Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by apollo-gnomon

So are they no longer publishing? Or are they still publishing?

Not sure what you're stating here. Encyclopedia has published in digital format for quite some time, and it will still retain its editorial review board. I believe that it also asks professionals in certain fields to write articles pertaining to any particular field of his/her expertise. Users can add suggestions, but it still must adhere to the standards of the editorial board before making those changes.

However, the publishing of the articles will be the date it is released to the Internet.

When you cite a print version of an article, you usually post the publication date listed for the article by the particular journal, and that is the date the article was released for distribution to the public.

In a digital format, when you use any standard citation styles, you will cite the date you retrieved the article, not the date it was loaded to a Web server.

Here are citation styles from Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...t-Explorer-IE/

MLA Style:

"Internet Explorer (IE)." Encyclopędia Britannica. Encyclopędia Britannica Online. Encyclopędia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2012. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291515/Internet-Explorer>.

APA Style:

Internet Explorer (IE). (2012). In Encyclopędia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ernet-Explorer

Harvard Style:

Internet Explorer (IE) 2012. Encyclopędia Britannica Online. Retrieved 17 March, 2012, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ernet-Explorer

Chicago Manual of Style:

Encyclopędia Britannica Online, s. v. "Internet Explorer (IE)," accessed March 17, 2012, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ernet-Explorer.

In some cases, you will cite/list both the date the article/paper was released to the public, and the date the user retrieved the information. The date of retrieval is still a main component for citing.

In an academic online format, it looks something like the following:

APA

Robinson, M. M., Brylow, S. S., Tschimmel, M. M., Humm, D. D., Lawrence, S. S., Thomas, P. P., & ... McEwen, A. A. (2010). Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) Instrument Overview. Space Science Reviews, 150(1-4), 81-124. doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9634-2

And for MLA:

A. McEwen, et al. "Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) Instrument Overview." Space Science Reviews 150.1-4 (2010): 81-124. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Mar. 2012.

However, for science research papers I would not recommend using MLA, as this should be used for subjects writing papers for history and literature.

I would also note that when you cite an academic online database, you do not include the URL, because it is essentially meaningless for retrieving the document for referring back to.
.

[apollo_gnomon]

I'm pretty sure I really don't give a damn. But by missing my point you've made my point.

You have nothing. And lots of it.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Not sure what you're stating here....huge snip

You are boring everybody rigid here, perhaps that is your goal. Aiming your sights at off topic bananas rather than addressing the numerous posts of actual Apollo proof.

As regards hoax proof, you haven't actually offered a bean, just mind-numbing walls of text comprising of your opinion, garnered almost exclusively from quote mining blogs/documents/websites where in every case the person writing the said quote, doesn't have any problems believing the Apollo missions occurred as history records and science backs up!

So, in your own time, or not

1. HLR's observation of the JAXA markings matching Apollo 15 LROC(blurred yes, but they are there where Apollo 15 landed).

2. Moving Finger's document on matching weather patterns.

3. The rocks, the 2-3 metre core samples.

4. Present some actual evidence of a hoax.

5. Gravitational effects on dust and objects - since you will just be ignoring responding to the videos, I'll post them again at a more suitable point(for you to ignore then).

[brucel]

Originally Posted by truegroup

2. Moving Finger's document on matching weather patterns.

some diehard apollo looney bin created some photoshops, you are now passing them off as evidence -- ha!

here's a question for you:

DID NASA RELEASE ANY OFFICIAL STATEMENT ACCEPTING THEM AS EVIDENCE FOR A MOONLANDING.. ???..

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Not sure what you're stating here. Encyclopedia has published in digital format for quite some time, and it will still retain its editorial review board. I believe that it also asks professionals in certain fields to write articles pertaining to any particular field of his/her expertise. Users can add suggestions, but it still must adhere to the standards of the editorial board before making those changes.

However, the publishing of the articles will be the date it is released to the Internet.

When you cite a print version of an article, you usually post the publication date listed for the article by the particular journal, and that is the date the article was released for distribution to the public.

In a digital format, when you use any standard citation styles, you will cite the date you retrieved the article, not the date it was loaded to a Web server.

Here are citation styles from Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...t-Explorer-IE/









In some cases, you will cite/list both the date the article/paper was released to the public, and the date the user retrieved the information. The date of retrieval is still a main component for citing.

