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

The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.

You are consistent with getting the facts all wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

I will make it easy for you. I have already posted undenial evidence that's supported by experts around the globe, so where's your evidence? You have yet to post ANY evidence supporting your case. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are in no position to accuse others of appealing to authority whilst at the same time presenting an argument which has no evidence apart from "because Groves says so."

Double standards from turbonium, what a surprise. He'll be making up quotes next, oh wait...

You really need to review this matter...

It began with your side making an appeal to authority (still a popular theme for your group, it seems)...

However, you wont find a single scientist or aerospace engineer who does not accept Apollo.

It suggests that the people who dispute Apollo lack the technical background to understand the strength of the evidence for the landings.

Since I was aware of two experts who supported my position, I mentioned it.

That led to your camp making yet another appeal to authority...

There are hundreds of experts who don't.

(Sidenote: If you aren't sure the quotes I'm citing are genuine, I urge you to verify it for yourself.)

To recap - I was simply pointing out that there are indeed experts who support me. Your side automatically assumed I am required to defend these experts. So I said...

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

Do you remember your reply to that?....

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

In other words - I'm obliged to justify experts who support me, while it would be quite "difficult" to justify all of your experts. so you don't need to justify even one of them??!!

Talk about double standards - you take the cake!!

Oh, btw - I didn't make up your quote, either. You get all the credit for crafting that gem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to review this matter...

I think you should review this!

Indian satellite confirmed US moon landing: scientist

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct?

Mr. Reality and Mr. Laws of Physics are experts that have consistently debunked claims of Apollo Hoax conspiracist. Check it out.

Apollo Hoaxer's claim:

Footage of the American flag planted on the Moon shows it flapping, and a flag cannot flap in a vacuum, so it could not have been filmed on the Moon.

Mr Reality and Mr. Laws of Physics say:

A replica of the American flag planted on the Moon into the vacuum chamber. They manipulated the flag in a manner similar to what the astronauts did when they planted the flag on the Moon, then stopped the manipulation. They first tested at normal pressure; the momentum moved the flag around somewhat but quickly dissipated.

In pure vacuum conditions, after the manipulation stopped, the momentum caused the flag to flap wildly as if it were being blown by a breeze. This is because there was no resistance from air to dampen the motion. This proved that in a vacuum, a flag does not need wind to flap for a while after a person sets it in motion.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbonium, the US spent billions of dollars to fake not one, but multiple moon landings? For what purpose?

I've read this thread from the beginning, but maybe you lost me and everyone 500 posts ago.

What was the motive, in your opinion, for the big Apollo fake?

Edited by Likely Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another link to the video that proves you wrong. Please watch it this time.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...11v_1094228.mpg

I stand corrected, - he wasn't in the LM's shadow at that time. Not sure why I thought he was, maybe the angle of those photos gave me that impression. And, after seeing the video again, Armstrong is a shadow figure by the time we see him - although both of them are in the LM's shadow, only one (Aldrin) is seen in his white spacesuit. Armstrong is even partially transparent!

So moving on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbonium, the US spent billions of dollars to fake not one, but multiple moon landings? For what purpose?

I've read this thread from the beginning, but maybe you lost me and everyone 500 posts ago.

What was the motive, in your opinion, for the big Apollo fake?

You just mentioned the primary motive - billions of dollars. If there's any motive greater than that, I'd sure like to know what it is!!

With so much money at stake, it's not hard to understand the motive to hoax it. Several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so much money at stake, it's not hard to understand the motive to hoax it. Several times.

There was no motive to hoax the Apollo moon missions especially in light of the fact the Soviet Union was capable of tracking Apollo moon missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Grove's analysis: where is it? We are simply told that he's done some calculation that prove there is another light source displaced a few inches away from the camera lens. He doesn't offer up his analysis for peer review. There is no sign of it anywhere on the Aulis website.

Wrong.

Here's the link to download the pdf document ..

APPENDIX Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers

http://aulis.com/PDFgallery.htm

The question I would ask Turbonium is, why do you hold this up as evidence that the photo was faked? Have you seen the actual analysis? If so, have you checked it for accuracy, or had it reviewed by an independent third party?

I've read his analysis (linked above) and found no errors in his methods, procedures, or calculations. After you read it, let me know what you think.

It's obviously available for any third party review, but none that I know to exist.. .

3. Does Armstrong's arm fall within the 24cm-36cm distance he claimed he calculated for the separation of the light source from the camera lens? If so, why does he rule that out as a possible contender for the reflected highlight in Aldrin's boot?

We know he was taking a photo at the time. The camera was at his chest. He was pressing the camera button at the time, so his arms are not extending outward, they are actually converging inward toward the camera. There are photos showing them taking photos - see how their arms are positioned at the time. It's very clear that his arms (specifically his right arm) would not be extended out 24-36 cm.

