Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
turbonium

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

548 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

frenat

Electronics for use in space are hardened against two types of radiation. The first is the general radiation it get hit with all the time. Much of that is particle radiation that was easily blocked by the hull of the spacecraft. The other is solar flares. If a solar flare hit the astronauts then they would have had trouble but there were no solar flare at the times of the missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
On what do you base your judgement of reflectivity, or the absence thereof?
I base it on every single video and photo I have seen of the lem

You're attempting to compare a largely out-of-context closeup captured by a vidicon tube in motion and subjected to digital video compression, with images of the entire LM captured on photographic film in a stationary camera and subjected to far less data-destructive compression. Let's level the playing field a little...

How can you tell that the upper image, from the RealVideo clip, is not reflective, and the lower image, from a photograph, is?

user posted image

user posted image

Further, do you see any curious, suspicious, or otherwise anomalous shapes in the lower image?

754147[/snapback]

Your image has no colors other than the gold, and even darkened as it is, still is reflective! And no, I don't see any people in your image, unlike mine which has distinct human features. I also don't see any equivalent to the below still, which is the best example of distinct colors - the green shirt, the flesh tones, etc. NONE of it is reflective, nor gold. You have no logical equivalent for this in ANY of the Kapton (or you say aluminized mylar) on the lem. Also, notice that even though the color of the top image is washed out, the people are still in line with the bottom still here, as the man in the green shirt is pulling on loops to bring down the black shade or panel.

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Caspian Hare

You do realize that there were objects placed on the moon by Astronauts that were used for scientific research by Earth-based scientists, right? They were these prism-like reflectors; they bounced lasers off of them. There's still one being used today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
You do realize that there were objects placed on the moon by Astronauts that were used for scientific research by Earth-based scientists, right? They were these prism-like reflectors; they bounced lasers off of them. There's still one being used today.

755732[/snapback]

I'm aware of the reflectors on the moon - the Russians put some there too. But I don't believe they weren't placed by astronauts, since the Russians did that with unmanned craft. Anyway, they were supposedly placed just before they took off from the moon and the anomalous footage is earlier on. Not that the reflectors would be a reason for these images, anyway. This photo shows they are only a few inches longer than a footprint and square. And the surface of the reflector is an array of symmetrically aligned cubes.

user posted image

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DataCable
Your image has no colors other than  the gold

I don't see anything but gold in the upper image, either.

still is reflective!

Reflective of WHAT? What "reflective properties" are present in the lower image but absent from the upper?

And no, I don't see any people in your image

Funny, I see a cowboy with a mustache on the left side.

unlike mine which has distinct human features.

Even after seeing the red outline overlay of what you think you see, I can't make out anything even vaguely human in that image.

I also don't see any equivalent to the below still, which is the best example of distinct colors - the green shirt, the flesh tones, etc.

Color ghosting... see below.

the people are still in line with the bottom still here, as the man in the green shirt is pulling on loops to bring down the black shade or panel.

Huh? The central details of this frame:

user posted image

Are all translated downward and to the right (and rotated very slightly) in the frame which immediately follows it:

user posted image

But because the camera was moving much more in the second frame than the first, color ghosting is more apparent. The degree of translation (and rotation) is greatest in the green component, which explains the greenish tinge at the bottom of the frame, just to the right of center (what I'm assuming you see as a "green shirt"), which is the green component of the bright highlight just to the left of center in the first frame. Look closely to its left and you can see the green component of the wishbone-shaped hilight (your "loops", I'm assuming)

There are no "static" details between the two frames.

So, how about those DVD frames your agreed to post, so that we can place this closeup in the proper context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

And no, I don't see any people in your image

Funny, I see a cowboy with a mustache on the left side.

756104[/snapback]

yes.gif If we are down in the basement projecting what we want to see onto what amounts to pixelated colored shapes, that is a valid observation according to the standards set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
Your image has no colors other than  the gold

I don't see anything but gold in the upper image, either.

still is reflective!

Reflective of WHAT? What "reflective properties" are present in the lower image but absent from the upper?

And no, I don't see any people in your image

Funny, I see a cowboy with a mustache on the left side.

unlike mine which has distinct human features.

Even after seeing the red outline overlay of what you think you see, I can't make out anything even vaguely human in that image.

I also don't see any equivalent to the below still, which is the best example of distinct colors - the green shirt, the flesh tones, etc.

Color ghosting... see below.

the people are still in line with the bottom still here, as the man in the green shirt is pulling on loops to bring down the black shade or panel.

