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

keninsc - LRO pictures are photoshopped, proven long time ago:

skyeagle409 -

No, that is a lie. First at all, the graphic cut thru the Belts are fake. Show me one image like that that is scientific and come from credible souce.

That was a credible source. :yes: And, so is this!

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf

...nother problem is, that it was YOU who painted the dots into the image the way they suit your argument.

Wrong again!! I did not paint any dots. :no:

If you bother researching a minute, then you will quickly realize how much you are mistaken. Apollos allegedly go right thru the belts at the same inclination, as out Moon have (quess why - they allegely shoot for the Moon!)

Apparently, you didn't understand a thing that has been posted. The astronauts did not go through the high intensity area of the Van Allen belt, which simply means you are duping yourself. :yes:

Now you know the Moon inclination and the table show the belts intensity for the inclination. Calculate, how million times greater the dose they will get, if they actually go to the Moon, that compared to classic chest X-ray :)

Basically speaking, you have no clue and let's face it; you were duped. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were duped again!! The reflections from the reflectors have been confirmed. BTW, review this to understand that your claim of Apollo moon hoaxes has been trashed by countries around the globe, and here is one such example:

China publishes high-resolution full moon map

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.

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. Several countries, including the United States, have obtained lunar images with higher resolution, but have not published full-coverage images of the moon with a resolution of seven meters or greater, as China has done, Tong said.

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

And:

Van Allen Belts

To protect astronauts from radiation dangers, spacecraft are fitted with various types of shielding, such as aluminum shielding, and the astronauts also wear protective clothing during this part of their journey. Also the courses/paths were plotted so that the craft would travel through the parts of space where the Van Allen belts are at their thinnest. Despite these precautions, there were and are still serious radiation considerations.

Using calculations of the amount of radiation, the actual time spent passing through the belts, and the shielding used by the Apollo crew, scientists reckoned that the Apollo spacecrafts would pass through the Van Allen belts so quickly that space travellers would not receive any significant life or health-threatening levels of exposure to radiation risks during their flights.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

You were duped again! Check it out.

600px-Apollo_12_LRO.jpg

And:

SELENE photographs

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

The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)

May 20, 2008 (JST)

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image.

This was an image processed by the SELENE mission instrument team from the observation data of the Apollo 15 landing site on the moon (the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium close to Hadley Rille). This is the world's first report on the detection of the "halo" through observations after the end of the Apollo program.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now it is time to hunt the Buzz alien:

AS11_40_5854_close_up.jpg

2x increased size, original is there http://www.lpi.usra....S11/40/5854.jpg :w00t::clap:

Are you seriously implying that a flaw on the photo is an alien???

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

I see you fell for it again!! Check out the real facts.

220px-LunarPhotons.png

Plot of arrival time of photons (Y axis) for each of many laser pulses sent to the moon (X axis). This data, along with similar data from the other landing sites, shows there are man-made objects on the Moon in the locations of the Apollo landings. Credit: Th eAPOLLO

(Lunar Laser Ranging) Collaboration

200px-Apollo_11_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment.jpg

The Laser Ranging Retroreflector Experiment (LRRR), part of the ALSEP package, was a corner reflector for laser ranging from earth. The ranging data obtained included information on lunar motion, lunar librations, and earth rotation. The LRRR experiment consisted of a folded panel structure incorporating 300 individual fused-silica optical corner reflectors, a simple alignment/leveling device, and an aim-handle mechanism. The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was used to carry the LRRR to the Hadley rill site. The LRRR became passive after deployment. A camera (60-mm lens) was used to photograph the experiment. The LRRR could be used indefinitely and provided data that, when used in conjunction with data from the Apollo 11 and 14 LRRR experiments, permited more refined distance measurements than were previously available. Now that smaller telescopes can be used, the experiment is providing greater quantities of more accurate data.

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Bender.pdf

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keninsc - LRO pictures are photoshopped, proven long time ago:

Wrong again! Check it out.

