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

originally posted by Waspie_Dwarf

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)

Not if they've moved far enough. and they have moved. In the 2nd picture there is a pretty large bolder behind and to the right of the rover that isn't there in the first pic.

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

What are the apollo reference numbers for your pictures Stephen, which mission are they from, and how come none of you hoax believers ever provide a picture reference with your evidence *shakes fist*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if they've moved far enough. and they have moved. In the 2nd picture there is a pretty large bolder behind and to the right of the rover that isn't there in the first pic.

As I have already explained above, if they moved that much closer to Mnt. Twin Peak to where the big mountain would be totally out of sight, then Mnt. Twin Peak would be much larger. Instead, its size has changed very minimumly if at all.

The fact that that boulder is in the second photo and not the first adds even more damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .

And neither was the "golf" shot done to try and fool anybody into thinking it was part of the official NASA record. As explained to you, it was a composite shot made for a book, to resemble a video still that would otherwise have been too grainy. This is NOT proof that NASA faked the "official" Apollo photos!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It's the aerial on top of the PLSS. It is a blade design (flexible steel tape) - sometimes it reflects sunlight quite strongly off the side, depending on the relative angle of the blade to the sun and the camera.

More info here

Th aerial is not located "on the corner" of the PLSS... Jack White is using his usual "smoke and mirrors" routine to make you think that's where it is, by cropping the photo. Here is a clearer image which shows more of the top of the PLSS.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

You can see quite clearly that the antenna is NOT where Jack White wants to believe it is. That is so that he can conjure up his own reason for the glint you see, exactly where the antenna is.

No unexplained mystery here - it is the antenna on top of the PLSS. There are many Apollo photos, videos and films which show this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

your 'proof is conclusive' ? :huh:

Your 'proof' is elusive.

You must have forgotten to post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have already explained above, if they moved that much closer to Mnt. Twin Peak to where the big mountain would be totally out of sight, then Mnt. Twin Peak would be much larger. Instead, its size has changed very minimumly if at all.

The fact that that boulder is in the second photo and not the first adds even more damage.

Unless you start providing some apollo reference numbers this is case closed, for you. It's not that I don't believe the pics are legit but how do you expect us to show you the reason is parallax if you don't specify where the pictures originated. CASE CLOSED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

originally posted by Waspie_Dwarf

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)

It isn't "totally unseen" in the second photo. The thumbnail image you are using has been deliberately cropped to hide the South Massif, which is clearly visible in the original image. The image number is AS17-137-21011. You can see it below. The image was taken at Station 4 on EVA-2, several kilometres away from the first photograph which was taken in the vicinity of the LM.

Two photos, taken several kilometres apart. It's quite clearly a parallax error.

user posted image

user posted image

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 ....

Mr. Tuttle is not denying that he photo shopped Apollo photos, he's denying that he faked or altered in any manner as to hoax Apollo photos. He says right on his webpage exactly what he did with the photos:

The Astronauts all had a still camera strapped to their chest when they were on the surface.

Many places on the Moon were the Astronauts visited, they would stand in one spot and

click click click ...

as they rotated around, 30 or more images were captured.

I would then use Photoshop 2.5 on a MAC and stitched them together. A painful process since they weren't using a tripod nor any type of wide angle lens that I use today.

This resulted in a nice panoramic view. An example of Mr. Tuttle's work can be seen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't "totally unseen" in the second photo. The thumbnail image you are using has been deliberately cropped to hide the South Massif, which is clearly visible in the original image.

Two photos, taken several kilometres apart. It's quite clearly a parallax error.

Which goes to prove that, once again, when posting photographs as evidence, context is important. A photograph, especially as taken as part of an expedition as these were, does not exist in isolation. Sometimes, pictures taken before and after the ones posted can convey much information and answer perplexing questions.

This is why it is so important to post uncropped photos for comparison and context. This is why it is so important to give image numbers so we can go to the source, and perhaps answer questions as to what happened before or after a picture was taken.

Good work, postbaguk. Case closed.

Edited by AtomicDog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't "totally unseen" in the second photo. The thumbnail image you are using has been deliberately cropped to hide the South Massif, which is clearly visible in the original image. The image number is AS17-137-21011. You can see it below. The image was taken at Station 4 on EVA-2, several kilometres away from the first photograph which was taken in the vicinity of the LM.

Two photos, taken several kilometres apart. It's quite clearly a parallax error.

user posted image

user posted image

One can also see if you look closer at the smaller mountain that it is not exactly the same in both pics. It changes shape ever so slightly. This would not happen with a backdrop but is perfectly consistent with parallax on a distant object. They haven't gotten appreciably closer to or farther from the mountain, they just moved to the side and are seeing it from a slightly different angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

This is why it is so important to post uncropped photos for comparison and context. This is why it is so important to give image numbers so we can go to the source

It is also why it is important to have a basic understanding of photography if you are to use photographic evidence or a basic understanding of science if you are to use science as evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

user posted image

This was from a thread where I was using arguments like those that stephen uses to "prove" that israel doesn't exist (it's all made up by the oil companys ;-) har har). The point is, it's easy to find photo anomalies like the one that stephen posted. In his photo, the mountain on the left "suddenly appears" and in my photo, a huge brick wall "suddenly appears"

If you still don't get it, here is an overhead view of your photos:

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that the pro-hoax movement is brought on by people only looking for money is a joke. Ive never spent a penny on a conspiracy movie.