In an academic online format, it looks something like the following:



And for MLA:



However, for science research papers I would not recommend using MLA, as this should be used for subjects writing papers for history and literature.

I would also note that when you cite an academic online database, you do not include the URL, because it is essentially meaningless for retrieving the document for referring back to.
.

[brucel]

is that you in the pic, ff.. or is that you snaping a pic of insomniac tg power naping while defending nasa ? ^^

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by flamingflynn

How the hell did you do that Can you photoshop a brain into somebody who thinks photoshop was around in the late 60s?

[brucel]

avoiding the question as usual, i see..
but if you must know photoshopping was indeed around in 1960 it went by the name -- composite photography!!

Early Trick Photography

The photographer seemingly snaps himself in this composite photograph (circa 1893) from an antique cabinet card.
The head of the seated man is held still during the long portrait exposure by an adjustable clamp

[jackdaw]

Originally Posted by brucel

avoiding the question as usual, i see..
but if you must know photoshopping was indeed around in 1960 it went by the name -- composite photography!!

Was that on the old Stained Glass Windows OS?

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by brucel

avoiding the question as usual, i see..

No silly, I never avoid reasonable questions - unlike you with your clueless flippant replies. NASA presents a whole barrage of evidence, including lunar samples, pictures, video showing lunar gravity etc.

But to answer your question MF does indeed have a credit in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal with a link to his work. So, that settles it huh
NASA do not put stuff up and say "there, proves we went dunnit". They assume that anybody with even the barest minimum of critical thinking is able to see they landed on the Moon - I don't think you qualify in that group.

but if you must know photoshopping was indeed around in 1960 it went by the name -- composite photography!!

Behold the level of an HB argument - a quantum leap below ignorant. Perhaps you are suggesting they took images from a weather satellite and created moving pictures.

Animated gif of a 14 minute spread of the TV test broadcast....



A short video I did showing it on a 10 minutes spread....

Apollo 11 - On the way to the Moon - YouTube

Apollo 11 - On the way to the Moon - YouTube

Video showing the same conclusions made by Moving Finger...

Apollo 11: Fingerprints in Deep Space - YouTube

Apollo 11: Fingerprints in Deep Space - YouTube

Video I made from MF's Apollo 12 section...

Apollo 12 half way to the Moon - YouTube

Apollo 12 half way to the Moon - YouTube

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Can you photoshop a brain into somebody who thinks photoshop was around in the late 60s?

[philthy53]

Originally Posted by flamingflynn

Hilarious!!

And o so true. Unfortunately.

Phil

[jimmi]

This is a really interesting thread that perfectly illustrates the tactics used by ...them....to try and spread their mis/dis info.


I discovered that the 'moon landings' were faked over twenty years ago, long before I woke up to the big picture.

The agents here still can't answer the simple questions such as about shadows that reveal multiple light sources etc etc etc.

[brucel]

Originally Posted by jackdaw

Was that on the old Stained Glass Windows OS?

yup.. the later OS version featured a popsicle stick and gluegun to hold the copy/paste image.



@flamingflynn - flying brains donnot exist in real life,
thus whoever encounters such a paranormal phenomenon as a flying brain would be wise
not to welcome it inside their body...........

FFFOF

flamingflynn fool of fail

*on a lighter note, i see that you are very good at taking orders / following directions...

[brucel]

Originally Posted by truegroup

NASA do not put stuff up and say "there, proves we went dunnit". They assume [snip] boring overuse of insults is played-out [end/snip]

you got that straight.. nasa ASS-U-ME.
by assuming nasa is making a huge ASS out of itself & YOU for defending it & ME, well for observing [their downfall]

Originally Posted by truegroup

[snip] more boring overuse of insults [end/snip] Perhaps you are suggesting they took images from a weather satellite and created moving pictures.

NO.

Animated gif of a 14 minute spread of the TV test broadcast

yes, an "animated gif" that is all... nothing more.,,, next!

A short video I did showing it on a 10 minutes spread

good for you.. hope like MF you get some kind of reimbursment oops! meant online community recognition.
now has nasa authenticate YOUR VIDEO / YOUR FINDINGS as "evidence" for their moonlanding claims ??

*do provide citation if they have ?..

Video showing the same conclusions made by Moving Finger

photoshop viewslides done by MF proves nothing.

