An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Commander Keen -- Why don't you start a thread on the Hubble? Then people can have a place to talk about it? I don't want to start a thread just yet. I would acatually prefer to be talking about the lunar lander that is covered in torn cardboard and aluminzed plastic wrap.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

Hubble... Are the images being falsified?

I did it before you even asked...
Enjoy!

[edit on 11/8/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by Halfofone


The computer translates the signal sent back from hubble they don't just make the images up from that top of there head.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Yep. That's my point. Computer generated images. Hubble sends out its computer-generated signal and supposedly translates "something" it "gets back." Then it comes up with an ink blot, pass it off to Calvin Hamilton for some "polishing," and people go woweee! Next thing you know it's a poster being sold in the Space Museum or people like you are putting it up on a discussion board like this to "prove" what a great thing the Hubble is. This is known as "Virtual Reality." It's not real. It's somebody's idea of what you WOULD see if you CUOLD see but you CAN'T see. wow:

[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

Umm, again, nope. Hubble does actually have mirrors. It's the results, in the form of data, that are sent down to be turned into black and white pictures and then have colour added. Here's another link to a very good site that details the makeup of the telescope: hubblesite.org...
It provides clear sharp images without the blurring you get from the Earth's atmosphere. That's why it was built in space.

Back to where we were before we got sidetracked:

www.aulis.com... Can't you see it's all torn, that it's obviusly paper, and fragile, hunk-a-junk. Take a look. I will put this up later when I get some help. I still don't know how to put images into my posts. Anybody who wants to believe that we actually sent men to the moon in this thing, let me tell you about this nice bridge I got to sell you.

Sky blue out the window even though the astroNOTs are supposedly in deep, deep space (i.e. halfway to the moon)? Agent says it's "gas" coming out of the windshield.

The astroNOTs saw no stars? Agent says they couldn't tip their heads up. Besides they weren't on vacation. Or rather they could tip their heads up but they'd be looking at the top of their helmets. (of course I guess astroNOTs aren't able to bend their knees or lean back. Agent will say they might fall over. They also can't just look straight ahead? www.erichufschmid.net...

www.erichufschmid.net...

This is a rebuttal to JRA's rebuttal on the links below. No tracks in the moon dust behind the Rover? Oh, the astroNOTs must have blown some dust over the tracks. (i.e. how did the dust land under the wheels since it's supposed to fall straight down? And why would there be no indentation at all? Maybe a blurred indentation of the tracks but NO indentation? And why do all the footprints around the rover look nice and sharp, not like somebody was kicking any dust around, scuffing their moonboots, just stepping down in one place?)

www.aulis.com...

Nobody has an answer to why there are eight stagelights at the top of this moon photo. (look at the top edge of the photo and see the row of about eight stage lights)

www.aulis.com...

Nobody has addressed the hokey cool packs and how they are able to keep the astroNOTs going with no lifeline .









[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance
Sky blue out the window even though the astroNOTs are supposedly in deep, deep space (i.e. halfway to the moon)? Agent says it's "gas" coming out of the windshield.

Not exactly what I said, it's outgassing from the sealants leaving deposits in the layers between the window, combined with condensation which causes refraction. I actually posted up a detailed post about it - I'd thank you for not putting words in my mouth, I don't want people to think I'm some sort of retard.

The astroNOTs saw no stars? Agent says they couldn't tip their heads up. Besides they weren't on vacation. Or rather they could tip their heads up but they'd be looking at the top of their helmets. (of course I guess astroNOTs aren't able to bend their knees or lean back. Agent will say they might fall over. They also can't just look straight ahead?

To be able to orientate themselves in such a way that would also block out any other light sources would be extremely difficult, it's pretty obivous when you look at their suits and the terrain.
And as I said, it was not their primary mission to go stargazing. They used the star for navigation using the ship's optics and that's all that was important. You are completely underestimating how hard it would actually be for them to see them in the restrictions of the suits and blocking out all bright light sources.
And yes, there was a real danger of falling over, in fact if you listened to the podcast then you'd have heard Duke talking about how it happened to him once, and how difficult it was to try and lean back to look up without doing so. In one of the pictures of one of the Astronauts standing next to the flag, you can see he is leaning forward to keep his balance with the pack on his back.
And as I said which seems to tickle you, they weren't on vacation and they were not there to faff around trying to look at the stars just to satisy the minds of some 5 year olds 30 odd years later. Just because your incredible brain obviously finds it hard to comprehend the difficulties involved does not mean they cease to exist.

I don't know why you keep going on about their life support packs, you've been given manuals, diagrams and even summaries of how they work.
How hard it is for you to understand that they contained coolant, oxygen, radio equipment etc I don't know. I guess you think divers are fraud too.

