Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: KubricksOdyssey on 27/05/2014 18:18:07
-
Hard science analysis of Apollo photos reveals they are not genuine.
Introduction here:
Oleyniks proof:
Solid 3D Proof That Apollo Photos Were Faked
http://criticalbelievers.proboards.com/thread/17565/solid-proof-apollo-photos-faked?page=1
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fv6Yilfc.gif&hash=e1c20163a3719038e469b050971787c6) (http://criticalbelievers.proboards.com/thread/17565/solid-proof-apollo-photos-faked?page=1)
A stereoscopic image or ‘wiggle’ stereoscopy. GIF-animation allows the creation of a crude sense of dimensionality, even with monocular vision. Stereoscopic imagery can also determine the relative position of objects in space and enable judgment of their remoteness. Image Wikipedia
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUu78T5b.gif&hash=fd0bf83d318f612bc42a1dbc5ffc9091) (http://criticalbelievers.proboards.com/thread/17565/solid-proof-apollo-photos-faked?page=1)
Stereoscopic image of the Zmievskaya power plant allows one to measure the parallax and the distance to all remote objects.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fdm47ruk.gif&hash=f88ae6409a927a8a7823d641f2ee1668) (http://criticalbelievers.proboards.com/thread/17565/solid-proof-apollo-photos-faked?page=1)
Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains.
Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.
Conclusion:
These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.
Dr Oleg Oleynik
-
Possibly a valid point, but should we assume that because the photos might have been faked, the mission didn't happen. It may not have happened, but to draw one conclusion from the other is not scientific reasoning. At best it is conjecture - at worst, conspiracy theory.
-
Before anyone wastes their time on "KubricksOdyssey", look how his source jayweidner describes his own website ...
jayweidner.com
Description:
DVDs, videos, books and articles concerned with alchemy, shamanism, the apocalypse, the transformation and transmutation of the human race and our true potential as human beings. Among the subjects discussed are Stanley Kubrick and his film 2001: A Space Oddyssey, J R R Tolkien, Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings, The Alchemy of Time, The Ka, the Ba and the Kabbalah, The God Star and much more. The books that Weidner has written include Mysteries of the Great Cross at Hendaye, A Monument to the End of Time and his DVD Secrets of Alchemy.
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/jayweidner.com
If that doesn't convince you to not bother refuting "KubricksOdyssey" false statements , have a look at his previous ravings here ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423803#msg423803 [ Reply#27 onwards ]
"KubricksOdyssey" is immune to evidence : you are wasting your time interacting with him , ( I wish someone had given me that "heads-up" ).
[ BTW If Jay is an successful alchemist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alchemy) why does he need a website to flog his new-agey conspiracy-theory bumf ? ]
-
Possibly a valid point, but should we assume that because the photos might have been faked, the mission didn't happen. It may not have happened, but to draw one conclusion from the other is not scientific reasoning. At best it is conjecture - at worst, conspiracy theory.
Moon landing images provided by NASA were clearly not taken on the moon.
Let's not draw any conclusions here except that the images claimed to be genuine by NASA clearly are not.
-
RD,
There are many logical errors and "Appeal to" fallacies in your post. Please review what logical fallacies are
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
This thread is a discussion of the 3D Stereo Parallax work of OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.
-
Just because some photos were faked dosn't mean that the missions didn't happen. Maybe NASA just Photoshopped the aliens out of the photos [;)]. Satellites orbit the moon and take legit pictures of it to this day, you can see the various moon landing sites on "Google moon" which is pretty much just like Google earth. But if you still believe that nobody ever landed on the moon and that Google moon has falsified/Photoshopped it's pictures then consider the experiments that were left on the moon.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisistrue.com%2Fimages%2Fmoon-mirror.jpg&hash=09dbc2b00587b6981b000097c8e43d2a)
For example several Apollo missions left a triangular mirror reflectors on the moon for laser observatories to measure the distance from the earth to the moon it's called "laser ranging" If your such a firm believer that nothing ever landed on the moon then go to one of these laser observatories and ask them to point their laser at the moon mirror and see if the laser is reflected back or not, that way you'll know for shore.
-
...Satellites orbit the moon and take legit pictures of it to this day, you can see the various moon landing sites ...
I mentioned this to KO ... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
previously ... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423809#msg423809 reply #28
Everyone is wasting their time here interacting with KO, ( you can't say I didn't warn you).
-
Just because some photos were faked dosn't mean that the missions didn't happen.
