We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Indeed, if you provide the information i'll objectively analyse it before coming to conclusions. As i said the moon landing was never something i've looked into in any great depth so i'm enjoying this thread even if it does upset some fragile posters and their self absorbed BS.

a reply to: neutronflux

Put your panties back on. If you offered anything to this thread other than a desire to have your ego massaged i would be happy to converse with you. I won't hold my breath.

You're falsely accusing me of making assertions that i simply didn't make. I'm not sure if it's a lack of reading comprehension, self control or emotional maturity but either way i have no interest in debating with you.

As you would see if you take off the blinkers i'm having constructive conversations with other members and compromising in the face of evidence.

a reply to: Grenade

You

Put your panties back on. If you offered anything to this thread other than a desire to have your ego massaged i would be happy to converse with you. I won't hold my breath.

I don’t need to converse with you to understand man has landed on the moon

You

You're falsely accusing me of making assertions that i simply didn't make. I'm not sure if it's a lack of reading comprehension, self control or emotional maturity but either way i have no interest in debating with you.

And yet you were lead down a garden path by those that use lies to push man never set foot on the moon to produce a product for profit and fame to be consumed by a biased and target audience because of your confirmation bias.

And now you want to get preachy with your false authority. And you can’t even keep your word not to reply back to me. And you use this reply not to “converse” on what was asked of you concerning the topic.

You

As you would see if you take off the blinkers i'm having constructive conversations with other members and compromising in the face of evidence.

In a another thread of man never set foot on the moon where many of the posters have repeatedly posted the same information in those threads posted here in this thread to debunk the old lies man never set foot on the moon. Same crap on ATS, different day.

Don’t blame me for your confirmation bias that others in this thread had to breakdown.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Grenade

Thanks for taking the time to read it. Nice to know it wasn't a waste of time

As I said, it's not a matter of trusting governments, it's the data. Politicians lie, governments hide things, but facts and figures don't. Not trusting a source doesn't automatically invalidate it. The data presented are either correct or they aren't. If my satellite analyses are wrong I'm happy to correct it, but I am happy that everything I've looked at is right. I have actually done my research.

Many people come at this with a blind "anything NASA says is a lie" approach without ever showing that NASA actually lied - they just heard someone else they prefer to believe say it.

People will trot out things they heard without bothering to check, like that there are no visor up images, or that astronauts never photographed Earth, the lack of stars, cherry-picked misquotes and so on. Hoax proponents (and I'll take your word that you aren't one) will repeat these ad nauseam without questioning them, or considering that their source might not be trustworthy, or that perfectly logical explanations exist for the things they don't understand and seem to avoid attempting to understand.

To then have those kind of people accuse me of not understanding the subject, of not researching it, of telling me 2+2 = purple, or that I'm just accepting things on blind faith, is what I find unacceptable.

This should have been the last post of this thread that sent the noise of another man never landed on the moon thread into idle obscurity…..

Well said.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

a reply to: neutronflux

Unlike you i don't know everything already and the only way to gain knowledge is to question or research, this is a discussion forum after-all.

a reply to: kloejen

Thanks, very good documentary !

Best parts

1:35:35 telecommunications

1:50:28 mud on moon

2:02:46 levitation

2:13:27 moving flag

2:40:50 movie lights

2:57:27 blurry edges of shadows

3:13:40 professional photographer says the pictures are fake

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: neutronflux

Unlike you i don't know everything already and the only way to gain knowledge is to question or research, this is a discussion forum after-all.

And the people that have debunked the lies of those that push all the moon landings were a hoax have been consistent in their participation in several threads over hundreds of pages for a number of years at ATS.

a reply to: [post=26448011]Grenade


How many threads do you need to explore a subject…..

a reply to: Ove38

It's not a good documentary, it's a collection of cherry-picked half-truths that deliberately misrepresents what happened.

Take the 1st "highlight". The Apollo 15 DVD set (which I own) does indeed cut a section of silence from the audio. Other sources do not. If you want to know why you'd need to ask the guy behind the DVD series. It wouldn't be the first time people have got it wrong, particularly when there's noTV of the event in question (they were driving at the time).