I can't be bothered to waste any more time with you, unfortunately I can't tell you exactly how I have come to feel about you as it would break board T&Cs, but I'm sure I would be speaking for the majority.

You do amuse me though... Your childlike views of everything around you, so simple and uncomprehending, at what must be a relatively late age is fascinating. You would make an interesting test subject....

[edit on 8-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Agent:

I can't be bothered to waste any more time with you, unfortunately I can't tell you exactly how I have come to feel about you as it would break board T&Cs, but I'm sure I would be speaking for the majority.

Thanks, Agent. You are a nice guy. We've been discussing this subject now for almost 30 pages and done so in a gentlemanly fashion. Why take anything personally? Believe it or not I've learned a lot from this discussion with you. I would like to think you've learned a few things also, so that's a good thing. Yes?. The Bible says, iron sharpeneth iron. I admit to a bit of ribbing here and there, but I've not called anybody any names or got mad at anyone or told any lies or anything. So why not just consider me a worthy opponent?

Originally posted by SteveR
Unfortunately no-one yet has answered this.

Originally posted by SteveR
Ok let's put our minds to some good use here... there are two things that are admittedly confusing me.

Check them out.

www.aulis.com...

You missed my post:

Those appear to be from the film sprocket holes.

The light leaking into the magazine probably fell directly onto the sprocket holes and reflected internally to cause the white streak and refracted in the film layer itself to cause the dots.

I’ve worked with roll film cameras and light fogging along the edges is not unusual.

Notice that in the series from that particular magazine, two shots are fogged, the first and the third, although the third is much less so affected, you can make out the sprocket dots in that one as well, only they are very faint.

www.lpi.usra.edu...




[edit on 8-11-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by resistance

The last two photos here are very interesting. There are two bright lights. They look like lamplights to shine on the astroNOT. The pic is taken from behind the astroNOT facing the two lights. So the lights show up in the pic. I saved these because I was wondering what they could be. Did the lunar lander have headlights? Is that what they are? My first reaction is that they're just studio lights that NASA arrogantly didn't bother to airbrush out, but who am I to know about stuff like lights, shadows, etcetera?

This has gone far enough.

No one is THAT stupid.






(on the other hand, Resistance is certainly living up to his name when it comes to using his head for anything other than a hat rack)
www.cambridgeincolour.com...

This is a rebuttal to JRA's rebuttal on the links below. No tracks in the moon dust behind the Rover? Oh, the astroNOTs must have blown some dust over the tracks. (i.e. how did the dust land under the wheels since it's supposed to fall straight down? And why would there be no indentation at all? Maybe a blurred indentation of the tracks but NO indentation? And why do all the footprints around the rover look nice and sharp, not like somebody was kicking any dust around, scuffing their moonboots, just stepping down in one place?)

that picture is accually number AS17-137-20979

here: www.hq.nasa.gov...

you can see the log of what they were doing before that pic was taken, at the bottom it says

Gene takes a picture of the rear of the Rover AS17-137- 20979

here;www.hq.nasa.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.hq.nasa.gov...

you can see a video taken by the remote tv camera of this event. You'll see them fixing the fender (the pic shows the handy work and the fixed fender) walking behind and trying to un-stick something, After they fix it you see Gene take the picture and get on the lrv. It is obvious to me that them working behind the lrv would have kicked up some dust and covered the tracks. Also there is no indentation because as I explained earlyer the soil is very compact due to the lack of air between the particles so only the top layer is ever disturbed. Also the lrv would be moving slowly as it came to a stop in that position so there would be little rutting of the soil as it came to a stop.


[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Originally posted by resistance
how did the dust land under the wheels since it's supposed to fall straight down?

Wrong again, resistancetothought,

The dust doesn’t fall “straight down.”

It follows a perfect parabolic arc.

Unfortunately no-one yet has answered this.

Originally posted by SteveR
Ok let's put our minds to some good use here... there are two things that are admittedly confusing me.

Check them out.

www.aulis.com...

Originally posted by MickeyDee
I truly believe that we did land on the moon back in '69, and so should everybody else.
So to finally end all the speculation regaurding the landings, why on earth doesnt NASA use Hubble to photograph the landing sites?
We've seen the amazing things that Hubble can do, so im sure it could give us amazing pics of the lunar surface.
It would be to NASA's advantage as their was no point them spending billions going to the moon if nobody believes they did!!!

One more thing! Why did they never fake a Mars landing!!

That american flag waveing on the moon got me convinced that no luner module landed on the moon .
A problem with hubble is that they can fake it make a studio and say here are the pictures with it they got the budget to do it.
Man never made it on the moon.
Gama radiation on that day was x times stronger than usual it would have fried the astronauts.
Pictures with the focus croses behind objects(indicates they are false)
and so many other mistakes that dont makes sence like the indication of another source light.
Now i ask you do you still belive in santa you know the fat dude with alot of white hair.

