPS was born and educated in London. An Associate of the Royal Photographic Society, Percy was nominated Film Cameraman of the Year at BISFA (forerunner of the IVCA). An award winning film and television producer, Percy is a well-established professional communicator in the world of commerce, working with multi-national corporations as well as not-for-profit organisations.

http://www.aulis.com/nasaauthors.htm

From the RPS handbook...

The Royal Photographic Society Distinctions are recognised as some of the most prestigious in the photographic world. The Associateship is the second level of The Society’s Distinctions and is a significant step up from the first level, the Licentiateship. While in the Licentiateship we are looking for a basic competence and skill, to be successful at Associateship level you need to provide evidence of creative ability and the development of a personal style. You also need to be able to show that you are in complete control of the technical aspects which allows you to produce quality which is entirely ‘fit for purpose’ i.e. it suits the subject. Your work should be consistent and make a statement of a strong personal style. A high standard of presentation is expected.

http://www.rps.org/resources/downloads/A___F_Handbook_Issue_5_May_2012.pdf

Dr. David Groves -

From the book Dark Moon (Percy, Bennett),...:

...Quantec Image Processing in the UK carried out a series of laboratory tests on a number of NASA photographs from 'Apollo 11'. David Groves PhD who founded Quantec is more than adequately qualified to undertake such a project. He has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and his PhD was in Holographic Computer Measurement. He is also a Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Institute of Physics.

So now you' know of two experts who supports me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now you' know of two experts who supports me.

There are hundreds of experts who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of two such experts who support me...

Sorry, which of those is supposed to have a qualification in photogrammetry?

As far as I can discover, Percy is just a photographer and Groves describes himself as a computer programmer.

Edited by flyingswan
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo defenders claim that the flag flutters on the moon because the astronauts are twisting the pole. But in many clips, they are barely moving it at all yet the flag flutters sharply. Here is one example. As you can see, there is no twisting of the pole and very little movement, yet the corner of the flag is fluttering up sharply.

032-flagge01-wehende-flagge-filmchen-moovie.gif

There is also video clips of the Apollo astronauts where you can see wires attached to them from above. Here are some video stills where you can see the wires attached to them.

25gdsow.jpg

535ys1.jpg

In short, there is very little solid evidence that we went to the moon, and A LOT of evidence that we didn't. This means the evidence that the moon missions were a hoax heavily OUTWEIGH the little or no evidence that we went. People seem to only believe it out of faith, emotion and pride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures on each side. This indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example from a famous Apollo photo of an astronaut saluting next to an American flag. Notice that the backdrop also looks like a wall that is just behind the astronaut, rather than actual scenery in the distance. And notice the distinct line between the dirt and the white layer behind it.

normal_A15FlagSalute.jpg

White carpet layer placed over dirt behind astronaut – New discovery!

New Discovery! Here is a much larger version of the above image that I want you to open in a new window and click again to zoom in on and look at closely, because it contains a NEW SMOKING GUN that I discovered! If you look at the ground behind the astronaut’s boots, you can see the edge of a WHITE LAYER placed over the dirt! It appears to be some type of carpet, canvas or ledge. You can even see the edges and creases on it at the line where it overlays the dirt! In addition, you can see that the white layer covers the part where the rover tracks end in the dirt. This is a smoking gun I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!

http://upload.wikime...2000-001114.jpg

I brought up this new discovery to David Percy of Aulis.com. He concurred with my finding:

Hi Winston,

I agree about the apparent ledge in this image. It appears to be the foremost part of the fixed area of the set as opposed to the ‘working area’, allowing footprints, tracks etc. We will add this observation to our studies next time we do an update and of course credit you with this finding.

With kind regards,

David Percy

AULIS Online

For more ironclad arguments and evidence proving the Moon Hoax, JFK assassination conspiracy, and 9/11 conspiracy, see my new Conspiracy Trilogy Report: http:///www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

Edited by WWu777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

godzilla_facepalm.jpg

Cz

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo defenders claim that the flag flutters on the moon because the astronauts are twisting the pole. But in many clips, they are barely moving it at all yet the flag flutters sharply. Here is one example. As you can see, there is no twisting of the pole and very little movement, yet the corner of the flag is fluttering up sharply.