NASA claims that all Apollo 15 photos at Hadley Rille, Rima Hadley July 30 1971 are genuine.
Oleyniks work clearly proves NASA false. There are people still out there who believe these NASA images are real.
A "Hadley Rille" reportedly 5 miles away should not rotate like this...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqX0Pq5B.gif&hash=5950818cad882f64eb9ad7a80ea933a3)
-
RD, you just dealt in about 10 different fallacies.
Try to stay on the topic of Oleyniks work without bringing fallacies into the discussion.
Review them here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPSL4eZg.png&hash=7d11990a9888f81db4624d109859cf5f)
(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)
-
... work of OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.
Apparently you forgot the "c" :
your favourite source "aulis.com (http://www.aulis.com/mars.htm)" describes him as ... " Oleg Oleynik Ph.D.c (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_PhDc) "
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Oleg+Oleynik+Ph.D.c%22+site:www.aulis.com
According to his auto-biography , not getting his doctorate did not hold Oleg back ...
After 1999 Oleg left the Phystech department to pursue an independent career. From 1999 to 2012 - Oleg Oleynik organized non-state research on humanism on the Web, founded a School, a College, and a University with academic degrees.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Oleg-Oleynik/1839146942
-
just because KO would post something such as this doesn't mean you should insist that "nobody interact with him" He is a truth seeker just like all of us. I dislike the whole Idea of discrediting someone for their ideas even if they are wrong, he posted it to get opinions on his theory not to get ridiculed. [:-\]
-
... you should insist that "nobody interact with him" ...
I did not, and cannot, "insist" people do not interact with KO , I was just a suggestion based on my experience , [ see ... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423803#msg423803 [ Reply#27 onwards ] ]
He is a truth seeker
If you read what KO has posted previously you'd see that is not the case.
... he posted it to get opinions on his theory not to get ridiculed...
He's not seeking anyone else's opinion, (see his previous posts).
His behaviour looks more like trolling than anything else.
-
Oleyniks proof:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fdm47ruk.gif&hash=f88ae6409a927a8a7823d641f2ee1668)
... Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains.
Where is the evidence that the difference in the two camera positions was "slight" ?
[ from the change in the direction of the sun , minutes have elapsed between the exposures ]
It looks like Hyper-Stereo (http://www.stereoscopy.com/faq/hyperstereo.html) : where the viewpoints are much further apart than the distance between the eyes ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.finkbuilt.com/blog/hyperstereo-seattle/
[ Hyperstereo images make reality look like a model ]
-
"Here are some hints for playing with hyperstereo:
As a guideline, use an image separation of about 1/30 to 1/50 of the distance to your main subject. For example, to photograph a mountain range 5 miles distant, you would want to try a camera separation in the range of 528 - 880 feet apart."
http://www.rmm3d.com/3d.encyclopedia/hyper.html
Apollo 15 photos parallax photos are only centimeters or 10's of centimeters apart, not hundreds of feet.
----------------------------------------
Neil Armstrong in 1994....
Today we have with us a group of students...To you we say we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers.
There are places to go beyond belief..."
White House Speech July 20, 1994 - 25th Anniversary of 1969
---------------------------------------
The place to go "beyond belief" Armstrong was talking about in 1994 is the Moon itself.
Armstrong wasn't lying, Not landing a human on the moon is so far "beyond belief" of many even our friend R.D. can't wrap his head around it yet.
-
Where is the evidence that the difference in the two camera positions was "slight" ?
[ from the change in the direction of the sun , minutes have elapsed between the exposures ]
Photos used were AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850. Oleynik then obtained Figure 11....
Fig. 11. The subtraction of the front parts of the two images is on the left. The parallax resulting from the two merged images is on the right. This image was obtained by the subtraction of two photos taken with a camera shift of not more than 20 cms. Transformations of scale, rotation, reverse distortion, perspective, shift and the convergence of the two images into a stereoscopic image were applied.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
-
Apollo 15 photos parallax photos are only centimeters or 10's of centimeters apart, not hundreds of feet.
Where is the evidence they are only " centimeters or 10's of centimeters apart" ?.
... a camera shift of not more than 20 cms ...
Where is the evidence they are "not more than 20 cms" apart ?.
If the difference between the camera positions has been underestimated , then so will the distance to the mountains.
From 1999 to 2012 – Oleg Oleynik organized non-state research on humanism on the Web, founded a School, a College, and a University with academic degrees.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
Can you give us a link to the University Oleg founded ?