The audio clip at the ALSJ puts the actual gap at 4 seconds:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

146:25:41 Allen: Roger, Jim. Copy. And are you progressing towards Dune Crater now?
146:25:48 Irwin: Yes. Well, we're following our tracks. We thought when we got up here just south of Dune, we'd probably head north-northeast.

as does this audio on here at about 1:49:16:



If he's that convinced that the Spacecraft Films DVDs are so authoritative, why isn't he accepting all the bits that show unedited footage of them on the moon, complete with views of Earth? Why has he deliberately picked a source that suits his narrative and not gone to other sources that don't?

2. It's not mud. It's dust on stuck on the wheel. 'Looks like' is not the same as 'is'. Static electricity is a thing.

www.sciencedirect.com...

3. He's not levitatng, he's ascending a ladder after jumping up there in lunar gravity. People claiming harnesses can never identify where the harnesses are attached, who's operating htem, how they managed to work them over the huge distances of the alleged lunar set for hours at a time, how they never get tangled in them.

4. There are numerous instances of the flag moving after the astronauts return to the LM. It's either a result of themdepressurising the cabin to eject unwanted equipment or testing the RCS thrusters in a 'hot fire'.

5. A man who works for a camera company can't explain something. And? Lundberg is a mechanical engineer, not a photographer, and was asked leading questions on areas he doesn't know much about.

6. Heiligenschein. The lunar dust scatters light.

www.planetary.org...

7. Alleged professional photographer who already thinks they're fake says they're fake. I can find you any number of professional photographers who are more than happy the photos are genuine, along with astronomers, scientists, adn teh people who took the photographs.

There isn't one single thing in that video that doesn't have a much more accurate and truthful explanation: they went to the moon.

a reply to: neutronflux


Did I start this thread ya muppet?

Nobody is asking you to participate, quite the opposite.

Remind me how many 9/11 threads have you made 15 years after the fact?

originally posted by: Grenade
The question of doubt over the Apollo missions only reared it's head after we had time to pour over the evidence, which wasn't immediately available.

The doubt has always existed, I knew at least one person that thought we never went to the Moon, and this was in the early 1970s.

When the Internet became more popular, all things became more popular, specially the negative things, so the doubts about the Apollo missions only increased. Besides that, many people now think they know a lot about photography just because they have phones with cameras, so they say things that show their ignorance about photography while convinced they are being very smart.
The "Facebook syndrome" of thinking they are right because some people "liked them" only increases the effect.

originally posted by: Grenade
Again, people can unquestionably believe their governments, that’s up to them.

People can also believe some things and not believe others.

a reply to: ArMaP

No arguments from me on that.

This thread has educated me on some of the science and enjoyed the analysis of satellite data and moon photography, so there is that. Again, i never really followed the moon landing hoax threads until i seen this one pop up. I follow threads by coop as i find them interesting.

Remind me how many 9/11 threads have you made 15 years after the fact?

You don’t like context, do you.

Are you referring to threads and posts made in response to the repeated and regurgitated lies being used over and over again, like nukes used at the WTC, By people that exploit 9/11 for profit and fame? Or spread propaganda ?

Much like the moon landing threads. Like the same lies keep get recycled.

And it’s strange that some of the posters that pushed nukes and blame the USA for the supposed use of nukes (with zero actual evidence) at the WTC carry water for Putin now.

Makes you wonder who really posts in theses threads.

I guess you missed where I posted in the 9/11 threads to not trust anyone….

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

7. Alleged professional photographer who already thinks they're fake says they're fake. I can find you any number of professional photographers who are more than happy the photos are genuine, along with astronomers, scientists, adn teh people who took the photographs.

There isn't one single thing in that video that doesn't have a much more accurate and truthful explanation: they went to the moon.

Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani, Peter Lindbergh, Massimo Mazzucco are all professional photographers. If they say the Apollo missions photos are fake, then they are fake. Sorry, that's just the way it is. There's nothing we can do about that.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
reply to: cooperton

And he is specifically referring to the guidance and electronics of the Orion craft. It is not a catch apply to everything deal. Apollo's electronic system was far more rudimentary and there was less of it. The early work on the VAB was done by space craft. Space craft can, ipso facto, function when going through them.

