Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by Rob48


Couldn't find the originals without the "C". I'm not asking you to do research, I'm merely asking for your input. That does not appear to be a hair and your linked site is offering an explanation without much proof. Where are the negatives? I suppose that could be a valid explanation but where are the pictures of the rock without this?

edit: I've seen the picture without the "C". Never mind. I suppose a micro fiber would do that.

reply to post by cestrup


The site I linked has details of who investigated it and how, and you can find the original image scan at NASA's image library.

Here. Took me a couple of minutes because I am sat on a train on my phone with a patchy 3G signal

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Rob48
reply to post by cestrup

 

The site I linked has details of who investigated it and how, and you can find the original image scan at NASA's image library.

Here. Took me a couple of minutes because I am sat on a train on my phone with a patchy 3G signal

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

edit on 28-3-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

I think I can see how that can be a microfiber. How do you insert an image on this site?

reply to post by cestrup

I use imgur.com and then paste in the code. You can also upload pics direct on your profile on here but I find it a bit clunky.

cestrup
How was the photo of the moon rock with a clear "C" on it and another "C" in the foreground next to the rock ever addressed? I'm sure you're familiar with what I'm speaking of. Was is classified as pariedolia?

I never bought into the idea that the C-rock was a set prop. Richard Underwood must have had the day off because he would have spotted that "C-rock" in the developing room if it were on the negative itself. There is absolutely no chance that Underwood would have missed it. But the C-rock does tell us one thing about NASA - it means NASA had very poor quality control on it's Apollo images when that picture was released to the public.

reply to post by cestrup


How to upload and post images - I posted this on another thread,

How to post images

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I agree, buddy. I believe Rob was right that it was probably just a microfiber on the film. That's okay because I'm open to anything. What, IYO, is the definitive documentary on this subject? Sorry to ask so many questions but I'm new to Apollo. I studied 9/11 (in my spare time) and I'm now on to something else.

reply to post by Gibborium


Wow, that's ridiculous. I've seen chinese algebra easier than that!

reply to post by cestrup


I realize the pictorial seems a bit much, but I just uploaded six pictures and posted one in less than 1 minute. Once you understand the process, it is quite simple and the plus is ATS at present gives you unlimited space for your images.

cestrup

DJW001
reply to post by cestrup

 

I don't think we went to the moon. I think there's clearly an agenda as to why we'd fake it (I won't go into all of it because I'm sure you've heard it all before).

There is also clearly an agenda for convincing people that it was faked. Why do you subscribe to this agenda?

I believe the videos look exactly like a man on a harness with video slowed down.

.

What is this agenda? Honestly, I've never heard of it nor imagined it. What is it?

There are some groups that wish to damage the credibility of the United States government. One way they can do this is by spreading the belief that it lied about the Apollo missions. This creates the impression that the United States is dishonest and not as technologically advanced as they claim. These groups are officially funded by the governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. They are unofficially funded by revanchists in Russia. I believe webstra can provide you with more details.

Others are in it simply for the money and fame. They appear on conspiracy themed radio and cable TV, and bloviate at UFO conventions.

The worst are the ones who simply want to deny that humanity is capable of solving even seemingly insurmountable problems. They believe that their own tendency to quit when faced with a challenge, or to cheat, is a common human trait. Because they are fearful, they refuse to accept that astronauts would risk their lives in space. Because they are lazy, they believe engineers would rather fake the space program than do the hard work of making it happen. Because they are duplicitous, they believe that thousands of people are capable of sharing a lie. Because they are ignorant, they despise science, a method which dispels ignorance. It is not a coincidence that the earliest hoax proponents were neo-luddites and religious fanatics.

DJW001

cestrup

DJW001
reply to post by cestrup

 

I don't think we went to the moon. I think there's clearly an agenda as to why we'd fake it (I won't go into all of it because I'm sure you've heard it all before).

There is also clearly an agenda for convincing people that it was faked. Why do you subscribe to this agenda?

I believe the videos look exactly like a man on a harness with video slowed down.

.

What is this agenda? Honestly, I've never heard of it nor imagined it. What is it?