-
Apparently deliberate stereo images were taken on the Apollo missions ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.astronet.ru%2Fpubd%2F2003%2F01%2F13%2F0001185775%2Fapollo17stereo_vantuyne_full1.jpg&hash=d1c84dd52f8d7cfe161517fb6a5783f5)
http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/1182588/apollo17stereo_vantuyne_full1.jpg.html
No mention of the distance between the two lenses though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D
-
There's a ton of proof that the missions were faked. Here's a link to some info I found on Apollo.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
-
I don't see any movement in the mountains.
As SS explained, we know as a fact that men went to the moon because Apollo 11 placed corner reflecting mirrors on the surface of the moon and from that moment we've been able to bounce laser beams off the moon. It'd be impossible to do that otherwise.
Russians were monitoring radio signals from the astronauts orbiting the moon. If they weren't then the Russians would have pointed it out to the entire world.
Sorry but we've been to the moon, no question about it. Those of you who claim otherwise should be ashamed of yourselves.
-
As SS explained, we know as a fact that men went to the moon because Apollo 11 placed corner reflecting mirrors on the surface of the moon and from that moment we've been able to bounce laser beams off the moon. It'd be impossible to do that otherwise.
If the Surveyor* program was real, they had the technology to put remote-control craft on the moon. Such a craft could have adjustable reflectors attached to a rotating upper half.
What Happened on the Moon
(3:26:18 time mark)
Russians were monitoring radio signals from the astronauts orbiting the moon. If they weren't then the Russians would have pointed it out to the entire world.
You're assuming that what were being told reflected what was really happening. What was happening behind the scenes might have been very different.
Everyone should read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war.
http://libcom.org/history/articles/cold-war-1940-1989?quicktabs_1=0
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program
-
Sorry but we've been to the moon, no question about it. Those of you who claim otherwise should be ashamed of yourselves.
He has more than that to be ashamed of, see his posts in Chat section and get the measure. Next he'll be telling us that Einstein's theories are wrong, just 'Jewish Physics' as the Nazis called it. You would be branded a white Jew, just like Heisenberg for promoting those same theories!
-
Sorry but we've been to the moon, no question about it. Those of you who claim otherwise should be ashamed of yourselves.
He has more than that to be ashamed of, see his posts in Chat section and get the measure. Next he'll be telling us that Einstein's theories are wrong, just 'Jewish Physics' as the Nazis called it. You would be branded a white Jew, just like Heisenberg for promoting those same theories!
Yeah. I saw that. I also saw his response to my post. The man is totally off his rocker. No. We didn't send a man to the moon to place a mirror there. We sent a robot there and were able to convince tens of thousands of scientists to lie for the last 40 years. Yah! Right!
The problem with all of these crackpots, i.e. what they all have in common, is that they have studied exactly what science itself actually is. They don't read texts on the philosophy of science or a treatise on things like physics. Here's a few good ones that would help them all but they'll never read them
1) Philosophy and Logic of Physical Theory by Fritz Rohrlich
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/philosophy_physics.pdf
2) Concepts of Modern Physics: The Haifa Lectures by Mendel Sachs
http://bookos-z1.org/book/695697/ec679f
3) The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper
4) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn
5) The Structure of Science; Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation by Ernest Nagel
They should at least read the first two because they're short and easy to read and readily available online.
-
We sent a robot there and were able to convince tens of thousands of scientists to lie for the last 40 years. Yah! Right!
That's what we read, but is it really true?
http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?
A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.
A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
---------------------------------------------
We didn't send a man to the moon to place a mirror there.
You seem a little confused about my position. Watch this video at the 3:26:18 time mark and give your analysis of what's said.
What Happened on the Moon
-
Let me explain why you are unlikely to get answers to your posts here and in chat (9/11 and holocaust denying).
Folks who join and participate here do so for fun and are looking for interesting topics. They have day jobs or other interests so limited time. They will therefore spend time on the more interesting topics, but are very willing to assist true seekers of knowledge.
Your postings are lengthy, on more than one topic, conspiracy related, and answering would involve a lot of time - even just typing. To you these arguments are new and interesting, but to most people here they are old hat, they will have see these arguments before, seen the errors, and got bored with them. Experience has shown that most posters of these topics rarely understand the answers and dismiss strong replies because of that lack of understanding.
