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 -

moon landing


Death Star III
 Share

moon landing  

232 members have voted

  1. 1. do you believe that people landed on the moon.

    • yes
      158
    • no
      74


Recommended Posts

All this talk about Mr. Tuttle and his part in the Apollo photos lead me to do some looking around. Take a look here for what Mr. Tuttle himself has to say about these allegations. At the very bottom of his webpage he says this:

Remember, some peoples realties are other peoples fantasies.

I appears that Mr. Tuttle does not agree with your position regarding what he did with the Apollo photographs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • MID

    352

  • Waspie_Dwarf

    294

  • straydog

    311

  • Trinitrotoluene

    499

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

postbaquk ... I am not talking about pictures which have been cropped or studio enhanced to appear more pleasing to the eye ... I am talking about outright faking the photos which nasa claimed were taken on the moon .

" .... And why do you apply different criteria to the Apollo moonshot photos, than you do to this image of the Eiffel tower?"

Because the altered picture you posted here was not done to try to fool anybody about where the Eiffel tower is really located .. but the Apollo photos were .... If nasa claimed they were taken on the moon , yet we see anomalies which prove otherwise , then nasa is being deceptive ... and if thy are intentionally being deceptive about where the Apollo photos were taken , then why should any of us assume that they are being honest about anything else ? .... Especially when there is so much evidence which proves that the technology of 1969 could not even get men to the moon .... Regardless of MID trying to prove otherwise all of the time .

Unfortunately, as a wise man once pointed out *

"If you came up with a thousand fake moon photos, and we came up with one genuine photo, it would still prove that we went to the moon.

So really, you have to prove that all of them are fake."

So the burden of proof becomes quite considerable, no? :mellow:

* http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=80...p;postcount=186 .Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hplasm ..... You can read about how Tuttle photo shopped some of the Apollo pictures here in 1994 .... There are other sites as well which show how nasa faked the moon photos and the moon landings using blue screen imaging and simulation moon models .... I will see if I can find them for you .

http://www.geocities.com/fakemoonpics/

* Edited to add ... There are no authentic moon pictures showing astronauts standing on the lunar surface , only studio fake ones with stage lights , and spotlights ... So that makes my 'burden of proof" a lot easier .

Can you or anyone else here prove that any of the photos showing Apollo astronauts were really taken on the moon ?

Edited by straydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hplasm ..... You can read about how Tuttle photo shopped some of the Apollo pictures here in 1994 .... There are other sites as well which show how nasa faked the moon photos and the moon landings using blue screen imaging and simulation moon models .... I will see if I can find them for you .

http://www.geocities.com/fakemoonpics/

Thanks, I'll have a look. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Straydog, you can't use that as evidence. The fact they "could" have been created in photoshop doesn't actually prove they actually were created in photoshop. Do you actually have direct evidence that the picture were digitally created using photoshop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) · (edited)

Can you or anyone else here prove that any of the photos showing Apollo astronauts were really taken on the moon ?

We don't have to. That man walked on the Moon in July 1969 is the accepted truth that the vast majority of the world believe. It is you that is trying to change the status quo so it is you that has to prove that every photo is fake. Even that won't prove your case because there are those (and this includes David Percy) that believe the landings were genuine but the photos were faked so you have to prove that NASA (and every space faring nation on Earth) are lying about the Van Allen belts. You have to prove that the technology did not exist in 1969.

So far you have present no proof and very little evidence to back up any of these claims. Saying that "it looks like a spot light" is not enough. You have to prove it WAS a spot light. You have not done this.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MID ... You never cease to amaze me with how much time and effort you put into trying to debunk my posts here ... A member who you profess to hold such little interest in , or who's value you insist has waned .... If you weren't so concerned about the evidence I have posted here then you wouldn't bother to construct such complicated rebutal posts to me .

Ah straydog...

It's not that much time and effort.

You are simply not used to encountering someone who knows alot about this stuff and writes in detailed fashion about it.

You don't read my complicated rebuttal posts anyway. You prefer to ignore the perfectly reasonable science presented and post stuff like this. That is valueless.

The pictures you posted here of the LM if flight over the moon are superimposed studio fakes ...

Great. Brilliant! That settles it.

Read this and maybe you will learn something besides how to berate and lecture in a condescending , know it all tone .

