Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[ianw]

Originally Posted by truegroup

With a frickin' GOLF CLUB and with elevation, but thanks for your dumb answer. Ten feet? My god you are so full of shite, it gets a couple of yards at most, then disperses as air slows it.

Where am I taking this? With you, nowhere. No matter what is presented to you, you make up some dumb crap or take a contrary stance. So tedious.

It was the vid of your choice so dont take the humpty tone.
If you watch it right till the end he slows it down, dont blink because he only allows 3 seconds of slowed footage.
You will see however the sand goes up higher than him.
So if hes 5ft tall ? the sand flicks out and up at 45 degrees ? it would reach about 10ft ?
If he dug a trench and used the side of said trench to flick at a lower angle he would achieve better results,
He may well be using a golf club but he is a moonie and is imitating his hero with flicks not full blooded drives.

[ashikenshin]

Originally Posted by ianw

It was the vid of your choice so dont take the humpty tone.
If you watch it right till the end he slows it down, dont blink because he only allows 3 seconds of slowed footage.
You will see however the sand goes up higher than him.
So if hes 5ft tall ? the sand flicks out and up at 45 degrees ? it would reach about 10ft ?
If he dug a trench and used the side of said trench to flick at a lower angle he would achieve better results,
He may well be using a golf club but he is a moonie and is imitating his hero with flicks not full blooded drives.

ok, why don't you prove it? I would like to watch you try.

[ianw]

Originally Posted by ashikenshin

ok, why don't you prove it? I would like to watch you try.

Are you having me on ?
You want to go with me to the beach ?
You must be off your box.

[ashikenshin]

lol nice try, you could post a video...

it's up to you to prove what you say. So, let's see if you can flick sand 10 feet.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by ianw

It was the vid of your choice so dont take the humpty tone.

If you watch it right till the end he slows it down, dont blink because he only allows 3 seconds of slowed footage.

And it doesn't look like Moon footage.

You will see however the sand goes up higher than him.

Bullshit.

So if hes 5ft tall ? the sand flicks out and up at 45 degrees ? it would reach about 10ft ?

It would if the air didn't stop it, and if he flicked it much harder than the astronaut who sends the regolith so clearly and obviously a further distance with ZERO air resistance.

If he dug a trench and used the side of said trench to flick at a lower angle he would achieve better results,

Pish

He may well be using a golf club but he is a moonie and is imitating his hero with flicks not full blooded drives.

He is an ex HB, he saw reason and realised he was being a dumbass. His flicks at Earth speed are similar speed to the ones from the speeded up video. He is not a "moonie", he is a pro-Apollo supporter.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by ianw

Are you having me on ?

You must be off your box.

You could append this reply to almost every single thing you say.

Film yourself with exaggerated body movements and flicking garden soil with a small scoop, slow it down and show us movement consistent with the astronauts on the Moon. Then see if you can keep it going for over an hour fully consistent with lunar gravity.

Oh, and produce a moving Earth from LEO weather satellite pictures

[ianw]

Originally Posted by truegroup

And it doesn't look like Moon footage.





Bullshit.


It would if the air didn't stop it, and if he flicked it much harder than the astronaut who sends the regolith so clearly and obviously a further distance with ZERO air resistance.



Pish



He is an ex HB, he saw reason and realised he was being a dumbass. His flicks at Earth speed are similar speed to the ones from the speeded up video. He is not a "moonie", he is a pro-Apollo supporter.

You can see its as far if not further from his feet than his hight.
Halfway through its flight (highest point) makes it about 10ft, not a bad shot for such a young moonie.
But it in black and white and were not so far off.
You know he could do better but that would be a conflict of interest on his part.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by ianw

You can see its as far if not further from his feet than his hight.
Halfway through its flight (highest point) makes it about 10ft, not a bad shot for such a young moonie.

You lied, it didn't get up to 5ft high. But who cares, HBs do this all the time in hoax films, and hell, you won't admit you lied or "made a mistake".

THE AIR DISPERSES AND SLOWS IT.

Did you get that? Do you have a problem seeing this?

He's not a moonie, he is a pro-Apollo supporter and his flick with the golf club bears no resemblance whatsoever to any of the flicks performed by the astronaut on the Moon. As for your claim that it is "not so far off" - complete bollocks. The 10 ft flick we saw was done by a boot not a golf club sending sand in the air at 30 or 45 degree angles!

[ianw]

Originally Posted by truegroup

You lied, it didn't get up to 5ft high. But who cares, HBs do this all the time in hoax films, and hell, you won't admit you lied or "made a mistake".

THE AIR DISPERSES AND SLOWS IT.

Did you get that? Do you have a problem seeing this?

He's not a moonie, he is a pro-Apollo supporter and his flick with the golf club bears no resemblance whatsoever to any of the flicks performed by the astronaut on the Moon. As for your claim that it is "not so far off" - complete bollocks. The 10 ft flick we saw was done by a boot not a golf club sending sand in the air at 30 or 45 degree angles!

