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 arrogantly presume that I have any need to refute or provide any counter-argument to the willfully ignorant, kindergarten-level conspiracy theory tripe you continue to regurgitate here... ?

lol... :rofl:

It was an observation, and a correct one at that, about the level of hypocrisy you present when you talk about other people running and hiding from dealing with you, when you, Turbs, are the master of running and hiding when the discussion gets to tough for you and your limited set of predefined answers is no longer relevant. How long has it been since you've addressed the questions you left unanswered at the Apollo Hoax board? 4 years? Longer perhaps?

Please, Turbs... get over yourself. You're not that important, but you are still good for a laugh now and then....

Same old garbage - you say I don't answer questions, while never supporting that claim with any examples of it. You bring it up every time you see your side avoiding my questions, of course.

Your juvenile tactics went stale long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my post with your bolding:

flyingswan, on 04 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA. Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up. I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying.

Here's the actual thread:

http://www.unexplain...c=113834&st=405

You say "mostly tongue in cheek" in post #406.

I query the specific quote in post #407.

You admit making it up in post #408.

I accuse you of trolling in post #409.

Waspie says you have effectively admitted to lying in post #410.

Where in my bolded claim is there any inaccuracy?

You left out the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF POST #406!!

Once more, I'll spell it out for you. Let's start with your recap of my post

"You say "mostly tongue in cheek" in post #406."

I did say that it was "mostly meant to be tongue in cheek", for sure.

Now, what else did I say in that post? Do you know? I said it right after the part about tongue-in-cheek..

My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

Now, read the following very carefuly... the most important part is in large font...

""Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said.....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Now, that one should have clued you in!!

You're much too serious these days, my old friend...."

Okay, now. Do you understand what I said in the passage with large font?

I'm pointing out the quote, do you see that?

Do you see why I'm pointing it out?

I was explaining how the quote was meant to be taken - as tongue-in-cheek. Not serious, in other words.

Do you have any questions about what I've told you here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing to help you out..

Do you see where I said "Now, that one should have clued you in!!"??

The "one" refers to the quote. To wit --- "Now, that quote (that one) should have clued you in!!"

What should the quote have clued him in about?

Yes! It should have clued him in that it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek!!

Quite simple to grasp my point now, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in post #406, I'm pointing out the quote was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I specifically point out the quote, as well as "running on fumes" were meant in jest.

In the NEXT post, #407, you query me about the quote I'd already said was meant in jest.

I hope this is getting through to you, because I've tried everything possible to help you out...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you DID lie. Glad we cleared that point up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you DID lie. Glad we cleared that point up.

No, you lied right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm back, although it's late here, so there will probably another delay before I get any teeth into those images... I've taken a quick look at them, and to be entirely fair I haven't looked at any prior debunking of these images if such exists - I can't be much fairer (or braver!) than that. I'll be happy to work through an analysis from first principles of photogrammetry, but with a few provisos, see below..

Initially I'll just make a couple of comments - First up, I don't see any immediate 'anomaly', just three images that show slightly overlapping areas of the background mountains. The images are very clearly taken from different places, and at different angles - I don't think anyone would dispute that? So I presume the question in Spinebreaker's mind is why the foregrounds look different, yet the backgrounds look (sorta) the same..

The key here will relate to the stuff already brought forward, namely the lack of atmospheric clues to the distances involved to the background and the simple fact is that the background *does* in fact change - if you look carefully you will easily see that this is definitely no 'painted backdrop'! The next step would be to examine the images carefully for all the clues to where the images were taken (eg terrain features, rocks, etc plus an examination of the Lunar Surface Journals and maps of lunar surface activity will probably help), and see if we can align/identify features in such as a way as to nail down where each shot was taken in relation to the other. Then by examining the fore-, mid- and back-ground features, we can see if they are consistent with the camera locations and angles.

As I said, I haven't looked to see if these particular images have been analysed this way before - I know that at least one such analysis does exist (but on a different set of images - see below). Like I said, I'm happy to proceed and see where we end up but before doing so, I would like to ask Spinebreaker two questions:

1. Where did you come upon these images initially? I presume you weren't just browsing through every image in the Apollo gallery..

2. Are you willing to properly and fairly engage in the debate and go through a process where each step of the analysis is agreed upon as being valid and accepted, right up to the final conclusion?

If that isn't going to happen, then I'm not sure the effort is warranted...

In the meantime, interested readers might like to take a look here, where a similar 'anomaly' (but from another Apollo mission) was raised at Abovetopsecret:

http://www.abovetops...ead566601/pg449

Scroll down to the excellent post by JRA, that contains animated overlays of two images that are rather like the ones raised here. Those images very clearly show:

- that the backgrounds do vary slightly, and that it is very obviously a true 3-dimensional scene

- that the foregrounds vary drastically, as the shots were taken from different locations

- the the mountains are in fact quite distant, despite 'looking close' due to the lack of atmosphere

I think those images demonstrate the effects very well indeed - the Moon is nothing like the earth, and using earthly techniques to apply 'common sense' just won't work. You have to use REAL analytical techniques that take into account the environment and how it changes the appearance of imagery. Yes, it's rocket science!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any questions about what I've told you here?

What has any of that to do with my quote that you bolded because you claimed it was false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"YES" :alien::tu: for the last time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What has any of that to do with my quote that you bolded because you claimed it was false?

Once again, here's what you said....

"You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA. Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up. I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying."

Now, let's revise your passage by adding the relevant point I made in my post, and you'll see the problem..It's the part bolded below.....

"You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA. Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. You specifically pointed out that the quote was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up. I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying."

So now,do you understand that there was absolutely no reason for you to query the specific quote, since I had already pointed out the quote was meant to be tongue-in-cheek?

