Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by moving finger

So, what you're saying there is that it is impossible to get detailed photographs of the lunar surface without sending someone with a camera? Why copy & paste without explaining what you think it means? That website claims the lunar orbiter earthrise image there is a fake but provides no support at all for it other than "Pfft, seems a bit difficult".

Yeah. Thanks for stretching the page out with that big whacky picture. What the hell is that supposed prove? I'm not stating anything, but demonstrating how it could be done. The models existed - and the dates are prior to the Apollo manned missions. They also had the overlays from the LO. You, prior to this, simply posted something that gazed down upon the Moon as if we're looking at a throw rug.

I think you're under the misapprehension that I'm trying to convince you. I am not. Looking at the evidence, in my opinion, has me concurring with the folks that no manned missions went to the Moon.

Don't sweat it. Occidental civilization is still declining/decaying.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Yeah. Thanks for stretching the page out with that big whacky picture. What the hell is that supposed prove? I'm not stating anything, but demonstrating how it could be done. The models existed - and the dates are prior to the Apollo manned missions. They also had the overlays from the LO. You, prior to this, simply posted something that gazed down upon the Moon as if we're looking at a throw rug.

You posted a grainy picture from a website that seems to be denying even unmanned missions are possible. Did you not read what you were copying and pasting? I posted a better picture. Get over it.

You obviously have not read a word I posted and ignored the remainder of my post, but I'll go over it again anyway:

The Lunar Orbiter pictures are not of high enough quality to reproduce the image taken by Apollo 17 that I have posted.

If you think otherwise, find the photo from before the Apollo missions that shows the same level of detail that Apollo 17 somehow managed to photograph without, according to you, actually being there.

The photo I posted shows the CSM as seen from the LM shortly after separation. I have described how I found its location, and how that process shows a consistency across the Apollo 17 mission record. All you are seeing is photograph and ignoring the other parts.

[mandelbrot]

Moving finger,

You haven't offered anything definitive, but only what you purport to be true. The premise of the quality issue doesn't really add anything either, because the pictures became better from the first supposed Apollo mission and NASA digitally remastered the pictures afterwards.

It could have been faked.

[apollo_gnomon]

You haven't offered anything definitive, but only what you purport to be true.

followed by

It could have been faked.

So, anyway, I've looked over the 3rd link mandlebrot offered the other day - http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...ston-ENGL.html

and I find the following complaint about the Lunar Module:

The real Lunar Module with only one single engine, the "Lunar Excursion Module" LEM, later called only "Lunar Module" LM with it's two stages descent stage and ascent stage has never flown according to the fact data because here the centroid is even higher and the vehicle would incline at once.

This unsupported statement presupposes the engine cannot be gimballed. Were the above assumption true, then NO ROCKET WOULD EVER leave the ground anywhere.
The only rockets I know of that are stabilized by having the center of gravity behind/below the point of thrust:

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow

Check again, bub. I never suggested they were models in that post. A 2-D image in the background, whether it appears Flat or 3-D is still a 2-D image unless you are looking at it with 3-D tech. Matte paintings e.g.

The "fact" that we don't agree on EVERYTHING merely shows how we don't all subscribe to a singular source.

Ok bub. You seem to be missing the stunningly obvious point.

No matter what dippy contention you are making, 2D, 3D whatever. HOW did the pictures get back to Earth?

You and Mandelbrot are contradicting each other. But don't worry, Mandelbrot has done a seagull dropping with that post, because he knows it is indefensible.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

The models existed - and the dates are prior to the Apollo manned missions. They also had the overlays from the LO.

The model you posted was what.....let's be extremely generous and say 100 feet diameter (or round it up to make nice easy 35 metres).

So the diameter of the Moon is 3,474.8 km. Let's round that up to 3500km or 3,500,000 metres.

Scale is 100,000:1

A crater 10m wide on the Moon is 1/10 of a millimetre

An area of 1km square becomes 1cm squared.

Get a clue because your theory sucks big time.

Looking at the evidence, in my opinion, has me concurring with the folks that no manned missions went to the Moon.

You don't look at the evidence. You ignore the gravity videos I post, your assessment on the magic rock making equipment came up pathetically short in every department, you haven't even looked at MF's weather pattern document.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Moving finger,

You haven't offered anything definitive, but only what you purport to be true. The premise of the quality issue doesn't really add anything either, because the pictures became better from the first supposed Apollo mission and NASA digitally remastered the pictures afterwards.