032-flagge01-wehende-flagge-filmchen-moovie.gif

There is also video clips of the Apollo astronauts where you can see wires attached to them from above. Here are some video stills where you can see the wires attached to them.

25gdsow.jpg

535ys1.jpg

In short, there is very little solid evidence that we went to the moon, and A LOT of evidence that we didn't. This means the evidence that the moon missions were a hoax heavily OUTWEIGH the little or no evidence that we went. People seem to only believe it out of faith, emotion and pride.

The flag issue has already been addressed. Check out the video because the Apollo hoax folks have lost the flag waving argument as well and the video will provide evidence as to why they lost the argument.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For more ironclad arguments and evidence proving the Moon Hoax, JFK assassination conspiracy, and 9/11 conspiracy, see my new Conspiracy Trilogy Report: http:///www.debunkin...onspiracies.htm

The problem is, you visit the wrong websites. Apparently, you were unaware that some nations around the globe have tracked the Apollo moon flights and even photographed the moon landing sites and confirmed that the United States sent men to the moon. In other words, you've allowed yourself to be duped by phony websites.

Apollo 11

Main article: Apollo 11

  • The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.
  • A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" in Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–359.
  • The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11.
  • Goldstone Tracking Station in California tracked Apollo 11.
  • At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.
  • 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.

LRO_Apollo14_landing_site_369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg

Apollo 14

Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14

http://www.astr.ua.e...ace/apollo.html

A very close friend of mine was on the Apollo 14 recovery crew and they flew the Apollo 14 astronauts back to Houston after their moon flight. The aircraft was a C-141 that originated from Travis AFB, which is where I was employed for many years. A crew member of that flight, and I, still fly together to this very day and he has photos of the Apollo 14 astronauts placed on the wall of his hangar at the Nut Tree airport and needless to say, he speaks proudly of his mission to fly the astronauts back to Houston from Pago Pago.

Apollo 16

Main article: Apollo 16

Jewett Observatory at Washington State University reported sightings of Apollo 16.

Honeysuckle Creek tracked Apollo 16 and recorded the audio of the landing.

At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment.

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

Apollo 17

Sven Grahn describes several amateur sightings of Apollo 17.

600px-Apollo_12_LRO.jpg

Apollo 12 Landing Site

Surveyor 3 Camera

Surveyor3camera.jpg

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, there is very little solid evidence that we went to the moon, and A LOT of evidence that we didn't. This means the evidence that the moon missions were a hoax heavily OUTWEIGH the little or no evidence that we went. People seem to only believe it out of faith, emotion and pride.

This beleif is directly proportional to how gullible a person is. Why wouldn't a flag wave? It is absolutely rediculous to think that this is evidence. If it were true that a flag wouldn't move like that on the moon, why would NASA even alow that movement to be shown?

No, the opposite is true. There is a mountain of evidence proving the truth, and absolutely NONE proving a hoax. The solution is simple. Read through some sites that are NOT devoted to the hoax beleivers.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures on each side. This indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example from a famous Apollo photo of an astronaut saluting next to an American flag. Notice that the backdrop also looks like a wall that is just behind the astronaut, rather than actual scenery in the distance. And notice the distinct line between the dirt and the white layer behind it.

Of course there is a distinct line. That is the edge of the disturbed soil from the thruster blast. If there were no distinct line, then the hoax beleivers would then be saying "if they had landed, there would be a distinct line of soil disturbance".

Again, I would suggest reading some sites that don't spread these ridiculous claims.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is a distinct line. That is the edge of the disturbed soil from the thruster blast. If there were no distinct line, then the hoax beleivers would then be saying "if they had landed, there would be a distinct line of soil disturbance".

Again, I would suggest reading some sites that don't spread these ridiculous claims.