600px-Challenger_4x.png

In addition:

Chandrayaan-1's images debunk conspiracy theories: ISRO scientist

In a considerable downer for space conspiracy theorists, Chandrayaan-1’s terrain-mapper camera has recorded images of the landing site of US spaceship Apollo 15 and tracks of its lunar rovers that were used by astronauts to travel on moon’s surface nearly four decades ago, a scientist said Wednesday.

Prakash Chauhan of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) said the images captured by the hyper-spectral camera on board Chandrayaan-1 debunked conspiracy theories that have claimed that the Apollo 15, the fourth US mission to land on the moon was a hoax.

His remarks came during his presentation at a conference on Low Cost Planet Missions (LCPM) here titled “Chandrayaan-1: TMC and HYSI data analysis for Apollo landing sites and Mare Orientale”.

“We managed to identify the landing site of the Apollo 15 shuttle on the basis of the disturbances on the moon’s surface. Our images also show tracks left behind by the lunar rovers which were used by the astronauts to travel on the moon’s surface,” Mr. Chauhan, who is presently attached to the Space Applications Centre at Ahmedabad, said.

“Lunar dust is dark. The disturbances left by the spacecraft and the rovers have caused disturbances which are easily distinguishable. The disturbed surface is bright,” Mr. Chauhan pointed out. He said that the images sent back by Chandrayaan-1 adequately debunked conspiracy theories that the Apollo 15 mission was a hoax.

“Chandrayaan’s images serve as an independent corroboration that can help dispel doubts about the NASA mission,” he said. However, he admitted that while Chandrayaan-1’s low resolution camera was not equipped to capture images of the footprints left behind by first astronauts on the moon, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, a lunar reconnaissance orbiter equipped with a high resolution camera launched by NASA could capture the images in the near future.

http://www.thehindu....rticle13950.ece

India is another nation confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again... ANYONE who cites Jarrah "Grandson of the Moon Hoax Theory" White as their source and / or as "proof" of anything is not worth the time to argue with.

Let them live in their own bubble of willful stupidity and willful ignorance - yes they are two different things - and just hope that they are incapable of breeding.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keninsc - LRO pictures are photoshopped, proven long time ago:

Did I or did I not just see this guy use an Apollo picture to prove a shadow came from a rock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debunking Jarrah White. He doesn't have what it takes! :no:

[media=]

[/media] Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-68971-0-30288000-1357095525_thumb.j See They were there First !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again... ANYONE who cites Jarrah "Grandson of the Moon Hoax Theory" White as their source and / or as "proof" of anything is not worth the time to argue with.

But of course, they don't reckon with Jarrah White, who can unmask any conspiracy from the safety of his parents basement.

Exactly; I don't take seriously anyone who uses Jarrah as a source of information; you might as well claim your source as "a bloke I met at the pub" since they would hve the same level of credibility.

Edited by Obviousman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you might as well claim your source as "a bloke I met at the pub" since they would hve the same level of credibility.

FWIW, I would give more credit to that "guy at the pub", at least he doesn't have JW history of being wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already accept that the heel can reflect light photons from that distance back to the camera. You accept that a spacesuit can reflect light sufficient to be re-reflected off another surface. Yet you seem to be saying that light reflected off a spacesuit can't be reflected back to the camera, but light from a source dim enough not to cast shadows can be reflect back?

The spacesuit reflects light. The heel reflects light. What's to prove?

You still need to prove it reflects from 15-20 feet away.

That is your claim for the Apollo photo. Not an inch or two.

So he says. Problem is, he never even examined the possibility that the light source could be Armstrong's suit. You seem to be dismissing this possibility simply because you want Groves to be right, as well as trying to reverse the burden of proof. After all, Grove's being wrong about extra lighting being used doesn't disprove a hoax. Does Groves analysis prove that Armstrong's suit cannot be the cause of the highlight in Aldrin's heel? If not, why are you dismissing it as a possibility?