It could have been faked.

I'm afraid I have, and you haven't.

Prior to yesterday, the location of that Apollo 17 photograph was unknown.

Look through the NASA records, they are publicly available. Find one that shows the location of the photograph I posted. You have the same resources at your disposal as I do, grow a pair and back up your ludicrous allegations of fraud.

I looked at the evidence, used the information in the transcripts and the orbital path and worked out where it should be. The features in the Apollo photograph match exactly the features shown in Google moon in exactly the right place for it. How did NASA manage that without actually knowing where that photograph was taken?

Your next argument seems to be that later Apollo missions took better photographs of the moon than the first one. Do you have any evidence to show that unmanned probes took such high quality images

a) During the Apollo Missions?
b) At all

The answer to both is no. You're just giving knee-jerk "it can't be true" responses without actually looking at the evidence.

NASA digitally remastered the images? How does this prove they were faked? By digitally remastering I presume you mean 'scanned the original photographs"?. The original photographs show features that were not photographed in that level of detail for several more decades.

I'm asking you to prove your point, you're doing nothing but make yourself look like an ostrich.

[ianw]

Professor Richard Gregory - YouTube

Professor Richard Gregory - YouTube

After listening to Gregory you should know better than to believe any pictures concerning the apollo spoof.

And all you have is nasa photos and footage remastered digitally enhanced, non of which are 3d, so drop the 3d garbage.

http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/a...llljuhvbbi.jpg

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by ianw

After listening to Gregory ....

Where he tells us about the model area and how they worked it for astronaut landing and docking simulators. And? Something new here? No.

The salient part of the interview is that he believes man landed on the Moon, and considering he is YOUR frickin' expert witness, you'd think he would have been able to detect subterfuge with his action man models. D'ya think?

[moving finger]

Still no actual examination of what I presented other than

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by moving finger

Your next argument seems to be that later Apollo missions took better photographs of the moon than the first one. Do you have any evidence to show that unmanned probes took such high quality images

I'm stating that simulation photographs took place prior to the Apollo missions, and could have been refined for the purpose of the Apollo missions, and later the photographs were digitally remastered.

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

I'm stating that simulation photographs took place prior to the Apollo missions, and could have been refined for the purpose of the Apollo missions, and later the photographs were digitally remastered.

So what you're saying is that the Apollo era photographs differ substantially from the currently available images.

Care to back it up?

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

I'm stating that simulation photographs took place prior to the Apollo missions, and could have been refined for the purpose of the Apollo missions, and later the photographs were digitally remastered.

Refined how? When? The Apollo images have been in the public domain for some years now, so when was this magical transformation done. What specifically do you think happens during 'Digital remastering' other than scanning an image at 300 dpi? Do you have any evidence that the photographs produced on the internet differ from the original negatives?

You're now saying the Lunar Orbiter pictures weren't of the same quality as the Apollo pictures, yes? Presumably you are now claiming that the Apollo image was doctored after the images of the relevant craters were photographed by some unnamed mission at a later date.

Which mission? When?

You're still not actually coming up with anything that disproves my conclusions .

[phrased eyebrow]

Originally Posted by truegroup

The salient part of the interview is that he believes man landed on the Moon,

I heard a colonel of truth but didn't hear That.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow

I heard a colonel of truth but didn't hear That.

The kernel of truth you're looking for is within the first 15 seconds:

"the moon landing, which of course happened in 1969"

[phrased eyebrow]

Originally Posted by moving finger

The kernel of truth you're looking for is within the first 15 seconds:

"the moon landing, which of course happened in 1969"

Of course he did. He was just so darned convincing I guess I needed to be reminded of it. Thanks.

[emerald]

"Neil Armstrong Recalls Hair-Raising Apollo Moon Landing

Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon 43 years ago, has tried to live a private life since Apollo 11 came back to Earth, but he did agree to give a rare interview -- to the head of an Australian accounting group.

In an hour-long conversation with Alex Malley of CPA Australia, Armstrong retold the story of his life as an astronaut, culminating in the 1969 landing, with his crewmate Buzz Aldrin, on the lunar plain they called Tranquility Base.