Let me break it down further, so it's crystal clear.

You said.....

"At that point I queried the specific quote.."

For you to say you queried the specific quote "at that point" was disingenuous, since I had already explained the quote was meant in jest - that it wasn't meant to be serious or genuine. You had no reason to see it as something meant to be genuine.

Let's continue with the next part ..

"...and you admitted that you had made it up..".

Nonsense..There was nothing to be "admitted" to, I had already explained the quote was meant in jest. For you to claim I "admitted" to making it up impies there was deception on my part. That is completely false.

Next you said..

"I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying."

We'll let Waspie answer for his accusation that I lied, and focus on your accusation...

You accused me of trolling, which I've proven is blatantly false. I was completely forthright in saying the quote was meant in jest, so your accusing me of trolling was complete nonsense.

Are you a mature adult? Will you finally own up to your false accusations?.

.

Edited by turbonium
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"YES" :alien::tu: for the last time

Sending men to the moon was an exciting time for mankind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending men to the moon was an exciting time for mankind.

We were quite naive. Ignorance is bliss, as they say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i'm glad this thread hasn't descended into pointless bickering & petty name-calling guys, keep up the good work......

*insert sarcastic smileyface here*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite simple to grasp my point now, isn't it?

Does the fact that you've had to repost this so often give you even the tiniest hint that it was poorly phrased in the first place?

Will you finally own up to your false accusations?

I've presented the actual interchange and I'll let others judge for themselves which of us has been making false accusations, both in the original thread and more recently here:

You also said that I included some genuine quotes in the same post - that was another false claim, no?

Do you want to stand by it , or admit that you made it up?

You don't even remember your own posts, obviously, since you DID say it.,

You falsely accused me of something, forget you did, and make yet another false accusation! Now, that's quite something!

before finally admitting it:

You're right, it was Waspie's post.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the fact that you've had to repost this so often give you even the tiniest hint that it was poorly phrased in the first place?

I've presented the actual interchange and I'll let others judge for themselves which of us has been making false accusations, both in the original thread and more recently here:

before finally admitting it:

The most SHOCKING thing I have ever read!!! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were quite naive. Ignorance is bliss, as they say!

Well, we have been telling you what was wrong with your claims, comments and such, but I am glad that you are now coming around to reality that the Apollo moon conspiracy folks have been so naive and ignorant of the facts after all these years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the Ignorance part that gets them all toung Tied !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spinebreaker, was your question about the background/foreground adequately explained?

It's a common thing here in COS, Pikes Peak being some 14 miles away. You can move hundreds of feet laterally, and the mountain appears the same, with significant foreground changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the fact that you've had to repost this so often give you even the tiniest hint that it was poorly phrased in the first place?

It's "poorly phrased"?

"My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

"Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said.....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Now, that one should have clued you in!!

You're much too serious these days, my old friend...."

I said my post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

You get it so far, yes? Let's go on...

After I said my post was mostly meant in jest, I cited two specific examples.

I said "running on fumes" was one thing, but the 'NASA' quote in particular should have clued him (MID) in

Then, I tell MID that he's much too serious "these days".

It's not about being "poorly phrased", it's about you being in denial.

You deny the fact I had ALREADY explained the quote before you ever chirped on about it. Nothing you try will ever change that fact.

You can't even admit I spoke about the quote, let alone I explained it. That's huge denial, methinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's "poorly phrased"?

Does reposting it yet again make it any better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Spinebreaker has lost interest?

I think we will have to assume he has seen the light, and would rather this little foray into Apollo denial be forgotten..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Does reposting it yet again make it any better?

Well, it emptied out your lame 'excuse bin', so that makes it better.

Edited by turbonium
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the astronauts say they are watching us meaning the aliens.

Because a part of me is saying the landing was a hoax

Which astronauts, when and where? Source please.

Why would you have to pretend not knowing this, Czero 101 ?

Both Buzz Aldrin and Edgar Mitchel spoke of UFOs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read the full 128 pages of this thread, or the preceding 128,000 pages that came before. I have skimmed about 30 pages from various places and I don't think this has been suggested anywhere. This is my very own personal theory, based on 2 things I consider absolute fact.

1 - In July, 1969. Edwin, Michael and Neil went to the moon. They collected data, rock samples, did other aspects of their job, and then came home. Basically, we have been to the moon.

2 - Some of the photo's taken by Apollo 11's crew are incredibly odd/anomalous. These anomalies have not been explained to my satisfaction. (Your satisfaction level may be different...)

So, my theory...

Collins and the other 2 nipped off to the moon, and did their jobs, just as the official story records. Now, the camera's used by the Apollo missions at the time, were 70mm Hasselblad camera's; Chest mounted. Pretty damn good at the time. Now I dunno if any of you have left a roll of film in a suitcase that gets X-Rayed at an airport... It ruins the pictures.

Is it possible, that after getting to the moon and back, safely, within the decade JFK said it would happen, our heroes return to Terra Firma only to discover that the Camera's were not shielded enough from X-ray's and other forms of radiation/energy they would encounter and the film was blank? Rather than admit this pretty basic error, someone at NASA chose to fake some photo's to keep the people happy... Probably not possible, probably not likely. But a lot more likely than the whole mission being fake...

It's just a theory...

It's a good theory, the photos were obviously not taken on the moon. The problem is, why won't they admit it ? is it because they weren't on the moon at all ?

Edited by Ove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good theory, the photos were obviously not taken on the moon. The problem is, why won't they admit it ? is it because they weren't on the moon at all ?

No. it is because your "theory" that "the photos were obviously not taken on the moon" has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

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.