You've failed to prove that the spacesuit IS a possibility for the light source, so that's where it stands now..

I've already cited my reasons for dismissing it..

I addressed this in an earlier post. The obvious and sensible way to ensure complete congruity between the photos and the film/TV footage is take the photos at the same time as the scene is being filmed. In addition, you only want one light source to simulate the sun. If I can understand the stupidity of using extra lighting, then the people involved in the filming of the scene must also have known that.

As I've said before - whether or not it's 'stupid'....is merely a lame-o excuse .

It's very easy to find such mistakes, in 20/20 hindsight. Who would be so 'stupid' to go blasting a bunch of nukes within our upper atmosphere? You know who did that, right? So how is that for 'stupid', in hindsight? How much more 'stupid' is it to try it again?

As for Apollo - they may have seen it as the better option. Lighting for both at once is much trickier than just one at a time. Many more reasons like that. Sure there are problems with doing it one at a time - continuity, etc. But it's certainy a feasible option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Apollo - they may have seen it as the better option. Lighting for both at once is much trickier than just one at a time. Many more reasons like that. Sure there are problems with doing it one at a time - continuity, etc. But it's certainy a feasible option.

Why are you arguing when the facts have proven you wrong? In addition, countries have tracked the Apollo moon flights and even photographed and confirmed the Apollo landing sites.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly; I don't take seriously anyone who uses Jarrah as a source of information; you might as well claim your source as "a bloke I met at the pub" since they would hve the same level of credibility.

To be taken seriously, and to show credibility....

....you display the complete opposite of it?....

Who cares about your personal opinion of Jarrah White, or whoever else??

Quite childish, is it not?

If there's an actual issue of his you dispute, then explain your case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you arguing when the facts have proven you wrong? In addition, countries have tracked the Apollo moon flights and even photographed and confirmed the Apollo landing sites.

I'd prefer you address the issue at hand, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen someday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer you address the issue at hand, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen someday...

Speaking of which, you probably missed this as we were attacked by a flock of seagulls last week.

A15-reflection_zps6047a5f0.jpg

In the LHS bottom image above, the slight increase in brightness from the previous image is due to the astronaut blocking less of the lunar surface (remember, he is in shadow so not reflecting a great deal of light yet). The fourth image is the killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, you probably missed this as we were attacked by a flock of seagulls last week.

A15-reflection_zps6047a5f0.jpg

In the LHS bottom image above, the slight increase in brightness from the previous image is due to the astronaut blocking less of the lunar surface (remember, he is in shadow so not reflecting a great deal of light yet). The fourth image is the killer.

Since when did we need sunglasses to look at the moon? :w00t:

Really now, this video is so overexposed, everything is too bright than it should be. The lighting has no basis in reality, which also explains how the spacesuit is almost brighter than the Sun itself!

And it certainly doesn't prove that a spacesuit can reflect from 15-20 feet away.

Do you have anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer you address the issue at hand, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen someday...

You have been making things up as you go and I was just trying to bring that to your attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really now, this video is so overexposed, everything is too bright than it should be. The lighting has no basis in reality, which also explains how the spacesuit is almost brighter than the Sun itself!

How are you comparing the spacesuit with the sun when the sun is out of frame in those pictures? The sunlit spacesuit is overexposed because the exposure setting also takes account of the shadowed objects only lit by reflected light, such as the LM ladder and the spacesuit in three of the four frames.
And it certainly doesn't prove that a spacesuit can reflect from 15-20 feet away.

Strange, to me it looks very much as if it proves exactly that. Once the spacesuit is in direct sunlight it becomes the brightest object in the frame. How is it not reflecting the sunlight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when did we need sunglasses to look at the moon? :w00t:

Really now, this video is so overexposed, everything is too bright than it should be. The lighting has no basis in reality, which also explains how the spacesuit is almost brighter than the Sun itself!