I didnt lie watch what you post up and stop your accusations


NO the trench was being dug with a little spade head on a golf stick looking shaft. No boot was involved in the digging of the trench. They might of been 60s flick movies but they tried to make them look a scientifically advanced as they could. Thou kicking out a 12 inch deep trench would have been just as easy they used the spade with a bit of flex in to get a good flick. Its slowed down enough, dont tell me you dont see it.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by ianw

NO the trench was being dug with a little spade head on a golf stick looking shaft. No boot was involved in the digging of the trench. They might of been 60s flick movies but they tried to make them look a scientifically advanced as they could. Thou kicking out a 12 inch deep trench would have been just as easy they used the spade with a bit of flex in to get a good flick. Its slowed down enough, dont tell me you dont see it.

You are just full of it. The lunar flicks from the scoop are barely 20 degree angles, and you compare this to one made at 45 degrees? Comedian.

Every one of those flicks between his legs is barely a 10 degree angle and goes way further than the ones on Earth. Don't tell me you don't see it

When we see him flicking to the side, there is no dispersal, his movements are ridiculous sped up and it is going way further than 10 feet for some of them. At this point in the video he flicks it about 45 degrees and it is still rising as it goes out of shot....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...JgdgJls#t=155s

The whole crux of this, is that sped up, the motion is not Earth like, it is extremely bizarre.....just like this one you never responded to(maybe you think this one is normal too).....

Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt - addendum - YouTube

Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt - addendum - YouTube

The original footage from the ALSJ, so that you can verify it has been sped up correctly.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by ianw

I didnt lie watch what you post up and stop your accusations

Originally Posted by ianw

If you watch it right till the end he slows it down, dont blink because he only allows 3 seconds of slowed footage.
You will see however the sand goes up higher than him.

Your reference was to the footage in the last 3 seconds. The one you just clipped(mid way through the video) went up almost at 75 degrees, barely made a distance of 2 yards and dispersed all over the place! You can even see at its apex it's only a yard away from him.

What is it with you? Can't you stop playing farmville and debate properly

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by ianw

Blah, blah, blah, blah.... Moon hoax, blah, blah, blah, speeded up, blah, blah, they moved quickly, blah, blah, blah, slowed down film, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Moon Hoax Belivers Don't Understand Physics - YouTube

Moon Hoax Belivers Don't Understand Physics - YouTube

Moon Hoax Belivers Don't Understand Physics - YouTube

Moon Hoax Belivers Don't Understand Physics - YouTube

Please - get a bloody clue!

[moving finger]

Here's another bit of juicy detective work demonstrating the consistency of the Apollo record.

This photograph:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...14/66/9223.jpg

is listed in the NASA records as just

VIEW FROM LUNAR MODULE WINDOW DURING LUNAR ORBIT SHOWING THE CSM

and its actual location was unknown.

So, where on the moon was it taken?

It shows the CSM Kitty Hawk, taken from the LM Antares, shortly after separation on orbit number 12.

The separation of the two craft occured at 12.65 degrees south 87.76 East. The two craft orbited together along the same path, eventually overflying the intended landing site at Fra Mauro, describing the craters they passed along the way.

This allows us to draw a fairly accurate orbit on Google Moon, along which the photograph (and the 7 preceding it) must have been taken.

So far so good.

There does exist video footage just after separation, which can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r32OUeSMIdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r32OUeSMIdA

(Skip forward to 03:20)

The CSM is receding from the LM, and the flash of the LM testing its trackerlight can be made out, which was carried out 4 minutes after separation, and is referred to at the same time as the LM crew confirm they are filming.

By stringing together a sequence of screenshots, the location of this video sequence can be worked out:



and it can be seen to follow the orbital path (in yellow) nicely. The size of the image overlay also allows the scale of the photograph to be determined.

The orientation of the CSM is different in the still image. and suggests it was taken further west from the video footage.

Comparison of the other photographs in the sequence gives the direction of travel.

The direction and strength of the shadows in the image suggest that it was taken in the central to eastern part of the daylight section of the orbit.

Having worked out where the photograph isn't, we can work out where it is, and by following the orbit line it turns out that the image was taken at McClure N, roughly 14 south 53 east.

The image below shows an enhanced version of the image (levels have been altered to increase the contrast, nothing else) on top of Google Moon.



The final frame of the gif is the lunar orbiter image of the same location, just to demonstrate the lack of detail.

These details have been added to the unknown lunar regions in Apollo orbital photography wiki.

[stelios]

Buzzed Aldrin.
Well i have have always called him a fine actor.
And guess what he really is living up to that title.
I recently watched Transformers 3 -The Dark Side of the Moon online and i was surprised to see the real Buzzed Aldrin appear in person and talking to Optimus Prime.
Have these Apollo actors no shame whatsoever?