Video I made from MF's Apollo 12 section

get nasa to APPROVE them, then we talk...
the lone crusader internet soldier nutjob whose making videos / gifs / photoshop slides in defense of nasa
does little to convince critical thinkers.. YOU DID NOT participate in any of nasa's claimed moon missions therefore
you can only provide, at best, secondhand accounts of the events from stuff you were shown told or read in some
magazine which being the good little nerdsy boy that you were -- blindly ASSUME them to be true.

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by jimmi

This is a really interesting thread that perfectly illustrates the tactics used by ...them....to try and spread their mis/dis info.


I discovered that the 'moon landings' were faked over twenty years ago, long before I woke up to the big picture.

The agents here still can't answer the simple questions such as about shadows that reveal multiple light sources etc etc etc.

This interesting thread perfectly illustrates why people continue to believe the moon landings were faked -- lack of relevant information, and a reliance on information that is inaccurate or actually false. There isn't a single hoax claim that stands up to informed analysis.

Here's the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, an easy to use compendium of much of the data generated by and for the Apollo missions. The "Image Library" contains every single photograph taken on the moon*, and many of the pre-mission training images as well. I suggest anyone who thinks there are "multiple light source" images go through and find them for themselves (that's the truthSEEKING) part rather than relying on half-remembered analysis performed by others.

Hoax believers here still can't answer the simple questions such as about the following:

• Rockets, capsules and landers were built. Thousands of people were involved.
• Those objects were assembled into launch configurations. People saw them being assembled.
• Rockets lifted off. People saw them.
• The rockets orbited visible from the ground, and then performed Trans lunar Injection Burns, also visible from the ground.
• Astronomers with large telescopes took pictures of the rockets on the way to the moon.
• Radio tracking stations around the world aimed large, highly directional antennas at the traveling space craft and at the Command module (CSM) orbiting the moon. During the orbit, those same radios had to adjust for Doppler shift as the CSM went around the moon.
• Radio Amateur Larry Baysinger aimed a homebuilt antenna (originally made for a radio telescope experiment to receive the RF generated by Jupiter) at the moon and eavesdropped on the UHF signals between Neil Armstrong's suit radio and the Lunar Module radio.
• The missions brought back lunar rocks and soil samples, including soil cores 3meters long. The total weight of samples from all missions s 840 pounds. these samples have been studies by geologists from around the world. They exhibit features of being formed on the moon and sitting there undisturbed for millions of years exposed to solar energies and particles but not weathering -- crystals forming in low gravity, gas pockets shaped by the volcanic material cooling in low gravity, lack of mineralogically significant water, zap pits formed by dust-sized particles impacting at tremendous velocity, specific isotope ratios and exposure to solar wind.
• Hundreds of hours of film and video and thousands of photographs revealing hundreds of square kilometers of lunar terrain.
• Thousands of hours of data returned by the ALSEP (science package) equipment delivered to the moon then assembled and positioned on the moon, including seismic data revealing the exact time of launch for each mission's lunar Ascent Module and the subsequent impact of those modules with the lunar surface when they deorbited.
• Millions of pages of scientific studies written by scientists around the world in hundreds of different disciplines based on the data generated or returned by the Apollo program.

(* - technically, not every photograph taken on the moon is on the ALSJ; during one of the missions a roll of film was accidentally left in a camera that was left behind on the moon with other gear jettisoned for weight.)

[bertl]

So yeah, about those photoshopped weather patterns... got any proof of that?

[brucel]

Originally Posted by bertl

So yeah, about those photoshopped weather patterns... got any proof of that?

have any proof of that -- what ?.. did you get nasa to authenticate them.

[bertl]

Originally Posted by brucel

have any proof of that -- what ?.. did you get nasa to authenticate them.

avoiding the question as usual, i see..

What evidence do you have that Moving Finger's 525 page document on matching weather patterns between Apollo photographs, satellites and weather maps is nothing but a large bunch of photoshops viewslides?

[frenat]

Originally Posted by jimmi

The agents here still can't answer the simple questions such as about shadows that reveal multiple light sources etc etc etc.

Prove there are any agents here and not just your paranoia regarding people with a different opinion.

Please show these supposed pictures. Any object with multiple light sources would have multiple shadows. Find ONE.