There are some groups that wish to damage the credibility of the United States government. One way they can do this is by spreading the belief that it lied about the Apollo missions. This creates the impression that the United States is dishonest and not as technologically advanced as they claim. These groups are officially funded by the governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. They are unofficially funded by revanchists in Russia. I believe webstra can provide you with more details.

Others are in it simply for the money and fame. They appear on conspiracy themed radio and cable TV, and bloviate at UFO conventions.

The worst are the ones who simply want to deny that humanity is capable of solving even seemingly insurmountable problems. They believe that their own tendency to quit when faced with a challenge, or to cheat, is a common human trait. Because they are fearful, they refuse to accept that astronauts would risk their lives in space. Because they are lazy, they believe engineers would rather fake the space program than do the hard work of making it happen. Because they are duplicitous, they believe that thousands of people are capable of sharing a lie. Because they are ignorant, they despise science, a method which dispels ignorance. It is not a coincidence that the earliest hoax proponents were neo-luddites and religious fanatics.

As i stated before, the reason i don't believe in the moonlandings was triggered by 9/11...and doing research after that.

So where in the world did you come to that idea ? Why do you think i know more about fundings with Cuba,Venezuela and Iran or Russia ?

reply to post by webstra

As i stated before, the reason i don't believe in the moonlandings was triggered by 9/11...and doing research after that.

Although I am interested in why you feel the two are connected, that would lead to an off topic discussion. I would like to point out one formal similarity between the two areas of speculation, however: both treat their subjects as isolated incidents, rather than as the culmination of a series of events that played out over years.

So where in the world did you come to that idea ? Why do you think i know more about fundings with Cuba,Venezuela and Iran or Russia ?

Sorry, my bad. It is Sayanara who has been making claims derived from Russian sources. For example, the implicit claim that no Russian source has acknowledged receiving lunar samples from NASA. This is a popular claim in Russia because the Soviet Union downplayed American achievements in space to further their own propaganda agenda. Consequently, the average Russian is ignorant of all the independent coverage American space activities got in the world press.

Edit to add: FoosM is also fond of claims by Russian 'scientists' who lack an understanding of basic physics and math.

reply to post by webstra


What on earth do the moon landings have to do with 9/11, other than the obvious fact that both seem to be honeypots for the lunatic fringe?

And it's that simple.....

Every normal thinking man knows that the official story of 9/11 is false.

After that experience you delve deeper in the history and find other falsifications.

I hope you apollogists do understand it now ?

reply to post by webstra

As i stated before, the reason i don't believe in the moonlandings was triggered by 9/11...and doing research after that.

I want to key off the last part of your statement. Research:

. . . is used to establish or confirm facts, reaffirm the results of previous work, solve new or existing problems, support theorems, or develop new theories.

Steps in conducting research:
* Identification of research problem
* Literature review
* Specifying the purpose of research
* Determine specific research questions or hypotheses
* Data collection
* Analyzing and interpreting the data
* Reporting and evaluating research
* Communicating the research findings and, possibly, recommendations

This is where most people get confused when it comes to Apollo. They want to verify or nullify it on the basis of Scientific Research:
1. Observations and Formation of the topic: Consists of the subject area of ones interest and following that subject area to conduct subject related research. The subject area should not be randomly chosen since it requires reading a vast amount of literature on the topic to determine the gap in the literature the researcher intends to narrow. A keen interest in the chosen subject area is advisable. The research will have to be justified by linking its importance to already existing knowledge about the topic.
2. Hypothesis: A testable prediction which designates the relationship between two or more variables.
3. Conceptual definition: Description of a concept by relating it to other concepts.
4. Operational definition: Details in regards to defining the variables and how they will be measured/assessed in the study.
5. Gathering of data: Consists of identifying a population and selecting samples, gathering information from and/or about these samples by using specific research instruments. The instruments used for data collection must be valid and reliable.
6. Analysis of data: Involves breaking down the individual pieces of data in order to draw conclusions about it.
7. Data Interpretation: This can be represented through tables, figures and pictures, and then described in words.
8. Test, revising of hypothesis
9. Conclusion, reiteration if necessary
Taken from here

While scientific research is involved in the space program and can be proven with scientific methods, it is imperative that we remember the construct of Apollo is historical. To view and understand the events of Apollo must be approached as an historical event. It happened, it was witnessed while it was occurring, it was recorded as it happened, it has been studied, and it has had an impact on mankind .