You guys have clearly ‘bought into’ Apollo quite literally.

The people selling spaceship dvds of 1960’s B rated sci fi movies for $45 a pop are obviously cashing in by perpetuating a hoax on people that don’t know any better.

If the ship is ‘rolling’ in transit to the moon to dissipate heat, then how come the circular window in the hatch has such a great, steady view of the earth?

20 hours later and the same window still has the same shot of earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can show you guys pictures of the computers and control panels from the Starship Enterprise...

but guess what, all that proves is that they had realistic looking movie props!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

That is why it is so important to be able to do something other than merely cut and paste. Such as, for instance, being able to back up your claim with a reasoned and rational argument that does not rely on faith but rather on empirical evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can show you guys pictures of the computers and control panels from the Starship Enterprise...

No, you can't-

you can show pictures of the props from the set that represents the Starship Enterprise, if you want to be pedantic. :sleepy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A car can travel forwards-backwards, left-right, up-down hills....

Strange, thats three dimensions!!

That does not change the fact that the steering works UNIDIMENSIONALLY!!

In order to steer, the displacement vector must be closely aligned with the forwards-reverse dimesion, or "Orthagonal to the Axles".

While a car can travel in reverse, how many people can drive backwards down the highway at 70 MPH and change lanes??

Not many!

Trying to say you can turn the CSM sideways, and roll it, while you can accurately adjust steering is an awful lot like saying you can have your car rolling sideways and still be able to make meaningful adjustments.....

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.

Hey, Gav...

No, I sure haven't, but I'll definitely give it a look. It sounds pretty cool!

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It's not really a matter of being bling or lying. It's a matter of me, and others who are rational here (and can see with their own two eyes), not pretending to see that spotlight, "right in front of the 'sunlight' it's making.." :blink:

How's that work, anyway...a light fixture that is in front of its own light ?

As to the "phony" frames above from the "Apollo 16 flag salute sequence" it should be pointed out that a few grainy frames, and a bunch of speculation proves nothing.

The images aren't reversed.

I especially like the "It's not the antenna!" part, where the first frame shows you a cropped version of an OPS, and doesn't even show the "portside front corner" of the package, where it contends (incorrectly) that the antenna was located.

The antenna was mounted just off center, toward the front of the OPS, slightly to the left...not at the corner. Thus, the premise of this person's illustration is incorrect, and misleading, because they're not actually showing you two things:

1) The full OPS, so you can see the antenna orientation correctly, and

2) the sequence of the actual video in its full color resolution.

Seeing the actual video over the couple minutes it actually takes would clearly show you exactly where the antenna was on the OPS, and also would clearly show that there is sunlight reflecting off of the antenna as the astronauts move about. This is a frequent, and obvious thing seen on Apollo 16 videos, as well as the others where high resolution TV was employed.

This entire thing is a crock.

It's the antenna, plain and simple.

...anti-gravity device...?

The actual anti-gravity devices used during an Apollo mission consisted of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the SPS engine on the SM, and the LM itself. Otherwise, there were no other anti-gravity devices listed on any of the manifests...

Here...this is a picture of the OPS antenna...from Apollo 16.

This is AS16-117-18852:

user posted image

That shows exactly where the antenna really was (just about exactly where I said it was...not where the genius PhD said it was...(probably bought that degree somewhere)), and this can be observed from actually watching the video as opposed to paying attention to the innaccuracies and silly musings of some supposed PhD.....

You may note that it is not at the front port side corner of the OPS...which, in this picture, IS clearly visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't "totally unseen" in the second photo. The thumbnail image you are using has been deliberately cropped to hide the South Massif, which is clearly visible in the original image. The image number is AS17-137-21011. You can see it below. The image was taken at Station 4 on EVA-2, several kilometres away from the first photograph which was taken in the vicinity of the LM.

Two photos, taken several kilometres apart. It's quite clearly a parallax error.

postbaguk,

Many thanks for doing someone else's homework for them!

You are absolutely correct in your presentation.

Now, stephen, the case is actually closed.

If you're going to post photos, IDENTIFY THEM. You need to understand what you're looking at, and show the actual pictures, not cropped versions, if you're going to make such silly contentions.

postbaguk did your work for you...and of course, closed the door on your case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ship is ‘rolling’ in transit to the moon to dissipate heat, then how come the circular window in the hatch has such a great, steady view of the earth?

20 hours later and the same window still has the same shot of earth?

You really have no concept...what's going on here?

It's already been explained to you...

