Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

Originally posted by CatherineD
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

They do not NEED anything. But if they were serious photographers they would WANT the camera, and would have close to insisted on it. How do you know the lens would not do something funny? right away from very hot to very cold, would it crack?

I thinky you believe you think you can bluff me because i am a beginner. you cannot. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and me mine. But to dismiss my opinion as irrelevant is off base. Some other photographers i am sure will want to chime in here, at least eventually.

I am a smart girl. If you are trying to bluff me, it won't work. I have been taking pictures a long long time and am very good.

They were ASTRONAUTS not serious photographers so yet again your logic is FLAWED your not as smart as you think you are and YOUR opinion of what was important is yours and yours only since you have NOTHING to do with a NASA mission.

Plenty of photographers on here including semi-pros and pros and they comment on the Apollo threads so lets see what happens!

Here is a little link for you at the foot of the link page is another to the space cameras!

Hasselblad In Space

reply to post by CatherineD


Your pop whats this the school playground, the cameras were not standard they had been adapted to suit.

Some info for pop

The journeys home from the moon made very special demands on what could return regarding weight, etc. So, having fulfilled their mission, a total of thirteen cameras were deemed as an encumbrance and therefore left behind. Only the film magazines containing the precious latent images were brought back

Also this

Some differences naturally exist between the cameras sent into space and the ones intended for use on earth. These differences include the removal of the TTL flash function, and the replacement of conventional lubricants, which would evaporate in a vacuum, with low friction materials. The leatherette covering is also removed and replaced by metal plates.

So let us know what pop says

Originally posted by Junkheap

Originally posted by rolfharriss
With your 'lie that doesn't exist' perspective nothing would be investigated no truths uncovered and no justice.'

Why depend on false claims and faulty logic to claim a conspiracy where there is none? Why ask for justice when no crime has been committed?

So far, any evidence that I've been presented with regarding a Moon hoax has been filled with either a lack of understanding of basic high school physics, or photographic processes and has been flimsy, at best.

edit on 15-10-2012 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)

Anyone with a basic understanding of physics can tell you this thing didn't get any further than the studio !

Originally posted by CatherineD
reply to post by DJW001

 

With Apollo 8, 9, 10, they did not take the camera out into the cold of space, or the hot of space for that matter. Apollo 11 was the first time.

FAKE !

edit on 14-10-2012 by CatherineD because: with apollo 8,9,10

SureLY pop would remember that they DID!

The Soviet's lander looked much cooler and strangely is closer to the modern day lunar lander design.

reply to post by rolfharriss


Want to comment on this then posted a few pages back !



Top as Apollo 17 left the Moon, bottom LRO picture even the tracks match almost 40 yrs between the pictures.

NASA documented the landing sites with the distance of craters equipment etc this can be compared with LRO images like the picture above.

The google x lander price..

Why didn't NASA enter ?

www.googlelunarxprize.org...

The winner armadillo aerospace, striking resemblance to the Russian Lunar lander

reply to post by wmd_2008


Any room for an old high school physics prof. in this argument?

If they wanted to prove the landings by way of photography, they would have sent an orbiter or lander even to take halfway decent photos.

I am with rolf. These buzzes are jerking our chain.

Hoping to hear from Catherine again on the lens flare issue.

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Why didn't NASA enter ?

Probably because NASA isn't privately funded?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

Want to comment on this then posted a few pages back !



Top as Apollo 17 left the Moon, bottom LRO picture even the tracks match almost 40 yrs between the pictures.

NASA documented the landing sites with the distance of craters equipment etc this can be compared with LRO images like the picture above.

edit on 15-10-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

These tracks were actually made by the Russian LUNAKHOD 2 rover you can see the oval reflector on the first image.






The Soviets worked together with the U.S to cover the failure of the Lunar landing mission.

wanderingspace.net...

reply to post by rolfharriss


So what is your position there rolf, playing devil's advocate here? Tell us, physical argument wise, how it is we are being jerked.

I am a high school physics teacher, now semi retired. The kids called me "prof" , but I haven't a PhD. I know physics pretty well, but have never been able to convince myself one way or the other just on physical grounds. Now the photos do jerk my chain. I have always thought the photos were a con. Most feature that grainy to abruptly smooth transition.

I think one of the astronauts may crack before they all die. Perhaps indirectly get confirmation to the public.

Th camera subtopic is a great one , so incidental. There must be other little clues in the this story. For the life of me, I had never thought of that before. Certainly you'd want to check the camera batteries for the next outing and the next as the EVA are alleged to be getting all the longer with Apollo 12, 14, 15 and on and on.