Huh? The central details of this frame:

user posted image

Are all translated downward and to the right (and rotated very slightly) in the frame which immediately follows it:

user posted image

But because the camera was moving much more in the second frame than the first, color ghosting is more apparent. The degree of translation (and rotation) is greatest in the green component, which explains the greenish tinge at the bottom of the frame, just to the right of center (what I'm assuming you see as a "green shirt"), which is the green component of the bright highlight just to the left of center in the first frame. Look closely to its left and you can see the green component of the wishbone-shaped hilight (your "loops", I'm assuming)

There are no "static" details between the two frames.

So, how about those DVD frames your agreed to post, so that we can place this closeup in the proper context.

756104[/snapback]

If you look at the top frame here, you can still see the loops being held by the same man, only he is standing up, and his head is behind the black panel. Then in the bottom frame, we can see he is still holding the loops, but is now sitting and his face is in view. He has lowered the black panel so that it is almost cloed down to the surface he has his elbows rested on. The other frames also show the progression of the lowering of the black panel until it is fully brought down. Notice the whitish object on the surface is still in the same spot in both frames. It looks like the size of a phone or something, and is seen in the other frames as well. There are a couple of other frames where you can still see the green color of the man's shirt, it has nothing to do with "color ghosting", it is distinctly the color of the shirt.

I'll post the DVD stills tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lonelyalpacafarmer

You're clutching at straws turbo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spraky
SIX TIMES without a hitch...please don't try and dissect sentences to try and manipulate what has been said. It's a ridiculous tactic. And it's just as irrelevant to the issue to focus on the rounding to 40 years I put in. Make a logical reply to my postings of moon landing fakery, with some evidence of your own, or you're wasting your time and mine!

700264[/snapback]

And those so-called "atomic bombs" dropped on Japan in 1945!! Come on! You're telling me that with 1945 technology (vacuum tube computer that could add 1 and 1 in about a minute) they made such a single bomb that could destroy a city? And tested it only ONCE in New Mexico? Then used twice in a row without a hitch?!? If they were real and so effective, why haven't we used them since on our enemies? Explain that to me! It just doesn't make sense, therefore it's a hoax. P.S. If you disagree, you're just in denial, believing all the Big Media tells you to believe, you sheeeep!

And by the way, those images that you keep posting? You know what they look like? A bunch of blurry colors. This is your "proof"? What is the context of the picture? What does NASA say it's a picture of?

Edited by spraky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeAth_Of_CaRTMan
And those so-called "atomic bombs" dropped on Japan in 1945!!  Come on!  You're telling me that with 1945 technology (vacuum tube computer that could add 1 and 1 in about a minute) they made such a single bomb that could destroy a city?  And tested it only ONCE in New Mexico?  Then used twice in a row without a hitch?!?  If they were real and so effective, why haven't we used them since on our enemies?  Explain that to me!  It just doesn't make sense, therefore it's a hoax.  P.S.  If you disagree, you're just in denial, believing all the Big Media tells you to believe, you sheeeep!

And by the way, those images that you keep posting?  You know what they look like?  A bunch of blurry colors.  This is your "proof"?  What is the context of the picture?  What does NASA say it's a picture of?

758862[/snapback]

Can you try not to confuse the first atomic bomb used(which was dropped from a plane so needed no guidance system wacko.gif ) with the moon landing - which occurred long after the vacuum tube was replaced by transistors(early 50s) and then in turn by intergraded circuits(early sixties); which would provide plenty enough power to perform the algorithms necessary for the apollo missions.

Edited by DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lonelyalpacafarmer
SIX TIMES without a hitch...please don't try and dissect sentences to try and manipulate what has been said. It's a ridiculous tactic. And it's just as irrelevant to the issue to focus on the rounding to 40 years I put in. Make a logical reply to my postings of moon landing fakery, with some evidence of your own, or you're wasting your time and mine!

700264[/snapback]

And those so-called "atomic bombs" dropped on Japan in 1945!! Come on! You're telling me that with 1945 technology (vacuum tube computer that could add 1 and 1 in about a minute) they made such a single bomb that could destroy a city? And tested it only ONCE in New Mexico? Then used twice in a row without a hitch?!? If they were real and so effective, why haven't we used them since on our enemies? Explain that to me! It just doesn't make sense, therefore it's a hoax. P.S. If you disagree, you're just in denial, believing all the Big Media tells you to believe, you sheeeep!

And by the way, those images that you keep posting? You know what they look like? A bunch of blurry colors. This is your "proof"? What is the context of the picture? What does NASA say it's a picture of?

758862[/snapback]

Are you saying there was never an atomic bomb dropped on Japan? Wow...just.....wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spraky
SIX TIMES without a hitch...please don't try and dissect sentences to try and manipulate what has been said. It's a ridiculous tactic. And it's just as irrelevant to the issue to focus on the rounding to 40 years I put in. Make a logical reply to my postings of moon landing fakery, with some evidence of your own, or you're wasting your time and mine!

