Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by turbonium1

The Concorde's technologies have been replaced or refined over the years, no?

Do you know why the Concorde itself was permanently grounded? Hint: for the same reason it hasn't been replaced.

Erm, because one of them caught fire and then crashed, making safety conversions horribly expensive. And people weren't flying much at the time either. And finally British Airways realised that they could make more money flying people subsonically.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by turbonium1

The Concorde's technologies have been replaced or refined over the years, no?

Do you know why the Concorde itself was permanently grounded? Hint: for the same reason it hasn't been replaced.

Erm, because one of them caught fire and then crashed, making safety conversions horribly expensive. And people weren't flying much at the time either. And finally British Airways realised that they could make more money flying people subsonically.

Indeed.

iirc Concorde lost money every time it took off, but it was massively important as a morale boosting national flagship, then it got extremely expensive and the accident was the final nail in the coffin.

So, ground breaking technology becomes too costly and is canned so they can spend money on something else instead. Sound familiar?

Originally posted by onebigmonkey
You can also see some of the other bits of equipment they left behind

No, I'm sorry, all I see are pixels.

Originally posted by onebigmonkey
and the footpaths left by Astronauts.

No, can't see those either, just pixels.

Originally posted by onebigmonkey
So yes, the satellites above the moon resolve a more than adequate amount of detail that allow us to prove that Apollo hardware is on the moon.

No, they don't. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Are we really to believe 45 years after the supposed moon landings we can't just take one image that looks like this ..



Really?

ppk55
Are we really to believe 45 years after the supposed moon landings we can't just take one image that looks like this ..

Really?

If NASA wants to blow their budget making a picture that hoax believers won't believe anyway, sure they could. That satellite cost somewhere around a billion dollars to launch. That's a big chunk of NASA's operating budget, for almost no return. Why should they? To make you happy? So you can say "I still don't believe it."

turbonium1
Why do you need so much money to develop it? You wouldn't

Really? Try telling Boeing that it won't cost as much to develop a new airliner.

As of September 24, 2011, the Boeing 787 was at $32B in development costs. They won't make a profit on it until sometime in the 2020s. The first three planes were written off as unsellable, with $15B for R&D, with another $16B to build the first 40 planes. They're looking at paying $4B a year through 2015. They would have to build 1900 aircraft to recoup the $16B, and after that they start to recoup the $15B in R&D.

Originally posted by ppk55

No, I'm sorry, all I see are pixels.

No, can't see those either, just pixels.

No, they don't. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Are we really to believe 45 years after the supposed moon landings we can't just take one image that looks like this ..


Really?

Am I really supposed to believe all those white splodges on the picture you posted are cars? Really? You claim they are cars but all I see are pixels. Prove they exist, give me their registration numbers and when they were parked there. I bet if I flew over that area now those cars wouldn't even be there, so that pretty much means your picture is fake.

See how that works?

reply to post by ppk55

Are we really to believe 45 years after the supposed moon landings we can't just take one image that looks like this ..

ok lets play your game..

here i zoomed into your image from worldview-2



i zoomed in a bit extra to try to see what "car" this one particular one is..

heres what the LRO took

apparently we cant see anything in this because its just pixels....

so lets compare the "just pixels" to the magnificent detail from worldview-2 shall we, considering the descent stage is about 4m and the average length of a car is around 4m also


oh yes definitely, the dedicated worldview-2 imaging satellite is of much higher quality than the LRO.. you cant make out anything on the LRO photos i mean its just pixels..

and look at the astonishing details in the worldview-2 image.. i mean i can totally make out that cars make and model..

no wait.. is that even a car??

lets zoom even closer and see what the fuss is all about.. because apparently worldview-2 is suppose to be much clearer and the LRO is just meant to be pixels.



oh yea yea i see it now.. completely agree.. worldview-2 has much better quality than the LRO photo.. the LRO photos are definitely just pixels

Originally posted by ppk55

Are we really to believe 45 years after the supposed moon landings we can't just take one image that looks like this ..

Really?

In the DigitalGlobe picture of the Sports Authority Field in Denver, Colorado you claim to be able to see windshields of vehicles in the the stadium's parking lot. I contend, what you are seeing is a form of Apophenia known as Pareidolia.

Pareidolia is . . . the finding of images or sounds in random stimuli. A . . . common human experience is perceiving faces in inanimate objects; this phenomenon is not surprising in light of how much processing the brain does in order to memorize and recall the faces of hundreds or thousands of different individuals. In one respect, the brain is a facial recognition, storage, and recall machine - and it is very good at it. A byproduct of this acumen at recognizing faces is that people see faces even where there is no face: the headlights & grill of an automobile can appear to be "grinning", individuals the world over can see the "Man on the Moon", and a drawing consisting of only three circles and a line which even children will identify as a face are everyday examples of this.