"I should say I thought we had a 90 percent chance of getting back to Earth on that flight," Armstrong said in this rare interview, "but only a 50-50 chance of making a successful landing on the first attempt."

The landing was so complicated, and their lunar landing ship Eagle so low on fuel that Armstrong touched down less than 30 seconds before Mission Control would have told them to give up and try to come home. Eagle's computer, overloaded with data as it tried to steer the ship to the surface, was trying to put them down in a crater full of boulders.

"Those slopes are steep, the rocks are very large -- the size of automobiles," he said. He took over manual control, skittering over the lunar surface in search of a safe place to land.

"There's so many unknowns in that descending from lunar orbit down to the surface that hadn't been demonstrated by testing," Armstrong said in the interview, "and there was a big chance that we didn't understand something in there properly, and we had to abort and come back to Earth without landing."

Armstrong, now 81, has spent the years since Apollo 11 as an engineering professor, a member of corporate boards and an occasional public advocate for continued space exploration. He said he thought it a pity that the Obama administration and Congress today disagreed on America's future in space, with NASA caught as a "shuttlecock" between them.

"NASA has been one of the most successful public investments in motivating students to do well and achieve all they can achieve," said Armstrong. "It's sad that we are turning the program in a direction where it will reduce the amount of motivation and stimulation it provides to young people. And that's a major concern to me."

In the interview Armstrong is characteristically soft-spoken, choosing his words slowly, often fending off questions by repeating things he said in the years after his return from the moon. Has made occasional public appearances in recent years to testify before Congress or mark major anniversaries of the space effort. He has declined most other requests for interviews, and stopped giving autographs when people sold them for thousands of dollars.

So why did he agree to talk to a CPA? Malley, quoted by Australian media, said, "I know something not a lot of people know about Neil Armstrong -- his dad was an auditor."

Armstrong was asked about the rumors over the years that the moon landings were faked, and he chuckled. "It was never a concern to me because I know that one day, somebody's going to go fly back up there and pick up the camera that I left."

[philthy53]

Originally Posted by brucel

armstrong knows he never went to the moon
the day somebody find his make believe camera is the day i will handover the content of my bank account to MF, thee group, and all else working night-n-day in this dead end job shilling for nasa

Yes, you are actually right this one time. Armstrong, did not, in fact leave a make believe camera on the moon. He left a real, actual camera, ie, not a fake or make believe camera.

Well, since no one here is a "shill" for NASA, you've left yourself a loop hole. I guess you didn't think anyone would notice that.

Originally Posted by brucel

*ps: why didn't nasa invite australian jarrah white to conduct this armstrong interview ??

Why would they?

Really, I'd really and truly want to know why you think that Jarrah should have been invited. He's a wacko HB'er that has no evidence of anything that could be remotely construed as proof or evidence of a hoax.

Really, why would anyone ask his unfounded opinion about anything?

Phil

[ianw]

Reasons why hes talking bull.

The apollo set is now classed as a listed site and has some preservation order on it.
Sounds like they are happy with the remastered cyberset and wont bu messing with the pixels any time soon.

They cant keep props sufficiently scientifically sterile.
The high fives was short lived after scientists said the bacteria on the camera that was supposedly returned by astronots had never been to the moon, but was in fact bacteria off an unclean work surface in a insufficient scientific sterile nasa lab.

And like the photos it only exists in cyberspace
There is no camera to get, there is no hard copy.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by ianw

Reasons why hes talking bull.

The apollo set is now classed as a listed site and has some preservation order on it.
Sounds like they are happy with the remastered cyberset and wont bu messing with the pixels any time soon.

Presumably that's why Google are offering money as part of the X prize to the first private company to provide a photograph of Apollo artefacts from the surface. What they don't want is the landing sites trashed and pillaged.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012...uidelines.html

They cant keep props sufficiently scientifically sterile.
The high fives was short lived after scientists said the bacteria on the camera that was supposedly returned by astronots had never been to the moon, but was in fact bacteria off an unclean work surface in a insufficient scientific sterile nasa lab.

And like the photos it only exists in cyberspace
There is no camera to get, there is no hard copy.

Do some basic research there's a good boy.

The bacteria you are talking about were returned by Apollo 12 and were retrieved from the Surveyor 3 probe, which is on the moon.

Soon enough there will be someone landing on the moon and photographing Apollo hardware, and you are going to look such a dick when they do.