[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

[frenat]

You really don't get it, MID.

Wires (or anything else, for that matter) could be edited out of any Apollo image/video.

So there is no evidence of wires, period. If a spacesuit shows evidence of wires pulling it up, they just edit the suit. Same as any sci-fi movie does.

Do you 'see' my point now?

In live video where the astronauts are reacting in real time to the President and mission control. Yeah, that's done all the time.

[turbonium]

Unsatisfactory. If you're going to make things up, it's best to actually answer the question while doing so. It makes incorrect answers seem like they're atleast delivered with a modicum of sincerety.

I asked you how the photo was made, not about photos of models of a fake lunar surface used in simulators, or about pictures of the Moon that aren't showing Hadley Rille. I was sopeaking directly to a photo taken of the Apollo 15 landing area by the men who would be landing there.

The fact is, the photo was made by a rather expensive Hasselblad 500C pointed by a man through a small window in an amazing spacecraft that was on orbit around the Moon in July, 1971. That spacecraft got their by the favors of a fine Saturn V launch vehicle and a very fine S4-B third stage that put the spacecraft on a very precise trajectory to lunar orbit insertion.

I was just getting at the degree of your actual knowledge and the extent you'd go to to post nonsense again.

It worked. But, it's boring and there's not much more to say to you. I hoped for a bit better than this, but alas...no chance!

You asked me how it was done, and I told you how - with models.

Who cares if Hadley Rille isn't seen in the 'moon' model photo? It fooled everyone, including all the 'experts' at NASA, that it was the genuine lunar surface!!

(Hmm..Maybe there's a reason Hadley Rille isn't shown on their models, come to think of it., but I digress...)

NASA fooled eveyone with a moon model, as you know. So how is Apollo any harder to fake?.

[turbonium]

Your point is rediculous. It isonly speculation at best. Simply making an assertion does not make it true. There is no evidence for wires, no evidence for a conspiracy, no evidence supprting your view at all. Instead of making these ludicrous claims, post some kind of evidence. Do you see our point now? Get it?

You should have reviewed this issue beforehand, and then post on it.

It began with MID. In essence, he asked me how the astronauts were able to jump so high if it was a fake. His example was a photo of John Young in mid-leap.

So I said they could do it with wires.

He asked me to point out wires in his photo, or in any other Apollo photo/video.

I said they would have edited wires out of the Apollo photos/videos. And was done in movies - before Apollo.

He asked for proof of that. I showed him the proof.

So now he just keeps asking me for evidence of wires in Apollo images/videos.

No wires are seen in sci-fi movies, or in the Apollo images/videos. I know that both can be done with wires, but I can't prove either of them did, as I've got no verifiable evidence.

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?

[turbonium]

In live video where the astronauts are reacting in real time to the President and mission control. Yeah, that's done all the time.

A claim without any evidence is just one's personal opinion. Also, exactly what does it have to do with the issue of wires?

[skyeagle409]

In live video where the astronauts are reacting in real time to the President and mission control. Yeah, that's done all the time.

The moon hoax folks don't think of simple little things like that. On another note;

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
  

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NASA's Apollo Landing Sites Will Be Protected

http://news.discover...tes-120528.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apollo 14

Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions

Sightings of Apollo 11, and a Table Mountain photo, were reported in "Observations of Apollo 11", Sky and Telescope, November 1969, pp. 358-359. The Table Mountain 60-cm image is shown here, by courtesy of Jim Young. It is a 12-minute exposure (0512-0524 UT on 24 July, on the home stretch) with the spacecraft showing as the diagonal streak. There were few sightings from North America during the outbound journey due to clouds over many sites. However, Brian Fenerty reports, "When Apollo 11 was outbound towards the Moon, I was in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and saw the mission on its way with my own eyes (from Saxe Point Park by the ocean). One of the newspapers published a map showing where to look in the evening sky on two consecutive nights, showing where each night the craft would show as a point of bright light. Since I knew enough about what was normally visible, it was unmistakable."

A group with the Chabot Observatory 50-cm refractor managed to detect it as late as 0425 UT on July 18, and again during the return on July 23. Amateurs on Mount Kobau in British Columbia followed the final night of the return trip.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Apollo 16

Dale Ireland reports observing the Apollo 16 spacecraft (CSM+LM) and S-IVB using the 12-inch f/15 Clark refractor at Jewett Observatory at Washington State University. Each was typically magnitude 11 or 12.