...a common strategy used by those who find them selves overwhelmed. Accuse me of berating and lecturing, and tell me I'm going to learn something from someone who thinks artificial lights are "obvious" in the Apollo pictures which show noting of the sort...

C'mon stray.

You're still talking about objects being superimposed over fiducials in Apollo pictures? That is ludicrous. Fiducials have already been completely explained, and the idea that someone superimposed objects over these marks is nuts. Plain nuts, frankly. You don't even rationally think about your statements, despite the fact you're trying to come up with proof of a hoax that's somehow plausible...

There is no "spot light" visible in Apollo photos...only the sun, right where it should be. I've asked repeatedly for you to prove it, yet, all we get are these statements...no stands, no light fixtures, no anything, save an extremely bright reflection of the sun in a helmet visor.

Your posts are not my worst nightmare. They are boring, since they show nothing but the sun, and I wish you'd get on with a question or two that is worthy of a response.

I've actually never considered your discussions of that picture, and haven't really commented, since others have more than adequately shattered your illusions...despite the fact that you won't budge.

I simply don't consider it worthy of comment.

For instance:

user posted image

Where's the "spot light". I see the sun in the helmet, right where it should be. The Sun's about 16 degrees above the horizon at this point in EVA-1...about 118 hours GET).

I see no fixture, no stand, no nothing, save a brilliant reflection...which of course, is what the Sun presents...

You've never shown one jot of "evidence" of some artificial light...none. Just speculation and wishful thinking. You've proved nothing.

This is becoming unbelievable.

During the Apollo era, the technology existed to produce fake images involving one image superimposed over another. Evidence for this comes from http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG. We know that the earth should be about 65 degrees above the lunar true horizon when viewed by the Apollo 11 astronauts. In the reflection in the Apollo 11 astronauts' visors, the earth is shown less than five degrees above the horizon.

Show me the Apollo 11 photograph that shows the earth reflected in an astronaut's visor.

There were only about 10 photos taken on Apollo 11 which show an Astronaut's visor, and none of them show the Earth in it. The Earth was very high up in the lunar sky that day.

This is a ridiculous comment. The Earth, if it was visible in an astronaut's visor on Apollo 11, would've been distinctly visible, and the astronaut would've had to have his head tilted back at quite an angle. There is no such photograph, nor is there any photo showing the Earth 5 degrees above the horizon.

You really are proving yourself here.

I've asked you to ask something...whatever you have a question about. Not a million issues that already disregard the facts supplied you.

What is it that you don't understand about this?

Post like this are valueless to the discussion, and people quite naturally get teed off by your obstinance in the face of full refutations of your previous arguements. You have no proof of your contentions, but it is obvious that, like your departed predecessors, and one other who is here now, you have a large scale and decidedly conditioned imagination, as well as a lack of knowledge about the things you're looking at.

When that knowedge is presented to you, you defensively go off on a rant about it being "NASA spin". That is childish. Better would be to investigate the matter, and learn something.

This is about education. But if all you're going to do is insist on your untenable and completely disproven position, you might want to avoid posting anything.

People tend to get testy with such stuff, and we necesarily have mods and other authorites coming in here telling everyone to chill out, since tempers flare at silliness. They do so quite reasonably.

Take note to who's gone here, and who remains. You may learn something from that. Discuss, don't scream about silliness. You are not making yourself look good at all.

A S K S O M E T H I N G without flaming on...

It may well be benficial. Or, are you unreachable, and, as I indicated, of little value to this discussion?

The choice is yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I'll have a look. :)

Hi- I have had a look at

http://www.geocities.com/fakemoonpics/

but I am a little dismayed by the inconsistent information given, eg

The Moon buggy and it's shadow have been pasted onto photograph, OR if buggy was genuinely in the picture, it's been placed/lowered there by some crane.

This came directly after the explanation of how the pictures must have been created, so surely there was no picture originally for the buggy to be lowered onto. :mellow:

I must say that the site is disappointing, overall, but I am sure that there must be better out there, please feel free to pass on details of those that you find interesting.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Especially when there is so much evidence which proves that the technology of 1969 could not even get men to the moon .... Regardless of MID trying to prove otherwise all of the time .

MID is not endeavoring in any way to prove that we did this.

He knows we did.

As I've stated before, you must prove we didn't.

You have failed so far to do so...