Jarrah White reviews "Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon" - YouTube

Jarrah White reviews "Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon" - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBePaSJDflA

AliG, Sesame Street, Super Mario, Futurama, etc, Aldrins IMDB page is getting longer and longer.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004696/

How do you crazy Moonies worship a guy like this who is only an actor?

[apollo_gnomon]

Nobody is "worshiping" him, stelios. Get over yourself.

[moving finger]

I see Jarrah is putting his film school badge to some good use finally.

His main criticism of the Transformers 3 movie seems to be that it is a made up story. Who'd have thought it

His other criticism seems to be that, 40+ years after the landings state of the art Hollywood cgi still can't get it right, yet they got it perfect to the millimetre in 1969.

I had to stop, because his voice just makes me want to kill.

I'll confess I was worried - I thought for a moment someone might have come up with a damning criticism of my Apollo 14 photo location study, or the Apollo 17 photo location study, or maybe some answers to the SIV-B questions I asked PE some time ago that he dodged by disappearing into another thread, or even some other rational examination of how it is possible for satellite photographs of Earth weather at specific points in time to match exactly every single Apollo image of Earth ever taken.

Phew! Instead we just have stelios leaping all over Buzz Aldrin making a living as if it somehow makes his case for him. Good old ad hominem attacks eh.

[brucel]

Originally Posted by moving finger

I thought for a moment someone might have come up with a damning criticism of my Apollo 14 photo location study, or the Apollo 17 photo location study,

that's right ! yours.. your 'study' ah-ah is that some cryptic psycho babble wat to say collages
yes. you made the collages !!! any fool can make collages - nothing to debate

Originally Posted by moving finger

how it is possible for satellite photographs of Earth weather at specific points in time to match exactly every single Apollo image of Earth ever taken.

photoshop.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by brucel

Quote:
Originally Posted by moving finger
I thought for a moment someone might have come up with a damning criticism of my Apollo 14 photo location study, or the Apollo 17 photo location study,

that's right ! yours.. your 'study' ah-ah is that some cryptic psycho babble wat to say collages
yes. you made the collages !!! any fool can make collages - nothing to debate

And yet it's somehow beyond you to prove that the photographs taken by Apollo were not taken in orbit around the moon. No-one knew the exact location of those photographs. I proved where they were using the Apollo record, the animated gifs were the end product of proving that. The Apollo images show a level of detail that was not matched until the LRO started taking photographs. Prove me wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moving finger
how it is possible for satellite photographs of Earth weather at specific points in time to match exactly every single Apollo image of Earth ever taken.

photoshop.

Oh really that is so lame it's beyond laughable. Photoshop didn't exist when the photographs were taken. Computers barely had displays, even the digital image format wasn't there. Is that the best you have?

Feeble.

[ianw]

Originally Posted by moving finger

Oh really that is so lame it's beyond laughable. Photoshop didn't exist when the photographs were taken. Computers barely had displays, even the digital image format wasn't there. Is that the best you have?

Feeble.

Indeed


http://inventors.about.com/library/i...italcamera.htm
During the 1960s, NASA converted from using analog to digital signals with their space probes to map the surface of the moon (sending digital images back to earth).

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by ianw

Indeed


http://inventors.about.com/library/i...italcamera.htm
During the 1960s, NASA converted from using analog to digital signals with their space probes to map the surface of the moon (sending digital images back to earth).

This is the third or fourth time you have posted that link and I'll tell you now what I've told you every time you've posted it:

It is incorrect. Got that? As in: wrong.

You can tell it is wrong because the author does not understand what digital means, take this sentence about VTR:

In 1951, the first video tape recorder (VTR) captured live images from television cameras by converting the information into electrical impulses (digital) and saving the information onto magnetic tape.

Can you see what she did there? She has assumed that electrical impulses = digital signal, when it does not.

Check the patents for the first video recorders, see if they mention digital anywhere.

The film photographs from probes were developed on board and then transmitted as analogue FM signals back to the ground. Those signals were then converted into a television image and photographed from the screen.

The article itself confirms that digital photographs were not being produced until the mid-1970s.

On top of that you still have the issue as to how this was all done before Photoshop was even dreamed of, or when digital images and photography didn't exist. It still can;t explain how a photograph of a TV screen of a live TV broadcast could have been reproduced in a newspaper before the satellite image would actually have existed (you'll need to read my document for that), or how the live broadcast from Apollo 11 captured an image of hurricane Bernice, or how the live broadcast of the take off of the ascent module of Apollo 17 continued after the launch to show the Earth, the weather patterns from which (wait for it!) match exactly the satellite record.

All you have ever done (without actually reading the document) is stick your head in the sand and claim they must be fake with no actual proof of that whatsoever. The satellite record matches the Apollo video and photographic record (every time) because the Apollo images were taken where they have always said they were taken. Denier claims that the images were faked in LEO, or anywhere else, fall flat on their faces when confronted with the satellite record.