Let me give you a couple of examples:
When the Apollo missions were running I was keen on Ham radio and so I know some hams were listening in to the astronauts. Recently I saw a posting which claimed to be recordings of conversations Hams had intercepted, between astronauts on the moon and Huston, which proved that the astronauts had seen aliens. As soon as I saw the transcript of the conversations between ground and moon I knew they were fakes, they were duplex and the radio hams could only pick up simplex from the moon. To explain why requires teaching the basics of radio propagation at different frequencies, modulation techniques, aerials etc. I tried to explain to a friend as simply as possible, at the end he looked rather blank and said "but we could always hear both sides of the conversation on the live tv broadcasts" DOH!
Even the old chestnut about not seeing stars on the moon photos is blindingly obvious to anyone with an interest in photography, but requires an explanation of film sensitivity, contrast ratios, exposure .......
Often people have a Disney view of physics, eg expecting to see a cartoon-plane shaped hole in the side of the Pentagon!
There is more than one thread here where folks have given up when it is obvious that the poster has not grasped the significance of the points made. No doubt the poster mistakenly feels they have proved their point and it is game over.
-----------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?
A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are not aware that NASA had difficultly getting the money for Hubble and so the ESA part funded it with a guarantee of access for its members. Lovell and Moore had plenty of access. I know this is not evidence - I met Patrick Moore once, we were staying at the same hotel and had dinner together. He was very passionate about space, would have been horrified at any form of deceit and would have created a real stink over being blackmailed. His celebrity made him a very powerful force, he was not afraid of Governments or NASA.
I notice you have only posted one side of these 'theories', you have not sought out the many sites which give a detailed critique of them. I suggest you do your homework, look them up and study them carefully. If you are still not convinced read them again until you understand the issues. Also read the books you were recommended so you can understand basic physics. If you then return as a genuine seeker of truth rather than a convert with an agenda, you might find people who are willing to answer one or two technical questions you cannot understand. However, remember that this is not a site for religious, political, or ideological spamming.
Apologies to everyone for long post. This is my last post on this topic, I'm off for newer more interesting items!
-
Let me explain why you are unlikely to get answers to your posts here and in chat (9/11 and holocaust denying).
Folks who join and participate here do so for fun and are looking for interesting topics. They have day jobs or other interests so limited time...
...I suggest you do your homework, look them up and study them carefully. If you are still not convinced read them again until you understand the issues. Also read the books you were recommended so you can understand basic physics. If you then return as a genuine seeker of truth rather than a convert with an agenda, you might find people who are willing to answer one or two technical questions you cannot understand. However, remember that this is not a site for religious, political, or ideological spamming.
Apologies to everyone for long post. This is my last post on this topic, I'm off for newer more interesting items!
Nothing you said there makes the flag anomaly go away.
"Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings."
-
Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains.
And what about that photo makes you think that it had to be a mountain far away rather a nearby hill?
Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.
I seriously doubt those claims. There are assumptions going into this which haven't been stated. Also nobody has stated who did this analysis?
Conclusion:
These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.
Nonsense. There's something funky about this but I can't put my finger on it.
The funny part about all of this nonsense is that the USSR were racing against the USA to the moon. Didn't they keep track of where the Apollo 11 was and the radio signals coming from the ship?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n4yYZh1U908#t=2
Lunar lift off from Apollo 17....
Zoom out, and then pan upwards....
You could not pull that off using todays technology if the distance was England and Australia, so doing it from a distance of 250,000 miles away over 45 years ago is impossible.
It's too good, cos it's Hollywood good.
I'm not a scientist, i'm a film maker.
-
Lunar lift off from Apollo 17....
Zoom out, and then pan upwards....
You could not pull that off using todays technology ...
Really ? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_hunting
... doing it from a distance of 250,000 miles away over 45 years ago is impossible.
That's only a round-trip delay [time lag] of 2.5 seconds , which could be anticipated : the zoom-out begins when the rockets are fired (https://youtu.be/n4yYZh1U908?t=42s) , making it easier to keep the module in-shot, ( although it does go out-of frame at one point (https://youtu.be/n4yYZh1U908?t=55s) ).
-
... then consider the experiments that were left on the moon.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisistrue.com%2Fimages%2Fmoon-mirror.jpg&hash=09dbc2b00587b6981b000097c8e43d2a)
For example several Apollo missions left a triangular mirror reflectors on the moon for laser observatories to measure the distance from the earth to the moon it's called "laser ranging" If your such a firm believer that nothing ever landed on the moon then go to one of these laser observatories and ask them to point their laser at the moon mirror and see if the laser is reflected back or not, that way you'll know for shore.