Stop asking for proof that we did this. That is a silly defense mechanism in the face of rebuttals that you cannot, and will not answer intelligently.

The "proof" is voluminous and incontroverible. You are the accuser...as were all the others.

You prove that we didn't do this thing that is so well established by every scientific criteria known.

Quite frankly...it is much better to ask questions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MID, on a seperate note have you ever played a simulator called Orbiter? If not you should install it and have a play, http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html. It's by no means a press your mouse to fire the rockets kind of a simulator, it's as real as they come and is based on the laws of physics. I think you may enjoy it, so would others here I rekon. You can simulate pre set missions, like docking with the ISS for example, I'm also pretty sure there are Apollo missions out for download somewhere as well. Heres a few screenshots:

(Click for big)

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

This program isn't for the faint hearted. If you don't have at least a basic understanding of orbital mechanics or how space craft manouver in space, don't bother even clicking the link, because you will get frustrated when you wonder why you keep falling into the middle of the pacific :D. Infact, no. Give it a try anyway it's a good program.

Edited by Gavsto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Hi- I have had a look at

http://www.geocities.com/fakemoonpics/

but I am a little dismayed by the inconsistent information given, eg

The Moon buggy and it's shadow have been pasted onto photograph, OR if buggy was genuinely in the picture, it's been placed/lowered there by some crane.

This came directly after the explanation of how the pictures must have been created, so surely there was no picture originally for the buggy to be lowered onto. :mellow:

I must say that the site is disappointing, overall, but I am sure that there must be better out there, please feel free to pass on details of those that you find interesting.

Thanks.

What is incredible is that straydog is still linking to that site even after being forced to admit that at least some of it was untrue. He knows that it is deliberately misleading by, for example, claiming a photograph to be proof that a picture of a Lunar Rover is a fake when it is in fact not even a NASA picture but a photograph of a museum exhibit.

straydog admitted the site is dishonest:

Okay , I will agree that the picture of the lunar buggy is a museum shot , but there are many more pictures on the geocities site which can not be so easily dismissed or explained away ....

In reply to this question from me:

Ok, you concede that this is a false claim, I respect that honesty.

Do you not think that gives the the geocities site a credibility problem? If even you as a believer are conceding that it makes false claims do you not think that it destroys the credibility of that site totally?

If a witness at a trial is shown to be lying would you trust the rest of their evidence or would you dismiss it as untrustworthy? Does the same principle not apply here?

straydog replied:

Waspie .... I agree with you that it is very disappointing to find outright incorrect information on any site , regardless of the content of the web site .... So in that context , yes , I doubt I would trust this particular site again until I have verified the information as being correct myself .... I have found incorrect information on other moon hoax sites also , but that in no way discredits all of the information on those sites ... We all are human and we all make mistakes ... but before I post any other pictures again I will make sure that they are really what they are claimed to be.

And yet despite admitting that the site is untrustworthy straydog is still prepared to use it as evidence for his case. I will leave it up to others to draw their own conclusion about how reliable this makes straydog's "proof".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might I politely suggest you read the following primer on parallax....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

Any questions after that, please feel free to ask.

Sorry but that doesn't explain the pictures, for they were not taken from different viewpoints, except for the third one which was a little to the right. But as for the first two, the pictures were taken directly in front of the mountain and were not angled differently.

I dont know why you guys are still discussing this topic, my proof is conclusive, so to say it one last time, CASE CLOSED.

Edited by stephen84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Sorry but that doesn't explain the pictures, for they were not taken from different viewpoints, except for the third one which was a little to the right. But as for the first two, the pictures were taken directly in front of the mountain and were not angled differently.

I dont know why you guys are still discussing this topic, my proof is conclusive, so to say it one last time, CASE CLOSED.

Stephen your total ignorance of basic photography has been demonstrated numerous times in this thread. The evidence of your competence to judge the case closed is here for all to see.

Just how much do you think the view point of a mountain in the distance will change? This is simply parallax and your "proof" is as conclusive as when you called case closed over your non-parallel shadow claims. Remember that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hplasm asked where the Tuttle information was so I posted the geocites site where it showed how the Apollo photos were photo shopped by Tuttle in the 1990's ... If Tuttle is denying this now , I can only imagine why .... It would seem that nasa has a way of keeping people quiet one way or another .... Oh and just because the site got one museum picture wrong doesn't mean that all of their information is incorrect .