Your questions are now answered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no motive to hoax the Apollo moon missions especially in light of the fact the Soviet Union was capable of tracking Apollo moon missions.

This is a matter of speculation and personal opinion. As I've mentioned so many times already.

An unmanned probe solves any tracking issues. If the USSR was even capable of it. Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know he was taking a photo at the time. The camera was at his chest. He was pressing the camera button at the time, so his arms are not extending outward, they are actually converging inward toward the camera. There are photos showing them taking photos - see how their arms are positioned at the time. It's very clear that his arms (specifically his right arm) would not be extended out 24-36 cm.

My, if you can press a button on your chest without your arm extending that far, your thumb to elbow distance must be less than 24 cm. Are you by any chance a hobbit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a matter of speculation and personal opinion. As I've mentioned so many times already.

How amusing that you would say such a thing when the Soviets admitted to its own citizens in the middle of the Cold War that the United States sent men to the moon.,

An unmanned probe solves any tracking issues. If the USSR was even capable of it. Anything else?

I don't think you understood what you have just written.

The Moon Landing through Soviet Eyes: A Q&A with Sergei Khrushchev, son of former premier Nikita Khrushchev

A son of the Cold War tells what it was like from the losing side of the Space Race--and how the U.S.S.R.'s space program fizzled after Sputnik and Gagarin

What, more than 12 hours since publication and no one has yet claimed that the Moon landings were faked, etc.? It's usually faster than this. Of course, in this article, we have a witness saying that Nikita Khrushchev knew that it was for real.

Khrushchev was the one man who would have had the most to gain by exposing any hoax... and he also had the means to uncover any subterfuge. But there was no hoax to be exposed, and he knew it. He even let Pravda mention the Moon landing on its front page.

http://www.scientifi...moon-khrushchev

Now, when are you going to present your evidence? While you are doing that, you can also review this.

China publishes high-resolution full moon map

BEIJING, Feb. 6 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday published a full coverage map of the moon, as well as several high-resolution images of the celestial body, captured by the country's second moon orbiter, the Chang'e-2.

The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project.

http://news.xinhuane...c_131393210.htm

Perhaps, that may save you time from looking for your evidence since it is very clear your evidence never existed in the first place.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected, - he wasn't in the LM's shadow at that time

Don't stop there, because you have been corrected many times before, so just admit that you have been incorrect all along, which explains why you have been unable to produce evidence supporting your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a matter of speculation and personal opinion. As I've mentioned so many times already.

An unmanned probe solves any tracking issues. If the USSR was even capable of it. Anything else?

So in effect "Russia was either in cahoots with the US and was covering up for them or didn't have the technology to track it or detect it." Despite: A) They were on the verge of nuking each other to oblivion so that's a very strange friendship and b ) They had the technology because they had every first about space travel except for landing on the moon, so I think they could track their own stuff and so Apollo.

Quite frankly *snip* you're ideas are idiotic. You dismiss the truth to make up your own version of history which suits your cockamamie theories. You also ignore the testimony of experts unless they prove you and you right alone and you certainly don't understand physics.

Edit: Spelling

Edited by Saru
Removed personal attack
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.

Here's the link to download the pdf document ..

APPENDIX Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers

http://aulis.com/PDFgallery.htm

Thanks for that. Looks like they added it to the site in the last few years.

I've read his analysis (linked above) and found no errors in his methods, procedures, or calculations. After you read it, let me know what you think.

I've read it, but haven't proof-read it. For the purposes of discussion, I'm willing to accept his conclusion that the light source is between 23.6 cm and 34.0 cm to the right of the camera.

We know he was taking a photo at the time. The camera was at his chest. He was pressing the camera button at the time, so his arms are not extending outward, they are actually converging inward toward the camera. There are photos showing them taking photos - see how their arms are positioned at the time. It's very clear that his arms (specifically his right arm) would not be extended out 24-36 cm.

I think you should get a tape measure and see exactly how far away 23.6 cm is from the centre of your chest (assuming you have a similar build to Armstrong). Then, factor in a bulky, multi-layered spacesuit. Then, factor in what where his upper arm down to his elbow must be in order to be operating the camera.

Your questions are now answered

Thank you! All that remains is to do the measurement. Or, we can look at some photos or video stills of Apollo astronauts with cameras, and decide whether part of the arm would stick out past 23.6 cm when taking a photograph. For the old school among us, that's slightly under 9.5 inches.