I don't think that's what he means. What he is talking about is that common phenomenon in uneven terrain, a ridge line or local horizon. Anyone who doesn't recognise these in the Apollo pictures needs to get outdoors more often.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...dge_470x252.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's what he means. What he is talking about is that common phenomenon in uneven terrain, a ridge line or local horizon. Anyone who doesn't recognise these in the Apollo pictures needs to get outdoors more often.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...dge_470x252.jpg

No, he's talking about the dark to light transition immediately behind the astronaut. Go back and read it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he's talking about the dark to light transition immediately behind the astronaut. Go back and read it again.

In his post he's actually ignorantly babbling about discussing both your point and Swanny's...

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only definitive answer that satisfies CTs, will be when/if we develop a telescope we can see any of the landing sites from the earth...is that even possible ?

I personally think Apollo 11 was hoaxed but some of the others wasn't..

Isn't there a reflector on the Moon that we use to calculate the distance from the earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only definitive answer that satisfies CTs, will be when/if we develop a telescope we can see any of the landing sites from the earth...is that even possible ?

There are Apollo landing sites that have been photographed. Go back and review the photos.

I personally think Apollo 11 was hoaxed but some of the others wasn't..

The former Soviet Union has confirmed the Apollo !! mission.

...Isn't there a reflector on the Moon that we use to calculate the distance from the earth

Yes!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only definitive answer that satisfies CTs, will be when/if we develop a telescope we can see any of the landing sites from the earth...is that even possible ?

I read somewhere that it would require a mirror so massive that producing it would crush in on itself. We can, go by what China, Japan, India, and other countries launching lunar probes such as China's Chang'e 2 probe that was launched earlier this year taking lunar surface photos. China has also stated the probe took photos of the apollo landing sites and confirmed their exsistance.

I personally think Apollo 11 was hoaxed but some of the others wasn't..

We were there, whether you believe it or not. Again, China earlier this year confirmed the exsistance of the landing sites. There would be no reason for any country to continue covering up a faked moon landing after 30+ years.

Isn't there a reflector on the Moon that we use to calculate the distance from the earth

Yes, actually I believe there are several.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder when the next mission to the moon will be? Have the astronauts traveled to the side that does not face us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are Apollo landing sites that have been photographed. Go back and review the photos.

Seeing as its the Moon Landing pics that are the main body of the CTs I would assume people deny these landing site pics also or at least question them, I'm indifferent, its not that important to me whether we did or didn't, I haven't stepped foot on the moon so I really have to believe what I'm told to a certain degree, and at the very least think its stupid to not question. I'm just asking about methods to prove it beyond any doubt, the only method I could imagine would be to enable people from earth to see the landing sites thru somekind of optical telescope, if that's at least for the time being not an option then I cant really see anything that will persuade the die hards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as its the Moon Landing pics that are the main body of the CTs I would assume people deny these landing site pics also or at least question them, I'm indifferent, its not that important to me whether we did or didn't, I haven't stepped foot on the moon so I really have to believe what I'm told to a certain degree, and at the very least think its stupid to not question.

Questioning something that is way beyond your understanding is always a good thing. I mean, we all learn something new all the time and a little curiosity and willingness to learn is always healthy.

I'm just asking about methods to prove it beyond any doubt, the only method I could imagine would be to enable people from earth to see the landing sites thru somekind of optical telescope, if that's at least for the time being not an option then I cant really see anything that will persuade the die hards

While true, any educated person worth their salt can take and research the technicalities of the moon landings and see that based on the evidence presented by NASA, the moon landings were possible.

Having a telescope to show the lunar surface wouldn't stop the moon landing hoaxers. I once posted on a youtube (i know..big mistake) video and pointed out the reflectors left by the astronauts.

Someone commented and said "The moon's surface is reflective anyways, the regolith naturally reflects the sun. So any lazer beam shot at the moon will most definately be reflected, no mirrors needed".

And another one left stated "those mirrors could have been left by a secret NASA moon rover."

Regardless of what evidence is presented, there will always be Hoax Believers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the astronauts traveled to the side that does not face us?

The far side of the moon has been seen by all crew members of the Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 through Apollo 17 missions since that time, and photographed by multiple lunar probes. Geologist-astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who became the second to last to step onto the Moon, had aggressively lobbied for his landing site to be on the far side of the Moon,... NASA administrators rejected these plans based on added risk and lack of funding.