It amazes me that even after MID re-posted the Cernan picture showing the spotlight , that all of you are still pretending not to see it .... You asked where it is MID ? ... Right in front of the 'sunlight' it is making , in the middle left part of the visor ... It is so clear that the back of the light , the Y shaped bracket and the flat rack mount are even visible .... Especially in the high definition shot of this .... I posted this photo on another web site and the members there see the spotlight as well ...

I see it and everyone I have shown this picture to in person sees it too , without my saying a word about what is in the picture .. So the fact that no one here can see it proves to me that you are either blind or lying .

Well, since we are on the subject of phony Apollo moon set pictures , I will re-post this one again , since no one commented on it the first time ... I think everyone was too busy "debunking " the dust in the jump salute picture . ... So lets see what clavius and Bad Astronomy have to say about this one ... I have no doubt they will try to explain this one away too with more of their smoke and mirror dis-information tactics .

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redtail ...Yes, we have been over it and I have shown and proven to all of you repeatedly that it is a spotlight reflection in the visor of the Cernan photo ... It's not my fault that all of you keep pretending it's really not there , or just a smear ..... I have shown this picture to several different people now who believe that Apollo really went to the moon and they didn't have any problem seeing the spotlight or the ceiling fan and it's shadow ... So that would lead me to believe that none of you WANT to see it ... and like I said before , that only indicates one thing .... COMPLETE DENIAL .

What it shows me is that you and said others WANT to see something that isn't there. What kind of light do you believe it is again? Also have you sent that email? And reading the above again

"I have shown this picture to several different people now who believe that Apollo really went to the moon"

So you showed them the pic and now they believe that Apollo went to the moon. Why do you still deny it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen your total ignorance of basic photography has been demonstrated numerous times in this thread. The evidence of your competence to judge the case closed is here for all to see.

Just how much do you think the view point of a mountain in the distance will change? This is simply parallax and your "proof" is as conclusive as when you called case closed over your non-parallel shadow claims. Remember that?

Here are two of the photos once more, for everyone to see.

[attachmentid=27818]

[attachmentid=27819]

NO change in viewpoint could account for this. And look at the apparant distance and veiwpoint from which the pictures were taken in comparison to the "twin peak" mountain, appears to be a very small change. Even you (the great photography expert) have to admit that. :tu:

post-37338-1156394934.jpg

post-37338-1156394957.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hplasm asked where the Tuttle information was so I posted the geocites site where it showed how the Apollo photos were photo shopped by Tuttle in the 1990's ... If Tuttle is denying this now , I can only imagine why .... It would seem that nasa has a way of keeping people quiet one way or another .... Oh and just because the site got one museum picture wrong doesn't mean that all of their information is incorrect .

It amazes me that even after MID re-posted the Cernan picture showing the spotlight , that all of you are still pretending not to see it .... You asked where it is MID ? ... Right in front of the 'sunlight' it is making , in the middle left part of the visor ... It is so clear that the back of the light , the Y shaped bracket and the flat rack mount are even visible .... Especially in the high definition shot of this .... I posted this photo on another web site and the members there see the spotlight as well ...

I see it and everyone I have shown this picture to in person sees it too , without my saying a word about what is in the picture .. So the fact that no one here can see it proves to me that you are either blind or lying .

Well, since we are on the subject of phony Apollo moon set pictures , I will re-post this one again , since no one commented on it the first time ... I think everyone was too busy "debunking " the dust in the jump salute picture . ... So lets see what clavius and Bad Astronomy have to say about this one ... I have no doubt they will try to explain this one away too with more of their smoke and mirror dis-information tactics .

user posted image

1. If that is the anti-grav device how did they do it without a rope? It sure isn't in the picture.

2. How do we know that the pic with the antenna isn't reversed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) · (edited)

NO change in viewpoint could account for this. And look at the apparant distance and veiwpoint from which the pictures were taken in comparison to the "twin peak" mountain, appears to be a very small change. Even you (the great photography expert) have to admit that. :tu:

Prove it! What is the distance of the mountain from the astronauts? What is the distance travelled by the astronauts between taking the photographs? If you do not know this information then you have NO supporting evidence for your claim.

I do not claim to be a photographic expert, I have basic[/] photographic skills. Your claims in the past have been shown to false even by the limited skills I have.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Oh and just because the site got one museum picture wrong doesn't mean that all of their information is incorrect .