700264[/snapback]

And those so-called "atomic bombs" dropped on Japan in 1945!! Come on! You're telling me that with 1945 technology (vacuum tube computer that could add 1 and 1 in about a minute) they made such a single bomb that could destroy a city? And tested it only ONCE in New Mexico? Then used twice in a row without a hitch?!? If they were real and so effective, why haven't we used them since on our enemies? Explain that to me! It just doesn't make sense, therefore it's a hoax. P.S. If you disagree, you're just in denial, believing all the Big Media tells you to believe, you sheeeep!

And by the way, those images that you keep posting? You know what they look like? A bunch of blurry colors. This is your "proof"? What is the context of the picture? What does NASA say it's a picture of?

758862[/snapback]

Are you saying there was never an atomic bomb dropped on Japan? Wow...just.....wow.

758947[/snapback]

I am merely following the logic presented by turbo-dude: If we are to question the Apollo missions partly because they were so successful, because with a seemingly small amount of testing NASA was able to get to the moon six times, then by God, I am going to question the atomic bomb, whose history follows the same rough pattern:

1) Impressive technology for its time (and frankly, still impressive)

2) Relatively little testing

3) Employed with great success, helping the current US gov't (propaganda-wise)

4) Hasn't been done since

5) Conclusion: It was all a hoax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

Sorry I thought you were another wacko insisting 1969 computer technology was up to the guidance systems.

Edited by DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spraky
Sorry I thought you were another wacko insisting 1969 computer technology was up to the guidance systems.

759029[/snapback]

Nope, just another wacko who thinks rational discourse with conspiranoids will somehow bring out the truth, or a close approximation thereof. But as we can see, that just isn't going to happen. The only value might be that someone with an open mind might wander in here, having heard about Apollo-hoax theories, and will come away realizing that the people who believe in such hoaxes are deluded, or at least are very poor reasoners.

But honestly, why do people argue with turbo-guy for more than a few posts? He's not going to change his mind no matter what is said, so what is the point? To protect the innocent? To help others not to believe nonsense? That could be valuable, I suppose. I'm only here to take a break from a 9/11 conspiracy discussion, which I find far more disturbing, as the meaning/cause of 9/11 impacts us all. The Apollo hoax theory, well, it doesn't really matter too much, at least compared to theories that 9/11 is a CIA/MI5/Mossad/New-World-Order hoax with a high body count.

Edited by spraky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
I am merely following the logic presented by turbo-dude: If we are to question the Apollo missions partly because they were so successful, because with a seemingly small amount of testing NASA was able to get to the moon six times, then by God, I am going to question the atomic bomb, whose history follows the same rough pattern:

1) Impressive technology for its time (and frankly, still impressive)

2) Relatively little testing

3) Employed with great success, helping the current US gov't (propaganda-wise)

4) Hasn't been done since

5) Conclusion: It was all a hoax

The logic you suggest I employ is totally wrong. You too have taken one sentence of mine out of context - "six times without a hitch" and proceed to make conclusions based on that. My argument on the lack of technology and testing is not the crux of this thread, if you've followed it. This is a misdirected and silly conclusion based on your selectively choosing only certain points and falsely interpreting them. Even the pro-Apollo people couldn't figure out what the hell you were trying to say.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeman
Trust me we've been to the moon.

It wasn;t fake.

685210[/snapback]

i agree with Neo

the moon landing wasn't faked yes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat
Trust me we've been to the moon.

It wasn;t fake.

685210[/snapback]

i agree with Neo

the moon landing wasn't faked yes.gif

760217[/snapback]

I agree as well. There is tons of evidence showing the US went to the moon with the Apollo hardware. I have yet to see any credible claim otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spraky
I am merely following the logic presented by turbo-dude: If we are to question the Apollo missions partly because they were so successful, because with a seemingly small amount of testing NASA was able to get to the moon six times, then by God, I am going to question the atomic bomb, whose history follows the same rough pattern:

1) Impressive technology for its time (and frankly, still impressive)

2) Relatively little testing

3) Employed with great success, helping the current US gov't (propaganda-wise)

4) Hasn't been done since

5) Conclusion: It was all a hoax

The logic you suggest I employ is totally wrong. You too have taken one sentence of mine out of context - "six times without a hitch" and proceed to make conclusions based on that. My argument on the lack of technology and testing is not the crux of this thread, if you've followed it. This is a misdirected and silly conclusion based on your selectively choosing only certain points and falsely interpreting them. Even the pro-Apollo people couldn't figure out what the hell you were trying to say.