The lighting has "no basis in reality"? Really? But you are claiming this was filmed in a studio set, using, presumably, real lights? Whether it was filmed on the moon or not, it is indeed based in reality. Over-exposed perhaps, but still real.

And it certainly doesn't prove that a spacesuit can reflect from 15-20 feet away.

You clearly haven't read, or understood, the captions in the four frames. Look at the screenshots agin, and pay attention this time as I spell it out for you.

1. Look at the highlight I've circled in blue on the LM ladder. Think about what it's reflecting. It's pretty clear that it's reflecting the sunlit lunar landscape directly opposite from the camera. AGree or disagree?

2. There is a small but noticeable reduction in the brightness of the reflection as the astronaut passes behind the ladder. He is obviously standing in the shadow of the LM. So why the reduction in the brightness of the reflection? Simply, his body is blocking some of the reflected sunlight coming off the lunar soil. Yes, there is light reflected off his suit, but it's much less bright than that being reflected back by the surface (since he is still in the shadow of the LM). AGree or disagree.

3. There is a slight increase in brightness in the reflected highlight from the previous frame, as the astronaut moves away from the LM ladder. His body is blocking less of the bright surface from being reflected the further away from the ladder he gets. Agree or disagree?

4. He crosses the LM shadow boundary, and is in full sun. Look at the reflected highlight on the LM ladder. Compare how bright it is now, to how bright it was in the first frame. It is noticeably brighter. The only change in the scene is the addition of the astronaut. The increase in the brightness of the reflection is only explained by the reflected sunlight off the astronaut's suit. Agree or disagree?

Conclusion: the spacesuit can indeed reflect sunlight sufficiently brightly to be reflected off another surface from the distance seen in the Apollo photograph (making the assumption that both astronauts are a similar distance away from the LM ladder).

QED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lighting has "no basis in reality"? Really? But you are claiming this was filmed in a studio set, using, presumably, real lights? Whether it was filmed on the moon or not, it is indeed based in reality. Over-exposed perhaps, but still real.

You clearly haven't read, or understood, the captions in the four frames. Look at the screenshots agin, and pay attention this time as I spell it out for you.

1. Look at the highlight I've circled in blue on the LM ladder. Think about what it's reflecting. It's pretty clear that it's reflecting the sunlit lunar landscape directly opposite from the camera. AGree or disagree?

2. There is a small but noticeable reduction in the brightness of the reflection as the astronaut passes behind the ladder. He is obviously standing in the shadow of the LM. So why the reduction in the brightness of the reflection? Simply, his body is blocking some of the reflected sunlight coming off the lunar soil. Yes, there is light reflected off his suit, but it's much less bright than that being reflected back by the surface (since he is still in the shadow of the LM). AGree or disagree.

3. There is a slight increase in brightness in the reflected highlight from the previous frame, as the astronaut moves away from the LM ladder. His body is blocking less of the bright surface from being reflected the further away from the ladder he gets. Agree or disagree?

4. He crosses the LM shadow boundary, and is in full sun. Look at the reflected highlight on the LM ladder. Compare how bright it is now, to how bright it was in the first frame. It is noticeably brighter. The only change in the scene is the addition of the astronaut. The increase in the brightness of the reflection is only explained by the reflected sunlight off the astronaut's suit. Agree or disagree?

Conclusion: the spacesuit can indeed reflect sunlight sufficiently brightly to be reflected off another surface from the distance seen in the Apollo photograph (making the assumption that both astronauts are a similar distance away from the LM ladder).

QED.

C'mon, Posty... you should know better by now than to hope that Turbs will accept logic and facts.*SNIP*

Cz

Edited by Lilly
removed ad hom remarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon, Posty... you should know better by now than to hope that Turbs will accept logic and facts .*SNIP*

You never know, he may one day have a moment of clarity!

Edited by Lilly
fixed quote

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.