The science of Apollo is solid. The means to accomplish this endeavour was available. The history of Apollo is many events built upon many other events, built upon even more events which culminated in man going to, and walking on the Moon.

Many people (especially Hoax Believers) claim to do research, but all they have done is taken on someone else's flawed ideas and parroted them. They haven't done the science or the math or anything else to prove their hypothesis. When you adopt someone else's beliefs, such as Percy, Rene', or Sibrel and only look at their work, your world becomes skewed and defective. It does not hold true. It falls apart because they cherry pick their data and manipulate their findings to support what they want to believe.

So if you get your info from some bozo's youtube and don't do the research to verify what they are saying, all you are doing is perpetuating false information no matter how much you may want to believe it.

Have you verified your "research" or are you just parroting a bozo?

webstra
And it's that simple.....

Every normal thinking man knows that the official story of 9/11 is false.

After that experience you delve deeper in the history and find other falsifications.

I hope you apollogists do understand it now ?

Yes normal people with NO EXPERIENCE of building construction!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Let's not derail this thread with 9/11 talk.
I haven't even dipped my toe in that forum and I don't want that kind of craziness seeping in here! When I hear talk of holographic planes etc I reach for a large beer and switch off the PC!

I am just curious about one thing, and maybe someone here can explain it to me.

In the moon landing photos shot with the sun behind the astronauts, the moons surface does not look very well lit. Now in my mind, the entire surface should be BRIGHT and well lit, but instead it is not. WHY??? Look how bright Mars is during the day when the rover takes pics.

Anyway, in my mind, if the sun is in the photo, the surface of the moon should reflect the effects of direct sunlight, nothing less.

wmd_2008

webstra
And it's that simple.....

Every normal thinking man knows that the official story of 9/11 is false.

After that experience you delve deeper in the history and find other falsifications.

I hope you apollogists do understand it now ?

Yes normal people with NO EXPERIENCE of building construction!!!

As Rob said, I don't want to derail this thread into becoming a 9/11 thread, but I will use the 9/11 CT to underscore the type of false logic, poor investigative skills, and technological ignorance displayed by BOTH the 9/11 CT people and the Moon Hoax conspiracy theorists.

I worked for a Architectural/Engineering firm during the events of 9/11. The structural engineers I worked with considered the pancake effect that was displayed on 9/11 to be very real and very possible, considering the design of the WTC towers. People who think it HAD to be an implosion simply don't understand structural design NOR the methods for implosions.

The same goes for people who believe in the Moon hoax. I have yet to see/hear/read a piece of evidence of it being a hoax that can stand up to scrutiny. The evidence I have heard so far is based on a misunderstanding technology, photography, history, and just simple logic.

The ignorance/misunderstanding that is similarly displayed by both 9/11 conspiracy believers and Mon Hoax conspiracy believers is the only connection between the two.

I'm sure you can find a structural engineer who says it had to be imploded, but I bet you can also find a doctor who gives wrong diagnoses and ineffective/dangerous treatments, or a physicist whose theories about physics are completely wrong.

reply to post by IroncladFT


That is a valid question. The albedo of the Moon is 0.12. In other words, the Moon reflects back 12% of all the radiation that falls upon it. The albedo of Mars is 0.15. In other words, Mars reflects back 15% of all the radiation that falls upon it. An albedo of 0 means that object is dark, while a 1 means that it’s very bright. So Mars has a higher albedo than the Moon.

However, what you may be experiencing could be attributed to variables in the method of photography. The ISO of the film, the speed settings of the shutter, the type of lens, and the processing of the photo. All these things can have a determination of the appearance of the picture / graphic you are viewing.

Perhaps if you would upload a few of the pictures and give their location, we could all discuss the same issues.