Edited October 27, 2012 by skyeagle409

[beale947]

A claim without any evidence is just one's personal opinion. Also, exactly what does it have to do with the issue of wires?

My God! The irony in this post is being read at two and a half kilo/facepalms! You have never provided a single bit of proof. That makes it an 'opinion'.

[turbonium]

My God! The irony in this post is being read at two and a half kilo/facepalms! You have never provided a single bit of proof. That makes it an 'opinion'.

Thanks for your filler post, but I'd prefer you contribute somerhing to the actual issue next time.

[frenat]

A claim without any evidence is just one's personal opinion. Also, exactly what does it have to do with the issue of wires?

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.

Thanks for your filler post, but I'd prefer you contribute somerhing to the actual issue next time.

That's the same thing we've been hoping about you.

[MID]

You asked me how it was done, and I told you how - with models.

Who cares if Hadley Rille isn't seen in the 'moon' model photo? It fooled everyone, including all the 'experts' at NASA, that it was the genuine lunar surface!!

(Hmm..Maybe there's a reason Hadley Rille isn't shown on their models, come to think of it., but I digress...)

NASA fooled eveyone with a moon model, as you know. So how is Apollo any harder to fake?.

I can see you take no warnings, and insist in posting innanities...

Well, their "Models" is kinda cute turb, but I'm actually looking at the photo I mentioned, taken from about 60 NM, lunar orbit. The model was the actual Hadley Rille, including their landing site. How they took this photo was to go launching outbound from Cape Kennedy, Florida on a massive Saturn V rocket, we have models of them too but they can't fly to the Moon under their own power and guidance. ~3,050 tons of it did that mission, as one of these behemoths did all the other nine lunar flights of the program.

I guess you'd never realized that?!

Oh, and uh...again, I, nor anyone else knows what "models" you're talking about , but there were lots of sites, and thousands of photos taken. Here's some other photos taken of Hadley Rille:

And oh my, Yes! Just prior to actually going down in that place that you claim the models didn't show.???

What a place it was! We had a blast on Apollo 15. It was supreme flying, combined with adventure, tons of HQ photos (you know, magazines of fakes!!! ), films and lots of live TV (where the network took the wires out of it (or NASA did, from 200,000 miles away...I mean, I don't know who was doing that, but maybe you do (...I can't really imagine that**)???

..., While we watched them pickin up rocks and falling down ....just amazing instant digital modifications of live video , and we didn't even have digital capability, or digital cameras( we still used film back then!), and all that.

** And how would you know any of this? You weren't old enough to be out of cartoons when Apollo was flying!

But what I was really getting at with my question was whether you could explain how Hadley Rille was ophotographed, like all the other landing sites were, by men, prior to them actually landing at the places.

You said models, but that doesn't really answer the question. Wrong answer.

I think you can go away now.

[synchronomy]

I think that you've proven yourself rather worthless in this discussion.

"...debunk the dedbunkers theories that the Moon landings were faked.?"

Uh...we'll make it as simple as possible--debunkers have no such theories. Debunkers typically, as they have on this thread, shredded the claims of the HB folks, the CT minds, who do say that the Moon missions and landings and all associated with them were faked.

They have nonsensical, and completely disproven claims. Debunkers debunk them, they don't assault other debunkers.

Mthbusters are debunkers.

Maybe that makes it clearer for you?

Of course, Chrlzs above said something very similar. Maybe seeing both of us together will fortify the message??

Yes, I see I mixed up the terms. I was very tired and worked a long day and I think my brain was on fizz mode.

Sorry for getting you guys ticked here. My sincere apologies.

If I may ask, for my own clarification;

Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are promoting "bunk" that the Apollo Moon landings were somehow faked?

Debunkers here are discrediting the CT's claims of fakery by NASA?

For the record I am not a troll. I believe that when I was 6 years old and sat on my Father's lap watching as they landed on the Moon, I was not watching a Walt Disney production. The Apollo landings were not faked IMHO, and I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.

I thought these silly claims were settled when Buzz punched that twit jamming a camera in his face and screaming at him to swear on the Bible he was on the Moon?

[MID]

Yes, I see I mixed up the terms. I was very tired and worked a long day and I think my brain was on fizz mode.

Sorry for getting you guys ticked here. My sincere apologies.

It's OK Synch, I got ya!

The brain in fizz mode is understood by many people. I wasn't ticked and all is well...

If I may ask, for my own clarification;

You may!

Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are promoting "bunk" that the Apollo Moon landings were somehow faked?