A site is either reliable or it isn't. That site isn't and you admitted that. You can't pick and chose and say, "I trust this boit because it agrees with me but I don't trust that bit because someone has shown it's a lie".

If a site is prepared to lie to try and prove a point (which that site does) how can you possibly trust any information on it at all?

That you are prepared to use a site you know to be guilty of lying to back up your own claims (after saying that you would not trust it again) does you no credit at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Here are two of the photos once more, for everyone to see.

[attachmentid=27818]

[attachmentid=27819]

NO change in viewpoint could account for this. And look at the apparant distance and veiwpoint from which the pictures were taken in comparison to the "twin peak" mountain, appears to be a very small change. Even you (the great photography expert) have to admit that. :tu:

Let's look closely at these again shall we. The astronauts have clearly travelled some distance between the taking of the 2 photographs. How can I know this? Because, despite these being wide angle shots, the lunar module only appears in the second picture.

You main complaint is that the angle of the mountain that appears in both pictures has hardly changed. Why would it? If it is the most distant object in the pictures it would appear to change very little in while objects closer would change more considerably. This is the very principle of parallax.

That mountain is the most distant object in these pictures. How do I know that? Because I've got eyes. Look at the second picture again. The mountain that you claim has miraculously appeared is closer than the one you have labelleld "twin peaks". The downward slope of that mountain obscures a small part of the more distant "twin peaks". The fact that twin peaks appears to change little while foreground objects appear to change a lot is totally consistant with parallax. What's more it would take a vast studio to fake this parallax movement of foreground objects (my guess is a studio about the size of the moon :) ).

So thank you Stephen, you have provided us with some compelling evidence that the photographs were not shot in a studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the phony Apollo photos which Steven posted here were photographed using small scale models for the LM , lunar buggy and astronot in the foreground ... and the same fake mountains for the back drop scenery ...

The documentary 'What Happened on the Moon' shows and explains exactly how this photographic trick was done and Jack White has also shown how Apollo used small models to fake their distance shots .... So what you assume to be a vast distance on the moon is only a small scale set with models .

You people sure do play the strangest mind games here ... I said that the people I have showed the Cernan spotlight photo to , not only saw the spotlight without any help from me , but they really believed that nasa went to the moon , until they saw this phony moon set photo ... So now they NO LONGER believe that nasa went to the moon ... and FINALLY agree with me that the whole Apollo thing was just a studio fake .

Speaking of fake ... Check out how nasa photographed some of their phony aerial fly over still and motion pictures .

I call this one ... FLY ME TO THE MOON !!!

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) · (edited)

I call this one ... FLY ME TO THE MOON !!!

Since when has the National Film Board of Canada been part of NASA?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people sure do play the strangest mind games here ... I said that the people I have showed the Cernan spotlight photo to , not only saw the spotlight without any help from me , but they really believed that nasa went to the moon , until they saw this phony moon set photo ... So now they NO LONGER believe that nasa went to the moon ... and FINALLY agree with me that the whole Apollo thing was just a studio fake .

No, you didn't

I have shown this picture to several different people now who believe (Present tense) that Apollo really went to the moon

If it was a typo fine but don't accuse me of playing mind games because of it.

Now if it were a "spotlight" how did it light up that much area?

Edited by Redtail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

originally posted by Waspie_Dwarf

That mountain is the most distant object in these pictures. How do I know that? Because I've got eyes. Look at the second picture again. The mountain that you claim has miraculously appeared is closer than the one you have labelleld "twin peaks". The downward slope of that mountain obscures a small part of the more distant "twin peaks".

Lets take a closer look shall we?

[attachmentid=27820] [attachmentid=27821]

As you can see in the first photo, the bigger "mountain" does in fact appear in front of the left side of the "twin peak" mountain.

In order for this to be totally unseen in the second photo, especially with such a wide left view which the closer mountain doesn't appear at all, the Astronauts would have to be right up on the "twin peak" mountain, very very close to it. The "twin peak" mountain would therefore appear MUCH larger. However this is not the case, the astronauts still appear to be a good distance from "twin peak" mountain, in which at least a portion of the bottom right of the bigger mountain should be in clear view.

Case Closed B)

post-37338-1156402307.jpg

post-37338-1156402381.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.