There are multiple working at NASA that admit we cannot get past the Van Allen Belts:

NASA admits we can't get humans beyond low earth orbit

"Right now we can only fly in earth orbit, that's the furthest we can go"
-NASA Astronauts Col. Terry Virts aboard the ISS
16:20 in the link above


NASA admits we can't currently get humans past Van Allen Belts

"This is really the beginning of humans leaving low earth orbit"
-Dr. Kathleen Rubins aboard the ISS
8:47 in the link above


They're both saying this from the international space station, which is below the Van Allen Belts. They both admit we are in the process of figuring out how to get humans past beyond earth orbit (past the Van Allen Belts).


Here is the third NASA worker, an engineer, who admits we are still in the process of figuring this out:

"radiation like this can harm the guidance system..shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle goes through the radiation.. sensors aboard will detect radiation from this region for scientists to study.. we must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space" (starts at 3:00 in the video below)

a reply to: Ove38

5.32 How come famous photographers claim that the Apollo photos are fake?

www.moonhoaxdebunked.com...

THE DETAILS: In his video American Moon (2018), Massimo Mazzucco argues in favor of several conspiracy theories by consulting experienced photographers: Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani, Nicola Pecorini and Peter Lindbergh. Mazzucco himself is a photographer. These photographers set forth several technical objections that lead them to claim that the Apollo photographs are fake.

Radiation. It is claimed that deep space radiation should have fogged the Apollo films. The photographers support this claim by noting that X-ray machines used in airports would fog their films unless they were shielded in lead containers. But this comparison is wrong, for the reasons already discussed in detail in Section 8.5: the intensity of radiation in space is nowhere near that of an X-ray scanner. It’s like comparing a breeze and a hurricane. Besides, if radiation actually fogged films in deep space, then it should have fogged the films used in the uncrewed American and Russian probes that visited the Moon (Lunar Orbiter 1-5, 1966-67; Luna 3, 1959; Luna 12, 1966). It didn’t.

The article goes into more detail.

If they say the Apollo missions photos are fake, then they are fake.

Or they are ignorant, loony, or lying for attention…..

a reply to: Ove38

By the way. I served on a nuclear sub and would fly home. I never had trouble with my film and digital media.

Well, I guess this explains it …

Suggestions for Avoiding Fogged Film

X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on baggage uses a very low level of x-radiation that will not cause noticeable damage to most films. However, baggage that is checked (loaded on the planes as cargo) often goes through equipment with higher energy X rays. Therefore, take these precautions when traveling with unprocessed film:

www.kodak.com...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
reply to: cooperton

And he is specifically referring to the guidance and electronics of the Orion craft. It is not a catch apply to everything deal. Apollo's electronic system was far more rudimentary and there was less of it. The early work on the VAB was done by space craft. Space craft can, ipso facto, function when going through them.

There are multiple working at NASA that admit we cannot get past the Van Allen Belts:

NASA admits we can't get humans beyond low earth orbit

"Right now we can only fly in earth orbit, that's the furthest we can go"
-NASA Astronauts Col. Terry Virts aboard the ISS
16:20 in the link above

They are 'admitting' nothing of the sort.

Not having a currently human rated craft able of gwtting beyond LEO is not the same as "we've never had one" or "it can't be done".

NASA admits we can't currently get humans past Van Allen Belts

"This is really the beginning of humans leaving low earth orbit"
-Dr. Kathleen Rubins aboard the ISS
8:47 in the link above

Same again. They are referencung the current state of affairs, not denying past achievements

They're both saying this from the international space station, which is below the Van Allen Belts. They both admit we are in the process of figuring out how to get humans past beyond earth orbit (past the Van Allen Belts).

They are not admitting it can't be done, or hasn't been done. Your use of 'admit' is a deliberate attempt to load their words with intent they do not have.

Here is the third NASA worker, an engineer, who admits we are still in the process of figuring this out:

"radiation like this can harm the guidance system..shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle goes through the radiation.. sensors aboard will detect radiation from this region for scientists to study.. we must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space" (starts at 3:00 in the video below)

And again, he is referring to the development of a brand new, computer and electronics laden vessel. He is not saying it was never done or couldn't be done.

Your statements remain cherry-picked quote mining that are not saying what you claim.