If you believe we put a man on the Moon ...

by **tigre63** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:29 am

<img src="http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS11/images/AS11-44-6560.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **albion** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:55 am

<img src="http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/1645Magellan.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=albion@rigorousintuition>albion</A> at: 4/17/06 1:02 am

by **Pirx** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:15 am

Perhaps they're already here. Hmm, moonhoax thread...... Could leap on it and gleefully stab it in the neck and drink its' blood.... Could let it shamble on by and stare in sad wonder, fanning myself with a magazine till the odor subsides. Could try for a third option..... <img src="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/images/AS11-44-6560.jpg" style="border:0;"/> There, all settled. There are your stars! Please enjoy them.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:18 am

But look at how well they do it...

by **StarmanSkye** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:46 am

Good job Pirx! The 'objection' that photos of planets and stars would be impossible to fake from the moon is a sure giveaway the particular Hoax advocate lacks sufficient grounding in even the most basic principles of elementary astronomy to know what's reasonable and what isn't. Why is this single fact so hard for MH'ers to get? The view of the Milky Way, extra-galactic stars and galaxies would be identical from the Earth and Moon. Even the position of visible planets against the backdrop of stars would essentially be identical. The at-most several arc-second difference between the actual position of the closest planets mars and venus as seen from the earth and the moon would be almost impossible to compute -- and I think the degree of expected error would be greater than the result. (The earth travels further in its orbit around the sun in one day than the distance the moon is from the earth). There are many dozens of photos of the earth taken by the Lunar crews -- usually they were taken by the Command Module in orbit or from the LEM in descent. The image of the earth from the moon had no project significance and so wouldn't have been of much interest -- compared with the detailed views of the earth the astronauts had from high-orbit soon after launch and the novelty of the moon-landing experience and their busy schedule, the 5-arc-degree-size view of the earth would not be noteable at all -- as well as prone to being obscured by the sun's glare and filtered-out by the gradated-filter upper-section of their gold-plated face-shield visors -- unless they looked directly at it. But I did find one photo taken by Apollo 11 of the earth as seen from the lunar surface with the upper LEM in foreground. <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html">history.nasa.gov/ap11-35a...pollo.html</a> <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/kippsphotos/6550.jpg">history.nasa.gov/ap11-35a...s/6550.jpg</a> AS11-44-6550 <img src="http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/kippsphotos/6550.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Earthrise viewed from lunar orbit prior to landing * <img src="http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/kippsphotos/5924.jpg" style="border:0;"/> http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/kippsphotos/5924.jpgAS11-40-5924 LM ascent stage and Earth overhead ________________________ http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/kippsphotos/6642.jpgAS11-44-6642 LM approaches CSM for docking / earthrise in b.g. July 21, 1969 * http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html -- Fairly comprehensive archive of all Apollo flights with quick thumbnail preview feature, choice of usually 44K, 102K or 260K high-res. images including many non-optimal and reject photos seldom seen in commercial/public productions, ie. end-of roll, half-frame, over-under exposures, smudged and sun-flare images. Photos listed and presented in order they were taken, many panorama sequences providing 180 and 360 degree views. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/images12.html Nasa's Apollo 12 Image library is also a good link for Lunar images. While it doesn't have a preview function, it offers a chronological timeline and descriptions of events, photo-details, experiments and other observations/comments that are esp. useful when used with the apollo archive gallery cited above: Apollo 11: AS11-36-5404 view of LM and Earth during trans-Lunar coast 20010404 http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/as11-36-5404_t.jpg NOTE: These photos were taken before, are part of the same earthrise sequence re: the image that Tigre63 posted: AS11-44-6547 Earthrise sequence - Earth emerges over lunar horizon 20021020 http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gal ... 59_t.jpg** From: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html Apollo 12: Earthrise sequence, Craters 276/273 http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/AS12-47-6879_t.jpghttp://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/ ... 6881_t.jpg <img src="http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/AS12-47-6881_t.jpg" style="border:0;"/> http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/AS12-47-6882_t.jpghttp://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/ ... 6895_t.jpg Crater II, Earth crescent low on horizon, sequence: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/AS12-47-6871_t.jpghttp://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/ ... 6874_t.jpg Cool picture close-up of Surveyer 3 with LEM in background taken at 15-ft focus, showing footpad-imprints when spacecraft bounced on landing: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7099.jpg Fantastic pan sequence taken by Pete through 360 degrees, from down-sun to up-sun with several extreme sunflare-washed images and back, around the LEM site http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/AS12-47-6941_t.jpg --down-sun http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/AS12-47-6942_t.jpghttp://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/ ... 6947_t.jpg http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/AS12-47-6948_t.jpghttp://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/ ... 6951_t.jpg --Up-sun * Apollo 16: View from Lunar Excursion Module of Command Space Module and Earth over lunar horizon: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/as16-113-18289_t.jpghttp://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/ ... 8286_t.jpg