I think you'd want to examine the PLSS and the suit too, gloves and so on.

The psychology of this is beyond belief. The tension of living these lies. Why don't you think anyone cracked.

I am not so young any more. I think a key to setting this straight is for young people like you and Catherine to organize, write your own books and so on.

The Apollo hoax is very important rolf because it is very much about present day political activities. Keep up the good work. You seem very capable and the community of the free world needs you.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Thunda

 

Their reactions are like those of somebody who has just heard of the death of a loved one, not of somebody who has just returned from successfully completing mans greatest triumph to date. And Im not buying 'they are just emotional' either. Its like they dont want any part of the whole mission and are acting under duress and, in Mike Collins's case, outright fear.

Let's see how you would act if you were crammed into a tin can the size of a station wagon with two hairy men, blasted into space by a rocket that could explode like a small nuke, spent a week experiencing the same nauseating feeling you get in a falling elevator and lived for that time in constant fear that the least wrong move could instantly leave you to die in the inky cold blackness of space. Oh yeah, there's no bathroom or shower. I don't know about you, but I might find all that a bit stressful.

so surely they'd be pleased as punch that their 'ordeal' was over? they look anything but pleased. they look guilty.

reply to post by RoScoLaz

You mean like this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by IamAbeliever
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ

 

Bingo! I have often wondered how it is that the Earth, as photographed from the Moon, could appear the same size as the Moon, as viewed/photographed from the Earth. Doesn't make sense.

Do solar and lunar eclipses make sense to you? if not that that's understandable and maybe something you could research if it makes you wonder.

Wondering without knowledge can get one lost.

reply to post by Jiajia


Here's one of those small things for you Jiajia. I was comparing the 1994 with the 2011 versions of the Deke Slayton Moonshot book, The Inside Story of America's Race to the Moon and discovered the 2011 edition features this entire little section on debunking the hoax charge. Now Slayton and Shepard, the book's up front authors are long dead. What are they adding this for some 17 years later? It's got to be a con job. Jerking your chain there Jiajia.

reply to post by rolfharriss

No.
These are the track left by Lunokhod 2.

Originally posted by Adyta
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

How am I ignorant? Do you know what that word means?

Nobody has "great knowledge" of space. We know just as much about the afterlife as we do about space. Thousands of years of study and all we really know is "well, it might be infinite" or "we think wormholes might be possible. Maybe."

The question you posed at the start of post is answered by yourself with the rest of your post.

Afterlife and space, is this a new argument for Evolution vs Creationism.

Space has evidence of existing where as an afterlife is a shared belief between many differing cultures on earth.

The question should have been directed to yourself about the meaning of ignorant.

Space might be infinite, yes, if it is it can never be proven.

reply to post by asbestos


Hey asbestos, been a while since we worked together. I knew you'd get around to it, but I cannot wait, let's give the folks the dirt right here and now.

The coauthors of the Moon Shot book were Jay Barbree, still alive, turns 79 this November, and Howard Benedict, died age 77 in 2005. Presumably, they are the low level culprits here, the monkeys with the pens. The "Boots on the Moon" chapter(20) is the one that contains the references to the hoax in the 2011 edition of Moon Shot.

For now I guess it is safe to assume Benedict and Jay Barbree both were journalists that participated in the hoax and wrote this later edition garbage even though Benedict died before the thing hit the shelves.. You are always spot on asbestos.

Disgusting isn't it? Absolutely disgusting. Again, great work!

Ladies and Gentleman

I am proud to announce a breakthrough in the Moon Hoax

Why not tour the moon mountains for yourself... but don't switch to Google Moon. No need to waste all that rocket fuel just one by one identify every mountain backdrop in the Apollo pictures and match it to features on Mauna Kea in Hawaii

There is much work to be done.. Get on Google Earth try switching back and forth from street view to overhead. Search for the mountain backdrops in Google (other search engines are available) and
we have the revelation and confirmation of the hoax.

Next week I will tell you who killed JFK and how Elvis has been secretly running the world through his fascist regime... Mcdonald's

Apologies the second mountain is a bit rubbish, I was keen to get the first one up quickly before google black it out!

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Anyone with a basic understanding of physics can tell you this thing didn't get any further than the studio!

Please explain the basic physics as to how the LM outer thermal covering has anything to do with the performance and abilities of the vehicle. Thanks in advance.