The ship was NOT ROLLING TO DISSIPATE HEAT. It was rolling to provide an even distribution of heat, and cooling, all along the spacecrtaft's exterior...especially important for the tankage in the SM and LM structures...

What about that explanation was that difficult?

When they did TV broadcasts, they STOPPED THE ROLL so they could show folks on Earth pictures of their planet from space out of a single window. Otherwise, a typical broadcast with a 10 minute view of the Earth would've required chaging windows multiple times, as in a typical 10 minute time span, the Earth woul've moved completely across the spacecraft and would've moved just about out of the field of view! Do you know what 1080 degrees per hour means? It means that the Earth would move from the far right to the far left of the spacecraft every 10 minutes.

20 hours later and the same view of the Earth? That's impossible. Show me that.

The Earth changes phase daily (like the Moon does), the vehicle gets farther away (or closer...depending) so angular size changes daily as well. What are you talking about?

By the WAY...identify what you present (where, when, etc.)...If indeed you can present anything.

Edited by MID
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A car can travel forwards-backwards, left-right, up-down hills....

Strange, thats three dimensions!!

That does not change the fact that the steering works UNIDIMENSIONALLY!!

In order to steer, the displacement vector must be closely aligned with the forwards-reverse dimesion, or "Orthagonal to the Axles".

While a car can travel in reverse, how many people can drive backwards down the highway at 70 MPH and change lanes??

Not many!

Trying to say you can turn the CSM sideways, and roll it, while you can accurately adjust steering is an awful lot like saying you can have your car rolling sideways and still be able to make meaningful adjustments.....

Are you for real here Moon?

Steering? In a spacecraft? Orthogonal (correct spelling) to the axles? :wacko:

What in ther name of heaven are you talking about when you say "steering" as pertains to a spacecraft?

There is utterly no relationship between a car which drives along roads, and indeed steers by virtue of changing the angle of its tires to a road surface, and a spacecraft.

There is also no relationship between an airplane, which utlizes the air in a somewhat similar fashion to a car using a road, to change direction, or steer, and a spacecraft.

A spacecraft doesn't steer itself through space. It is propelled along a certain path by precisely aligned thrust and a directional vector that is precisely calculated. After the thrust is cut off, the velocity and directional vectors are basically set. It moves along a path, and its attitude while moving has no bearing on where it's going. It can orient itself any which way it wants, and it's direction will remain the same.

It is an extremely complex thing to explain to you how a spacecraft modifies its trajectory...but it doesn't steer...like the Startship Enterprise seemed to do in Star Trek.

You don't "turn the wheel" and go in another direction in a spacecraft. You can point any way you want while in cis-lunar trajectory to the Moon, and it'll have no effect whatsoever on your direction.

You think that since you turn the wheel of your car to the right and you go that way means something to a spacecraft?

You think that because you bank right in an airplane and it turns right that a spacecraft is going to turn right if you "bank" it that way (i.e., roll it right)?

I think you need a basic primer in how a spacecraft actually flies...

Try this:

We are, as humans, on a spaceship called Earth.

We have an environmental control system, and we are moving in the vacuum of space along a long ago pre-determined orbit about our Sun. We are moving along that basically set trajectory (an elliptical orbit about the Sun) at a rate of about 67,000 miles per hour.

That's pretty much fixed by celestial mechanics, you know. We're moving at about 19 miles per second through space all the time.

Additionally, we are ROLLING about our roll axis all the time as well (that's why we see the stars move across ourt night skies, and why we see the Sun and Moon rise and set, so-to-speak...we're rolling at about 15 degrees per hour. At the equator, our roattional velocity is about 900 miles per hour.

We're moving through space at 19 miles per second and rolling at 1/4 mile per second.

Does that change our flight path? Of course not. The fact that we're rolling constantly, and have been doing so for billions of years, has no effect at all on our flight path. That's because we as a planet are a spacecraft, moving through space just as an Apollo spacecraft moved on its flight path to the moon.

An intital impulse was required in both cases, to set each on its way...but after that's done with, nothing will effect that path unless another impulse is provided. We continue on, and out attitude or maneuvering has no bearing on where we're going in space.

We've been doing it for eons here on Earth, travelling more than 6 times the distance from the Earth to the Moon every single day. You never even notice it, I bet.

Same thing with an Apollo spacecraft on the way to the Moon!

Edited by MID
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really have no concept...what's going on here?

It's already been explained to you...

What about that explanation was that difficult?

When they did TV broadcasts, they STOPPED THE ROLL so they could show folks on Earth pictures of their planet from space out of a single window. Otherwise, a typical broadcast with a 10 minute view of the Earth would've required chaging windows multiple times, as in a typical 10 minute time span, the Earth woul've moved completely across the spacecraft and would've moved just about out of the field of view!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for stopping the PTC maneuver was the requirement for the S-band antenna to stay focused on the Earth, something that couldn't happen when the spacecraft was rolling.

Oh, and I don't think Moon Man's rigid adherance to Star Trek physics is going to get us anywhere.

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.