Originally posted by SteveR
Unfortunately no-one yet has answered this.

Originally posted by SteveR
Ok let's put our minds to some good use here... there are two things that are admittedly confusing me.

Check them out.

www.aulis.com...

Well here is the whole set from that film magazine. They do not appear in the second shot. Yes it's panned a little to the right, but not completely. The "lights" would still be in the shot if they were really there, but they arn't. Most likely something to do with the film itself.

EDIT: forgot link: www.lpi.usra.edu...

EDIT2: damn, Halfofone we posted the same thing at the same time.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by jra]

Originally posted by SteveR
Unfortunately no-one yet has answered this.

Originally posted by SteveR
Ok let's put our minds to some good use here... there are two things that are admittedly confusing me.

Check them out.

www.aulis.com...

It's not studio lights, it's sunstrike, the sun will do some weird crap to film when your pointing the camera right towards it, notice the shadows show the sun would be directly in front and above. If they were pot lights that close to the surface the shdows multidirectional and probably even longer, the rocks on the left side of the pic would have shadows on the left side, and the rocks on the right would have shadows on the right. To me it looks like almost noon time (for lack of a better term)

Also that photo is part of a panaramic set seen here:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

If they were pot lights then why would they not simply cut them out of the photo? Alot of hoaxers suggest that many of the pics were tampered with, or photoshoped (even though photo editing software was not yet available). If this is such an obvious tell, then why is it left for public viewing?



pepsi78,

If the flag is what convinced you then you are a lost cause...
All of your points have been debunked in this thread already, please go back and read it.

or do some light reading at this site...www.clavius.org...
About the flag
www.clavius.org...
about the "gama rays"
www.clavius.org...
about the crosshairs "dissapearing"
www.clavius.org...

get back to us with some new stuff


[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Originally posted by pepsi78
That american flag waveing on the moon got me convinced that no luner module landed on the moon .
A problem with hubble is that they can fake it make a studio and say here are the pictures with it they got the budget to do it.
Man never made it on the moon.
Gama radiation on that day was x times stronger than usual it would have fried the astronauts.
Pictures with the focus croses behind objects(indicates they are false)
and so many other mistakes that dont makes sence like the indication of another source light.
Now i ask you do you still belive in santa you know the fat dude with alot of white hair.

Go back to the begining of this whole thread and read it through. All those points you brought up were covered many times over. Or go here: www.clavius.org...

We don't need to go over flag waving or crosshairs part again for the 100 time.

Originally posted by jra
They do not appear in the second shot. Yes it's panned a little to the right, but not completely. The "lights" would still be in the shot if they were really there.

Nothing on the second, but take a look at the third shot (AS15-89-12017), and the fourth. You can see bits of them right at the top.. It's weird. Why would there be marks like that. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, just trying to figure it out.

Half - I'm not talking about the blob of light, im talking about the objects/artifacts right at the top.

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by jra
They do not appear in the second shot. Yes it's panned a little to the right, but not completely. The "lights" would still be in the shot if they were really there.

Nothing on the second, but take a look at the third shot (AS15-89-12017), and the fourth. You can see bits of them right at the top.. It's weird. Why would there be marks like that. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, just trying to figure it out.

Half - I'm not talking about the blob of light, im talking about the objects/artifacts right at the top.

I know what you are talking about... if you required an other explanation I guess it could be a few things, it is the first pic (and third) in a new magazine, so it could be a result of light leak during loading, unloading, or during the development prosess.

Originally posted by SteveR
Unfortunately no-one yet has answered this.

Originally posted by SteveR
Ok let's put our minds to some good use here... there are two things that are admittedly confusing me.

Check them out.

www.aulis.com...

You missed my post:

Those appear to be from the film sprocket holes.

The light leaking into the magazine probably fell directly onto the sprocket holes and reflected internally to cause the white streak and refracted in the film layer itself to cause the dots.

I’ve worked with roll film cameras and light fogging along the edges is not unusual.

Notice that in the series from that particular magazine, two shots are fogged, the first and the third, although the third is much less so affected, you can make out the sprocket dots in that one as well, only they are very faint.

To me that indicates light fogging, since the film was wound around a spool in the magazine. more than one frame was impacted.

www.lpi.usra.edu...




[edit on 8-11-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Halfofone
so it could be a result of light leak during loading, unloading, or during the development prosess.

From my experience, light leaking does not create sharp objects.. it just creates blurs and patches of light. Some kind of error during the development process is a possibility, but why would the 'errors' be very similar on pics 3, and 4. It seems like the camera is picking something up, some objects. But I'm no photographic expert so I don't know.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
you can make out the sprocket dots

Ah, ok, thanks for clearing this one up.

Well that's it, I guess. Nothing left to question. Unless resistance can think of something that we haven't already covered