A handy photograph. Are you really saying that no part of Armstrong's right arm extends past the 23.6 cm mark?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-32240HR.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Grove's 'analysis' has now appeared. I'll be back mid-January (or earlier if possible) with a summary of the errors, unwarranted assumptions, omissions and failures of logic. There are some absolute howlers in there - and I personally love the inclusion of crop circles and pyramids - that sort of addition just screams 'credibility'...

I think someone here may regret saying "I've read his analysis (linked above) and found no errors in his methods, procedures, or calculations."

BTW, is Groves still around? I'd like to very cordially invite him over to defend his 'work'. But I can understand why he might have conveniently disappeared - defending some of the content of that PDF would be very difficult...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just mentioned the primary motive - billions of dollars. If there's any motive greater than that, I'd sure like to know what it is!!

With so much money at stake, it's not hard to understand the motive to hoax it. Several times.

So all those people who watched multiple 'empty' Saturn V's get launched into space went home a few days later to watch a 'production' of the landings.

So, you entertain the thought that;

Not one of the pseudo-astronauts, or members of the multiples of ground crews, who didn't strap them in, the camera men in the studio who taped their fakery, ever broke ranks and told 'the truth'.

Or the people in the Navy who picked them up after splash down, or monitored their crafts across a number of places across the Earth, were all either 'hood winked' or complicit in the conspiracy.

But, to accomplish this just not once, but multiple times doesn't stretch, just even a bit, the credulity that you hold for this conspiracy?

Why not entertain the thought that the Apollo program was real, largely attained it's goals (Apollo 1 and 13 notwithstanding) and join the rest of us in realizing that goal.

Or would you rather believe that billions of dollars were spent to create the largest smoke & mirrors game in history for... what? What did this massive, no monumental, conspiracy achieve in the end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read his analysis (linked above) and found no errors in his methods, procedures, or calculations.

Given that you have shown a proficiency in critical thinking, investigation and research generally on par with that of the average white-hockey-helmet-wearing kindergarten student, your support for the document does literally nothing to add to it or the author's credibility or usefulness.

In fact, it only serves to prove how useless and incompetent Grove's theories and studies are.

So congratulations for posting yet again posting source material that does nothing but destroy your position and the few atoms of credibility you have.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, if you can press a button on your chest without your arm extending that far, your thumb to elbow distance must be less than 24 cm. Are you by any chance a hobbit?

Your analysis is the problem, because no hobbits are needed here.

The point of origin for this light source was determined to be ~24-36 cm to the right side of the camera.

So why would you measure that as 'thumb-tip' to 'elbow-tip' ?

No. They are measuring the distance between two specific points - the camera's centre point,and the light source's centre point.

The elbow-tip is not the center point - it's the outermost fringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! All that remains is to do the measurement. Or, we can look at some photos or video stills of Apollo astronauts with cameras, and decide whether part of the arm would stick out past 23.6 cm when taking a photograph. For the old school among us, that's slightly under 9.5 inches.

A handy photograph. Are you really saying that no part of Armstrong's right arm extends past the 23.6 cm mark?

http://www.hq.nasa.g...S69-32240HR.jpg

The light source is 23.6 cm minimum distance from the camera. But the spacesuit is adjacent to the camera, so that rules it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analysis is the problem,...

Take this little hint that you have no case.

SELENE photographs

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analysis is the problem, because no hobbits are needed here.

The point of origin for this light source was determined to be ~24-36 cm to the right side of the camera.

So why would you measure that as 'thumb-tip' to 'elbow-tip' ?

No. They are measuring the distance between two specific points - the camera's centre point,and the light source's centre point.

The elbow-tip is not the center point - it's the outermost fringe.

Look at that picture postie gave you of Armstrong operating the camera. His elbow is the part of his body most to the right of the camera, and hand (touching camera) is where you are measuring from. Now measure yourself and see how far that distance is. If it's less than 24 cm as you claimed, you're hobbit size. Now picture Armstrong partially in shadow, with the inner edge of the brightly lit part of the spacesuit not too close to the camera as sunlight on the camera would cause the usual effects which are not seen in the picture. What you're left with is a good match to Grove's "spotlight" position. Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at that picture postie gave you of Armstrong operating the camera. His elbow is the part of his body most to the right of the camera, and hand (touching camera) is where you are measuring from. Now measure yourself and see how far that distance is. If it's less than 24 cm as you claimed, you're hobbit size. Now picture Armstrong partially in shadow, with the inner edge of the brightly lit part of the spacesuit not too close to the camera as sunlight on the camera would cause the usual effects which are not seen in the picture. What you're left with is a good match to Grove's "spotlight" position.

His entire spacesuit is in sunlight, but only his arm is the light source! Nothing else can fit the minimum 24 cm measurement, so you have to ignore it altogether..

Is that about 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.