760117[/snapback]

For someone who's photo is a guy being hanged, you're pretty uptight. I was merely pointing out the weakness of ONE of your problems with the Apollo program: that it seemed unduly successful to you. I was trying to show that an impressive success record (which others have pointed out is not as astonishing as you seem to think, given the fatal accidents) is not in any way an indication of fraud. Or did I misunderstand you? Were you NOT saying that one indication of Apollo fraud was its success record? And also, my comments did not address your claims of blurry elbows and hands in the Apollo footage, which is the crux of this thread.

Yes, I confused some pro-Apollo people, because they thought I was serious. And given the outrageous claims that conspiranoids make these days, they had good reason to think I was serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DataCable
Are you saying there was never an atomic bomb dropped on Japan?

While he was clearly being sarcastic for emphasis, I actually have seen a paranoid nut-job claim that nuclear weapons are (or at least, were) a hoax, and that Hiroshima was actually destroyed by massive quantities of conventional explosives smuggled in under cover of nightfall, planted around the city, and detonated simultaneously. blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spraky
Are you saying there was never an atomic bomb dropped on Japan?

While he was clearly being sarcastic for emphasis, I actually have seen a paranoid nut-job claim that nuclear weapons are (or at least, were) a hoax, and that Hiroshima was actually destroyed by massive quantities of conventional explosives smuggled in under cover of nightfall, planted around the city, and detonated simultaneously. blink.gif

761243[/snapback]

And that is indeed the blessing and the curse of the Internet. Anybody can publish opinions, etc with great ease and reach a wide audience. And some of those anybodies are people who before the Internet would be ranting on street corners and their lack of analytical acument would be obvious to all. On the Internet, that gets lost. At first glance (or first click, I should say), a nutcase's web site looks as legitimate as a sane person's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
For someone who's photo is a guy being hanged, you're pretty uptight. I was merely pointing out the weakness of ONE of your problems with the Apollo program: that it seemed unduly successful to you. I was trying to show that an impressive success record (which others have pointed out is not as astonishing as you seem to think, given the fatal accidents) is not in any way an indication of fraud. Or did I misunderstand you? Were you NOT saying that one indication of Apollo fraud was its success record? And also, my comments did not address your claims of blurry elbows and hands in the Apollo footage, which is the crux of this thread.

A guy being hanged? laugh.gif I'm not the one who's uptight, I assure you - rather it's those who "dare" question the almighty NASA and Apollo as being anything other than the absolute truth who are faced with almost maniacal responses akin to accusations of heresy for merely suggesting it isn't true!

I find it interesting that someone thinks you're crazy for not believing in the moon landings will often be the same guy who swears that little grey alien abductions are much more believable!

rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanato

Oh the Apollo missions had major problems, Apollo 1 cought on fire killing the 3 crew, and apollo 13 nearly blew up in space.

~Thanato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
Oh the Apollo missions had major problems, Apollo 1 cought on fire killing the 3 crew, and apollo 13 nearly blew up in space.

~Thanato

762292[/snapback]

Of course - look at the Shuttle problems right now. The technical issue is still a factor to consider when debating whether we were capable of landing men on the moon in 1969. It goes to many of the problems involved.

Was the explanation of "just lucky" suffice for the fact they had a lack of radiation protection and they didn't encounter any problems?

Was the lack of testing the lem successfully also adequately answered by saying they "knew it would work"? The only prototype tested just before Apollo 11 crashed. But that didn't delay the launch - why wouldn't it?

Is there any reason to adequately explain why the blueprint originals and all copies for both the lem and the rover were destroyed? They should have protected them safely like the Declaration of Independence, they were of such historical and scientific importance.

What I think is that they could not do it due to lack of adequate technological advancements to overcome the environmental hazards and logistical problems. If we were advanced enough to land men on the moon six times over 30 years ago, we would not be still trying to make the Shuttle just orbit Earth without blowing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudomorph
If we were advanced enough to land men on the moon six times over 30 years ago, we would not be still trying to make the Shuttle just orbit Earth without blowing up.

762681[/snapback]

Something I find more and more interesting and amuzing with all the news we hear with current STS mission. Of course, some could claim that NASA's financial cutbacks are responsible for this, but somehow I don't quite buy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

NASA - Reversing Technology Since 1969 user posted image

Since we "landed on the moon" in 1969, NASA has been taking technology to previously unheard of lows. Technological nosedives are zooming along right on schedule. As the current Shuttle blows chunks (of foam) in orbit, after working on the problem for 2 years after the last Shuttle blew up from losing foam chunks, we can anticipate that within 10 years, we will be striving to emulate the feats of Werhner Von Braun, by dedicating billions of dollars to fulfill a dream project - successfully replicating the V-2 rocket!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.