by **stickdog99** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:21 am

So far that's a total of ONE picture that shows anything that couldn't have been taken with an unmanned lander or orbiter. ONE FUCKING PICTURE AND ALL IT SHOWS IS THE FUCKING EARTH. Out of almost 6,000 photographs, why not a single photo from the Moon's surface pointed straight up? Why not a single photo showing THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM? Sigh all you want. But don't pretend that this fact isn't bizarre. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/17/06 3:23 am

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:44 am

You're arguing from an absence of evidence: "I've seen no pictures shot on a direct vertical from the Moon; therefore, no astronauts have ever landed on the moon." That's a basic logical fallacy, the "appeal to ignorance." <a href="http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Appeal_to_Ignorance">wiki.cotch.net/index.php/..._Ignorance</a> Among other problems, it attempts to shift the burden of proof away from all evidence in favor of a claim, while making a demand for evidence that one already knows not to exist. An important feature of this fallacy is its elasticity- that is, in this case, if someone did come up with a photo of space shot from the direct vertical from the moon, it's always possible to find the photo somehow insufficiently convincing, and make yet another demand for more convincing evidence, ad absurdum.

by **OpLan** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:04 am

<a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm" target="top">Here's</a> an article defending Apollo Authenticity.Their allegations of structures on the moon require Apollo data to be real. <img src="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake2-stars.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Surveyor 6 picture of constellation Scorpius taken from the Lunar surface "In order to get the stars even to show up (for navigation and location purposes), the Surveyor cameras had to use (in one example) a three-minute time exposure to record them. By contrast, the average exposure time of the hand-held, film photographs taken on the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts is about one 250th of a second -- or an average of forty-five thousand times shorter than the exposure required (three full minutes) to actually record stars in the airless lunar sky. Clearly, if these "disbelievers" believe at least in the reality of the unmanned lunar landings (which at least some say they do), this simple example should satisfy even the densest Moon Hoax advocates as to the nagging question of "why stars aren't visible" in the background of any Apollo surface photographs. Because they're simply too damn dim!" I don't understand why the 'no stars' argument refuses to die. It does nothing but trigger abusive comments,and devalues any debate on NASA shinnanigans. A picture of the stars is no proof anyway.They could simply relabel a robotic cameras image. I have seen the film "what happened on the moon"..if anything made me question Apollos authenticity,it was the questions raised relating to why the Saturn V was ditched in favour of the less efficient and more costly space shuttle programme,or whether the video evidence of Saturn V taking off shows a moon bound projectile,or merely a special effect;nothing more than an impressive looking blow torch. Other curiosities for me include astronauts apparently faking a video sequence of the earth through a window on the way to the moon,the exploration of whats physically possible in a pressurised space suit,the speculation that the exhaust gasses from the lunar lander should have been a deep red colour.. Tigre63 mentioned Apollo17.. <a href="http://www.keithlaney.net/Ahiddenmission/A17HMp1.html" target="top">Here's</a> an interesting study of Apollo 17s mission.They drove a long way to look at a ditch.They spent an awful lot of money on a mooncar to look at something they don't appear to show us in their photographs. I came across <a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/crnt.htm" target="top">this</a> article and the following quote made me giggle.. "This is a report prepared by Dr. Bruce Cornet concerning data Richard C. Hoagland showed him in 1994. According to Dr. Cornet, Hoagland sought him out to have a competent and independant geologist (which Dr. Cornet certainly is) evaluate his findings in the Sinus Medii region of the Moon. Subsequently, Dr. Cornet reports*that he began remembering a lifetime of abduction experiences, and now insists he is contact with aliens. Cornet also says that his work with Hoagland was the trigger for these experiences. Hoagland has distanced himself from Cornet and to my knowledge no longer mentions him in his lectures." <a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/AS11.htm" target="top">Heres</a> an article exploring image tampering on a nasa website. <img src="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/AS11/AS11-1_small.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/patent.htm" target="top">Heres</a> an article on possible light refraction caused by glass ruins <img src="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/patent9.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Lunaranomalies.com also speculates on <a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/evidence.htm" target="top">image tampering in the Clementine data</a> <img src="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/airbrush.jpg" style="border:0;"/> This side-by-side-by-side comparison of UV-VIS images from Clementine makes a strong case that at least some of the images have been censored by BMDO before release. The first image is the standard hi-res camera image of the floor of the crater Tycho. The anomalous "Chalet", "Backhoe" "Pyramid" and "Longhorn" are visible without enhancement. The second image is the same photo which I have modified using the airbrush tool on my photo software. The third image is the official released Clementine photo of the crater Plato, from the LLNL (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) web site. I have cropped and resampled it to fit the page, but have not modified it in any other way. Obviously, the lack of detail and texture in the Plato image is a tip-off that it has been altered, but the comparison with the airbrushed Tycho image is compelling. Image modification due to compression or the resampling can be discounted, since the image looks very much the same uncompressed and compression would not produce the "airbrush" effect in any event. The inescapable conclusion is that there is something in the crater Plato that someone doesn't want us to see. Personally,I think MoonHoax was created to tarnish any serious investigation of apollo discrepencies. If I was 20 years younger,I would study image processing and examine the data with a more informed eye..but at 41,even PaintShopPro makes me want to smash the keyboard with my bare fists.Stupid brain..