Debunkers here are discrediting the CT's claims of fakery by NASA?

I think that basically summarizes the situation well, using appropriate terminology, yes.

For the record I am not a troll. I believe that when I was 6 years old and sat on my Father's lap watching as they landed on the Moon, I was not watching a Walt Disney production. The Apollo landings were not faked IMHO, and I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.

For the record, I believe ya!

The fact is, all of the people who were actually working on Apollo itself never saw anything that would even suggest otherwise.

I thought these silly claims were settled when Buzz punched that twit jamming a camera in his face and screaming at him to swear on the Bible he was on the Moon?

Well, one could logically think so, most certainly, and, they'd be absolutely right. The man questioning Buzz Aldrin that day was a complete fool and a moron. I believe, since we've not heard from him at all since his disappearance into prison, that he too has learned of his idiocy???

However, it's still surprizing to see the new people appearing who make claims to the contrary of the facts!

But still, one has to wonder, when we landed there in July and November of 1969, in February, 1971, April, 1972, and December, 1972, and it was all seen live from the Moon on color television, where are these people's brains, and what have they been smoking or snorting for the past 43 years???

Edited October 27, 2012 by MID

[beale947]

Thanks for your filler post, but I'd prefer you contribute somerhing to the actual issue next time.

Coming from you, who has never contributed anything to anyone aside from a little CO2. I don't need to join in the gang of people proving your fantasies wrong, because it already feels like a baby seal being clubbed.

You have had all of your 'proofs' disproved countless times. Just because you don't understand politics and physics, doesn't mean you can inflict that on the rest of us.

[MID]

Coming from you, who has never contributed anything to anyone aside from a little CO2. I don't need to join in the gang of people proving your fantasies wrong, because it already feels like a baby seal being clubbed.

You have had all of your 'proofs' disproved countless times. Just because you don't understand politics and physics, doesn't mean you can inflict that on the rest of us.

Bravo, beale !

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Turbonium, how can you possibly claim that a model fooled all the experts when the very quote you provide is thanking the expert that noticed it wasn't a genuine Apollo image?

Once again you destroy your own argument but are so blind to reality that you can't see it.

[MID]

[beale947]

Bravo, beale !

Thanks. However if he really wants me to join in, I will. I mean I am a forensic scientist, so really it is my job this evidence thing

[MID]

Thanks. However if he really wants me to join in, I will. I mean I am a forensic scientist, so really it is my job this evidence thing

OK! Well, turb would be a fool to engage again, I think. It has been rather obvious that he really has no sense of what evidence is about, nor how to use it.

I will look forward to his typical attempts with a forensic scientist.

Edited October 27, 2012 by MID

[ChrLzs]

Thanks for clarifying, Synchronomy - kudos to you. I apologise if I was a little terse in my reply - I'm far too jaded by the continual ignorance (and deceit) of the dwindling few remaining Apollo deniers..

[Obviousman]

Thanks for clarifying, Synchronomy - kudos to you. I apologise if I was a little terse in my reply - I'm far too jaded by the continual ignorance (and deceit) of the dwindling few remaining Apollo deniers..

I think we all get that way every now and again.

[turbonium]

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.

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?

[turbonium]

IOh, and uh...again, I, nor anyone else knows what "models" you're talking about , but there were lots of sites, and thousands of photos taken.

But what I was really getting at with my question was whether you could explain how Hadley Rille was ophotographed, like all the other landing sites were, by men, prior to them actually landing at the places.

You said models, but that doesn't really answer the question. Wrong answer.

You can say it's wrong all you like, but so far it's merely your personal opinion. No more.

If it's wrong, show the evidence. Just saying it's wrong, over and over again, is getting very tiresome

So, do you think they had any sort of 'moon' models, or none at all? Clarify your position on models - if you could.

Have you seen any photos of huge moon models, btw?

[turbonium]

Coming from you, who has never contributed anything to anyone aside from a little CO2. I don't need to join in the gang of people proving your fantasies wrong, because it already feels like a baby seal being clubbed.

You have had all of your 'proofs' disproved countless times. Just because you don't understand politics and physics, doesn't mean you can inflict that on the rest of us.

If you don't want to address the issues, then you are just a troll to be ignored. Period/

Edited October 28, 2012 by turbonium

[skyeagle409]

Some of the following reasons why conspiracist have been unable to produce evidence of hoaxed Apollo moon missions.