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

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only definitive answer that satisfies CTs, will be when/if we develop a telescope we can see any of the landing sites from the earth.. ?

Think again.

Even if such a telescope existed, which would require a mirror larger than 100m, the calculation can probably found in this or the old thread, or at

http://blogs.discove...s/#.UMiWfoY2F2I

it's probably safe to say it wouldn't have an eyepiece for the Hoaxers to look through - any pictures will be just as cavalierly called fake as the pictures from the LRO.

Even if a Hoaxer like Bart Sibrel could have a "real" look through the telescope, do you really belief it someone like Jarrah White (or our resident Hoaxers) would belief them? Or would they just claim he was finally bought or threatended by NASA?

Even if ALL Hoaxers could look for themselves it still wouldn't prove that the LM, the Rover etc was brought there by the "official" missions. I expect our hoaxers to invent some secret mission (if necessary with the equally secret Alientechnology from Roswell) that planted the evidence after 1972, probably just in time before the Hoaxers could have their look.

To amend a joke about JFK...

Two conspiracy theorists die and go to Heaven. As they stand before God, one of them asks, "Lord, please tell us, did we fake the Moonlanding?"

God looks at them sternly and says, "I want you to listen carefully. NASA spent a whole lot of brains and money to build Rockets that could go to the moon and those brave astronauts just flew there. Got it?"

One of the conspiracists turns to the other and says, "This is even bigger than we thought.

Edited by rambaldi
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To amend a joke about JFK...

Two conspiracy theorists die and go to Heaven. As they stand before God, one of them asks, "Lord, please tell us, did we fake the Moonlanding?"

God looks at them sternly and says, "I want you to listen carefully. NASA spent a whole lot of brains and money to build Rockets that could go to the moon and those brave astronauts just flew there. Got it?"

One of the conspiracists turns to the other and says, "This is even bigger than we thought.

I laughed so hard my coffee is all over my desk now.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as its the Moon Landing pics that are the main body of the CTs I would assume people deny these landing site pics also or at least question them, I'm indifferent, its not that important to me whether we did or didn't, I haven't stepped foot on the moon so I really have to believe what I'm told to a certain degree, and at the very least think its stupid to not question. I'm just asking about methods to prove it beyond any doubt, the only method I could imagine would be to enable people from earth to see the landing sites thru somekind of optical telescope, if that's at least for the time being not an option then I cant really see anything that will persuade the die hards

Since the former Soviet Union had the capability to track the Apollo moon flights and would have greatly benefited from exposing hoaxed Apollo moon missions, I find it very compelling the Soviet Union confirmed the reality of the Apollo 11 moon mission to its own citizens, especially during the Cold War. The prestige of the Soviet Union took a serious tumble when it admitted the United States landed men on the moon.

We have the Apollo landing site photos and some of the moon photos were provided by other nations.

Apollo15_ascentphoto.jpg

Apollo 15 Landing site

SELENE photographs

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

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html

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

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2012-02/06/c_131393210.htm

Chandrayaan-1

As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site

http://depletedcranium.com/apollo-15-confirmed-times-three/

We also have the moon rocks.

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

The oldest Moon rocks are up to 4.5 billion years old, making them 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks, which are from the Hadean eon and dated 3.8 to 4.3 billion years ago. The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme. A rock brought back by Apollo 17 was accurately dated to be 4.417 billion years old, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 million years. The test was done by a group of researchers headed by Alexander Nemchin at Curtin University of Technology in Bentley, Australia.

Pendick, Daniel (June 2009). "Apollo sample pinpoints lunar crust's age". Astronomy Magazine 37 (6): 16.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others have stated it really doesn't matter what evidence is put forward the die hards will still find some explanation that fits the Conspiracy......I'm not one of them.

I believe we went to the moon and have actually been to Kennedy in Homage and have some kind of meteorite somewhere I bought from the space centre..well I'm led to believe it is anyway, but I appreciate your post.

Its the doubt that the committed CTers have conjured by perhaps clever and believable explanations that leads to threads like this, it would be great though to have a device we could look thru and see the sites even if it doesn't satisfy the sceptics.

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.