Russians put laser reflectors on the moon with un-manned probes.
-
Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains.
And what about that photo makes you think that it had to be a mountain far away rather a nearby hill?
According to NASA that mountain is supposed to be 20 miles away. Parallax proves it merely tens of meters away.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.astronet.ru%2Fpubd%2F2003%2F01%2F13%2F0001185775%2Fapollo17stereo_vantuyne_full1.jpg&hash=d1c84dd52f8d7cfe161517fb6a5783f5)
http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/1182588/apollo17stereo_vantuyne_full1.jpg.html
Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture.
Neither of those are possible on the moon.
-
Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture ...
The "only" bit is not true : it could have been ejected from a meteor-impact (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/24/moon_juggernaut/) and split apart on landing.
Here's a high-res version of that same boulder-image but without the headache-inducing anaglyph 3D colours ... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon-apollo17-schmitt_boulder.jpg
-
Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture ...
The "only" bit is not true : it could have been ejected from a meteor-impact (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/24/moon_juggernaut/) and split apart on landing.
Here's a high-res version of that same boulder-image but without the headache-inducing anaglyph 3D colours ... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon-apollo17-schmitt_boulder.jpg
Quite correct my friend. The "only" part is nonsense. Here's yet another possible (though unlikely) explanation. His claim Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture. is quite wrong because of the "only."
Consider the following explanation: As seen in the photo the split is parallel to the line of the shadow. When the part of the boulder is shadow its temperature drops to extremely low temperatures. The part in the sun are very hot. The difference causes stress fractures due to thermal expansion.
Then there's the possibility that it was hit by a meteor and that caused it to split
-
The insanity in all this moon landing conspiracies is that there were about 400,000 people involved in going to the moon and 20,000 companies and research institutions. Not to add that it all cost 150 billion in adjusted dollars. To spend that kind of money merely to give an impression that we went to the moon is insane. To assume that 400,000 people can keep their mouth shut is also insane. Let's assume that most of them worked on the moon landing but not the conspiracy. Then its also insane to think that they could keep it a secret. Any congressman would gladly work towards giving any NASA worker who was involved and in the loop a free pass against contract violations in order to let the truth be known. Surely not all those people would want to live with that kind of lie on their conscience. If you can't then why should we assume that a large group of others can?
-
Hard science analysis of Apollo photos reveals they are not genuine.
I seriously can't believe this is still a question. Here's proof we went to the Moon:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/
-
Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture.
Neither of those are possible on the moon.
According to www.space.com:
"When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C)."
Obviously, temperature ranges like that could stress a rock enough to crack it. Or, maybe it just got hit by a small meteor travelling at high speed.
Are you aware of the fallacy known as "confirmation bias"?
-
Hard science analysis of Apollo photos reveals they are not genuine.
This is one of the worst lies that I've heard this year. What a crock!
-
Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture.
Neither of those are possible on the moon.
According to www.space.com:
"When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C)."
Obviously, temperature ranges like that could stress a rock enough to crack it. Or, maybe it just got hit by a small meteor travelling at high speed.
Are you aware of the fallacy known as "confirmation bias"?
Excellent response my friend, excellent! [:)]
-
The insanity in all this moon landing conspiracies is that there were about 400,000 people involved in going to the moon and 20,000 companies and research institutions. Not to add that it all cost 150 billion in adjusted dollars. To spend that kind of money merely to give an impression that we went to the moon is insane. To assume that 400,000 people can keep their mouth shut is also insane.
Had not heard those numbers before; that's more people and companies than I would have imagined. Less surprising is the $150 billion dollar figure. Back then you could get something from that sort of money. Now, the 4 Walton heirs are worth about $150 billion combined, or about 1% of the US GDP, and all we get from them are 1.4 million crappy retail jobs that, managers included, average just a few hundred bucks a week salary. Those 400,000 jobs back then were interesting, challenging jobs with an amazing result.
Eisenhower kicked things off; by 1969, Americans were better educated than ever, and had money in their pockets. There was nothing we couldn't achieve. We got so good at sending people to the Moon that people got bored, and they had to stop. Didn't they play golf on the Moon in one of the later missions? That's just showing off, so maybe it's better we did stop. Peak Oil was on the horizon anyway.