As you view the picture of Mile High Stadium, life experiences, biases and preconditioning of your mind tell you this is correct. Apophenia tells your mind, "I perceive a building in the form of what I conceive a stadium would look like from the air. I also perceive trees, parking spaces, vehicles, etc. So, this must be Mile High Stadium in Denver with vehicles in the parking lot."

You claimed in your first post of this,

Why can we view a car, and see its windshield from an earth satellite, yet from satellites orbiting the moon we can only see tiny pixels of the supposed landers. ppk55 post

But in your picture all you are really seeing are pixels in a digital image that are not clear enough to distinguish this on an individual basis. For instance, take a look at this picture and tell me what you see:

If I tell you it is a picture of several boats stranded at a boat dock at an unusually low tide in the Philippines, can you see that? I can see the mud and the dock and several boats, can you?

In actuality, it is a grab from your picture.

As choos has very adequately shown in his above post, the LRO pictures are actually better than the picture you have used in your argument.

You seem to be very willing to allow pareidolia to aid in comprehending the stadium picture, but refuse to do the same with the Apollo picture. Are you showing bias here?

Here's an article written by a Cuban military officer who says the photographs of "Russian" "missiles" taken by U-2 spy planes was not in fact "hard evidence" of anything. His conclusion?
intellihub.com...

Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the missiles deployed in Cuba, like the ones Khrushchev was displaying in Moscow’s parades, were a ruse de guerre; nothing but empty dummies.

Now here is the Apollo 17 Stealth LRV which does not reflect any light. There is a strong possibility that the Apollo equipment deployed on the moon is dummy equipment.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


So....They could get the equipment up there, they could move it around and leave tracks, and leave equipment laying around, but they couldn't put a man on the moon. Does that even BEGIN to make sense? If they could get all that up there, and do all that, what stopped them from putting a crew on board and flying there?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

So....They could get the equipment up there, they could move it around and leave tracks, and leave equipment laying around, but they couldn't put a man on the moon. Does that even BEGIN to make sense? If they could get all that up there, and do all that, what stopped them from putting a crew on board and flying there?

Yes they could do all of that. The Apollo remote control thesis is highly plausible. Leaving all those Hasselblad cameras on the lunar surface to save weight is not plausible.


Is that why Arizona State University is photoshopping Apollo images to remove the cross-hairs from Apollo while the Hasselblads are safely hidden on the moon (where they cannot be examined) were equipped with the reseau pattern plates, not enough evidence for remote controlled fraud? There is more.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Wow. So they're going to spend twice as much to build an Apollo capsule, with full life support, hopping robots to leave tracks, R&D for remote control systems, instead of just, I don't know, sending people. Yup! Makes sense to me!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Wow. So they're going to spend twice as much to build an Apollo capsule, with full life support, hopping robots to leave tracks, R&D for remote control systems, instead of just, I don't know, sending people. Yup! Makes sense to me!

The CIA and NPIC had the first crack at all the Apollo negatives and films. NPIC are the group that "analyzed" the U2 images of Cuban missile sites in 1962. Years later there is still no "hard evidence" to say that the missiles were real, there is a strong argument they were dummies.

Moreover, there is evidence showing that the photointerpreters at the NPIC used flawed methodological analyses in an effort to prove the existence of strategic nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962.

Maybe your analysis of Apollo images is totally wrong, based on magical thinking, like the NPIC analysts from 1962?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Or, and this may be hard to listen to, yours is. There is no evidence that those missiles on Cuba were fake either. There are opinions that they might have been, but there is zero evidence that they were.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Or, and this may be hard to listen to, yours is. There is no evidence that those missiles on Cuba were fake either. There are opinions that they might have been, but there is zero evidence that they were.

Are you going to defend the Apollo 17 Stealth LRV that somehow absorbed all the luminescence out of that "image" where it was "parked"? HAHAHahahahahaha. It looks like the Cuban missile story all over again.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Why not, you've come up with more absurd theories that you defend tooth and nail, like this one. If they could do all that, and spent all that money to do it, then riddle me this Batman.....Why not just send a person.

reply to post by Gibborium

I contend, what you are seeing is a form of Apophenia known as Pareidolia.

Same old pareidolia argument? It's really unfair to suggest that someone else has pareidolia. The NPIC analysts who checked on the Cuban missiles in 1962 were experiencing some heavy pareidolia, isn't that right?