by **stickdog99** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:42 am

I'm not trying to PROVE anything here, robert. I'm wondering WHY there's so little unambiguous evidence (photographic and otherwise) that men actually went to the Moon. What I'm looking for is something to SHUT UP Moon Hoaxers that is EVIDENCE rather than debunking. "Maybe they just never looked up" doesn't quite cut it. Doesn't everyone here understand by now that the "conspiracy accusation/accusation debunking" paradigm is a load of shit? To put it in legal terms, this is a civil and not a criminal case. Moon hoaxers don't have to PROVE a crime. There's no DEFAULT presumption of innocence on the part of the government. We are talking about preponderance of evidence here, so it's a logical flaw to say that any "appeal to ignorance" is a logical flaw. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/17/06 8:55 am

by **stickdog99** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:49 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"In order to get the stars even to show up (for navigation and location purposes), the Surveyor cameras had to use (in one example) a three-minute time exposure to record them. By contrast, the average exposure time of the hand-held, film photographs taken on the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts is about one 250th of a second -- or an average of forty-five thousand times shorter than the exposure required (three full minutes) to actually record stars in the airless lunar sky. Clearly, if these "disbelievers" believe at least in the reality of the unmanned lunar landings (which at least some say they do), this simple example should satisfy even the densest Moon Hoax advocates as to the nagging question of "why stars aren't visible" in the background of any Apollo surface photographs. Because they're simply too damn dim!"<hr></blockquote> I guess that explains why the Hubble telescope doesn't work. Once you get outside of Earth's atmosphere (which acts as giant magnification lense) stars and planets simply disappear!

by **professorpan** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:45 am

Trying to dialogue with Moon Hoax proponents (i.e. lunatics) is as profitable as having a conversation with a rabid fundie who thinks the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Might as well flee the room before the gibbering insanity hits the red zone. Over and out, Houston.

by **greencrow0** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:26 pm

professorpan How did the astronauts get through the Van Allen radiation belt? Would you like to do a bit of research on that and get back to us? No more of your put downs...just some hard research.

by **professorpan** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No more of your put downs...just some hard research.<hr></blockquote> The hard research has been done ad nauseum. Put-downs will suffice. If you don't believe me, do the research yourself. I also will not research flat-Earth theories, so please, don't ask.

by **HMKGrey** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:59 pm

greencrow0: I once found a site where a guy made a pretty interesting case where his problem came down to the sheer number of pictures taken. He didn't buy it based on the fact that the cameras were pretty old school and hard to set up and focus, the astronauts were in cumbersome suits that took an enormous amount of time and energy to move around in and so on... yet, there are thousands of photos... and photos were far from the only reason the astronauts were there. They had to do a bunch of experiments, check the LEM, so on and so forth. By his calculations they simply didn't have time to take anywhere near the amount of photos they claimed to. I don't have time to find the site but it's probably worth you seeking it out. Van Allen Belt: Good question. I read something recently where a new development might now make it possible for humans to pass through this. WTF?

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:39 pm

"We are talking about preponderance of evidence here, so it's a logical flaw to say that any "appeal to ignorance" is a logical flaw." LOL Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/17/06 11:46 am

If you believe we put a man on the Moon ...

Earth Photo

Flat Earthers & the Moon

Re: Sigh

Can an invasion of flat-earthers to this board be far off?

Re: Sigh

Re: Sigh

Re: Sigh

Never A Straight Answer

Re: Sigh

Re: Never A Straight Answer

Re: Never A Straight Answer

Re: Never A Straight Answer

Re: Never A Straight Answer

Re: Never A Straight Answer

Good As Gold

Who is online