Ultraviolet photographs

Long-exposure photos were taken with a special far-ultraviolet camera by Apollo 16 on 21 April 1972 from the surface of the Moon. Some of these photos show the Earth with stars from the Capricornus andAquarius constellations in the background. The joint Belgian/British/Dutch satellite TD-1 later scanned the sky for stars that are bright in UV light. The TD-1 data obtained with the shortest passband is a close match for the Apollo 16 photographs

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exploring the Apollo 17 landings site

http://lroc.sese.asu...o-17-Site.html/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apollo Moon flags still standing, images show

Images taken by a Nasa spacecraft show that the American flags planted in the Moon's soil by Apollo astronauts are mostly still standing. The photos from Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) show the flags are still casting shadows - except the one planted during the Apollo 11 mission.This matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being knocked over by engine exhaust as Apollo 11 lifted off.

LRO was designed to produce the most detailed maps yet of the lunar surface.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19050795

Edited October 28, 2012 by skyeagle409

[beale947]

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?

You can say it's wrong all you like, but so far it's merely your personal opinion. No more.

If it's wrong, show the evidence. Just saying it's wrong, over and over again, is getting very tiresome

So, do you think they had any sort of 'moon' models, or none at all? Clarify your position on models - if you could.

Have you seen any photos of huge moon models, btw?

Do you not see the irony in these posts?

It is not up to us to disprove the moon landing was a hoax. It is up to you to prove there was one. That is how debating works, you made the claim, you have to back it up. Not only have you failed to do that more times than wile-e-coyote failed to catch Roadrunner, you are now simply going "Its my opinion, I don't need proof!!" That isn't debating.

Now for the wires thing, you say its an opinion, and it is wrong none the less. We can barely edit stuff out of live feeds today. Even if the film was delayed and even had the best camera angels to reduce the exposure back then, it was pretty much impossible. Why do you think they've gone back over the years to stuff like Thunderbirds to remaster and remove the strings you can see in the episodes. There was simply not the technology back then to scrub stuff like wires out of pre-recorded stuff, let alone a live feed, which is still bloody difficult today with Photoshop and other programs.

[skyeagle409]

Yes, I see I mixed up the terms. I was very tired and worked a long day and I think my brain was on fizz mode.

Sorry for getting you guys ticked here. My sincere apologies.

If I may ask, for my own clarification;

Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are promoting "bunk" that the Apollo Moon landings were somehow faked?

Debunkers here are discrediting the CT's claims of fakery by NASA?

For the record I am not a troll. I believe that when I was 6 years old and sat on my Father's lap watching as they landed on the Moon, I was not watching a Walt Disney production. The Apollo landings were not faked IMHO, and I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.

I thought these silly claims were settled when Buzz punched that twit jamming a camera in his face and screaming at him to swear on the Bible he was on the Moon?

Check this out.

Apollo 15: Confirmed Times Three

There’s certainly no shortage of independent confirmation of the Apollo missions. From ham radio operators to the Jorell Bank Observatory, plenty of independent observers received the radio communications. Others tracked the missions optically. The missions relied on centers located in Madrid, Australia, California, Guam, Madagascar and elsewhere to track and maintain communications with the spacecraft. Since then, lunar samples, observations and data have been confirmed by independent scientists and other national space programs.

However, one mission stands out as having been confirmed more than any others.

Apollo-15, the third to touch down on the lunar surface and the first to use the Lunar Rover, has been imaged by at least three different space agencies. Nasa took images of the area during the mission, and these images were confirmed as accurate by later probes including the DOD’s Clementine probe and probes sent by the European Space Agency, Indian Space Agency, Soviet Union and Japanese Space Agency.

At least three of the probes have had imaging capabilities of sufficient resolution to see traces of the mission activities. The best images come from NASA’s

LRO, the only spacecraft able to return images of a high enough resolution to recognize the equipment left behind. However,Japan’s SELENE probe confirmed the profile of the area and imaged the “halo” caused by the engines of the LEM disturbing the lunar dust, which had been undisturbed for millions of years, causing the top most layer to have different reflectivity due to the time spent exposed to the solar winds and intense sun light. SELENE also saw the outlines and shadows of equipment, but without high enough resolution to definitively tell they were man-made.

More recently, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe provided slightly better images than SELENE, providing additional detail and confirming the observations already made by the two previous imaging missions.This was announced in early September, but the images were not immediately avaliable.

http://depletedcrani...ed-times-three/

Edited October 28, 2012 by skyeagle409