I highly recommend this article intellihub.com...

From the point of view of semiotics, the work of the technicians at the NPIC is basically a semiotic process. Surveillance photographs, by themselves alone, have no meaning.

They become signs —that is, pointers to other real-life things— in the minds of skilled photo interpreters, who carefully compare apparently meaningless forms and shadows against their previous experiences, looking for meaningful relationships.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Except that the missiles they saw weren't rocks that appeared to be missiles. They were missile transport tubes. They weren't imagining that they saw transport tubes when they saw something else, they saw real transport tubes.

And now tell us all about how Richard Nixon was tied to this too.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Wow. So they're going to spend twice as much to build an Apollo capsule, with full life support, hopping robots to leave tracks, R&D for remote control systems, instead of just, I don't know, sending people. Yup! Makes sense to me!

The CIA and NPIC had the first crack at all the Apollo negatives and films. NPIC are the group that "analyzed" the U2 images of Cuban missile sites in 1962. Years later there is still no "hard evidence" to say that the missiles were real, there is a strong argument they were dummies.

Moreover, there is evidence showing that the photointerpreters at the NPIC used flawed methodological analyses in an effort to prove the existence of strategic nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962.

Maybe your analysis of Apollo images is totally wrong, based on magical thinking, like the NPIC analysts from 1962?

Why didnt you post the link? Oh i know why people might read the rest of the article and realize you are quote mining and that your statement is not what the author meant. He even states the pictures show missiles hes making an esoteric argument. His logic is as follows even though a picture shows you an image of say rockets. The rockets dont actually exist unless someone verifies it but touching it another words agent on the ground. He admits it looks like rockets its consistent with launch facilities. But in his warped logic a picture of missiles isnt missiles because as he stated you cant launch a picture.

Wow i cant launch a peanut butter and jelly sandwich doesnt mean its not a sandwich?? Funniest part is eventually he admits we had agents on the ground to verify but then tries to dismiss it.Oh and also forgot to mention hes a cuban that supports the revolution has written books supporting Fidel Castro so hes a little biased.You know this seems to be the Hall mark of every thing you do take a shaky source then worse miss quote it.

Heres some of my favorite quotes by the article you quote mined lol:

A typical example is when a coworker pulls out of his wallet a photo of his family and says “this is my daughter, this is my wife, this is my dog, this is my house.” Of course, what you see in a photograph is not the real thing, just an image of the thing.

As nobody can smoke Magritte’s pipe, no army can fire photographs of missiles against the enemy. Images appearing on photographs are not things, but signs of things. The inability to distinguish between a sign and the thing it signifies is one of the characteristics of primitive, magic thinking.

Really like this next one just because they look like missiles on film doesnt mean there real missiles because they have to rely on there interpretation because us humans use semantic processes.Well just because i read his article doesnt mean its a real article either

In the case of the U-2 photographs, the NPIC photo interpreters incorrectly decoded the objects appearing in them as strategic missiles, instead of images of strategic missiles. But accepting the images of missiles as the ultimate proof of the presence of strategic missiles in Cuba was a big jump of their imagination, as well as a semantic mistake.

Heres a great one from your article no agents confirmed oh well there was that one

Moreover, even disregarding the fact that photographs can be faked and doctored, nothing is so misleading as a photograph. According to the information available to this day, the photographic evidence of Soviet strategic missiles on Cuban soil was never confirmed by American agents working in the field.

The highly quoted report of a qualified agent who saw something “bigger, much bigger” that anything the Americans had in Germany, omitted the important fact that what he actually saw was a canvas-covered object resembling a strategic missile. Actually, the missiles were never touched, smelled, or weighed.

And i think this one is probably the best admits that KGB documents show the missiles where there so he says this:

Yet, recently declassified Soviet documents, and questionable oral reports from Soviet officials who allegedly participated directly in the event, have lately been accepted as sufficient evidence of the presence of strategic missiles and their nuclear warheads in Cuba in 1962.

But one can hardly accept as hard evidence non-corroborated, non-evaluated information coming from a former adversary who has yet to prove he has turned into a friend.

So unlike him ill post the link so you guys can verify what im saying see how this works!
intellihub.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


There were 12 cameras left on the moon this allowed them to bring back an additional 25 kilograms od rocks from the moon. Whats more important the moon rocks which can only be retrieved from the moon.Or the cameras that we can call the company and get more of really this is your argument, do you ever listen to your self you are so biased to prove your point youve become irrational.