We had some rough patches a decade or two ago, but America is still in the game, running some some highly successful space missions from time to time. Perhaps a quick, easy fix to this would be to send an unmanned probe to the Moon and have it explore previous alleged landing sites, beaming back live footage to Earth of the analysis as it went. You know, making a cast of an astronaut's footprint, scraping some metal filings off a spacecraft remnant, collecting soil samples containing rubber particles, finding a golf ball, checking the lunar laser ranging equipment for fingerprints, that sort of thing. That would go viral for sure, and maybe even lead to renewed interest in space exploration, which might in turn lead to increased budget allotments for space exploration, and a new shuttle.
-
no, for what purpose? we have things in space,men in space, proof we are in space,
-
Didn't they play golf on the Moon in one of the later missions?
No. One of the astronauts merely brought a golf ball and a golf club and hit the ball to see how far it would go, or something like that.
We had some rough patches a decade or two ago, but America is still in the game, running some some highly successful space missions from time to time. Perhaps a quick, easy fix to this would be to send an unmanned probe to the Moon and have it explore previous alleged landing sites, beaming back live footage to Earth of the analysis as it went. You know, making a cast of an astronaut's footprint, scraping some metal filings off a spacecraft remnant, collecting soil samples containing rubber particles, finding a golf ball, checking the lunar laser ranging equipment for fingerprints, that sort of thing. That would go viral for sure, and maybe even lead to renewed interest in space exploration, which might in turn lead to increased budget allotments for space exploration, and a new shuttle.
All that would do is spark new conspiracy theories and waste a ton of money.
-
Look up the Japanese Selene mission. Exact match for apollo 15 landscape photos. Its on you tube too.
-
Nothing you said there makes the flag anomaly go away.
"Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings."
-
MOD EDIT: Please note that we welcome friendly discussion on topics, but just linking to other sites will be considered spam or advertising and such posts will be deleted. Repeated infringements will lead to a ban.
-
I think that the "Clavius" site is a disinfo site. I think all the posters on its forum know the Apollo moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do. Can't we discuss that?
-
I met Roy Grumman when I was 1 1/2 years old. I was already capable of using an electric drill motor. My duties at that time required me to sort number, fraction and letter drill bits in our garage. When I got to the factory Roy came over and introduced himself to me, squatted down so that he was lower than me. Looked up at me and gave me a mans handshake. And said that I had a good grip, and I did. He suggested that my father take me to his hobby area, where he kept his lunar rock collectors. Titanium skinned remote controlled rock collectors. That he used to fly to the moon in four hours and back in another four.
Roy did not use standard radio he used ambient radiation to communicate with his rock collector. Basically what some young people call spooky effects at a distance. My father took me over and put me inside of one of the rock collectors, it was very cool. It had an aluminum skin on the inside, and I believe there was titanium and or aluminum honeycomb between the multiple walls or skins of the craft. That is how they block radiation or positively accelerate it to a harmless emission.
The propulsion was basically a fluid, injected into an ARC creating pressures well above 100,000 psi. This was actually a lethal welding accident that was capitalized upon, into an amazing propulsion system. This same craft in the fifties was videoed and thought to be a UFO by the people that witnessed it. Several times the U.S. turned its big dishes on this craft and caused the skin to ignite the air around it. They could not shoot it down but they could make it very hot.
I was eating supper one night about 15 years ago, there was a UFO show playing the background on a cable history channel, and I heard the rock collector engine, and sure enough there was Roy's Rock collector being filmed as a fiery UFO. It was very cool, staying motionless only a hundred feet off the ground. With the tell tale hissing sound it's engine made. If you work with high pressure evaporating fluids, you know that there is an electrical differential created upon the release of high pressure gases. The small rock collector would use this very high voltage differential to amply charge its batteries so that it could fly until it ran out of liquid propellent.
My point is that the government threatened to close down Grumman or blow Long Island off the face of the earth if Roy kept playing with his toys. After great debate and concessions, the Apollo missions were agreed to. However the Apollo missions did not utilize our best technology in fact what the astronauts agreed to was something like an Evel Knievel motor cycle jump over the Grand Canyon, when there are of course much better safer ways to get across the Grand Canyon, and to the moon.
Going to the moon was a child's feat at that time. Today, without any basic engineering, mathematics, or history, it would be a frustrating endeavor for sure, risking people lives, to reinvent the wheel.
I am sure we went to the moon, and the reason the astronauts went was to promote science and end the Cold War nonsense. Many times on national TV the astronauts brought horrendously embarrassing science blunders into the light, and exposed witch doctor science. They kept speaking from the moon to the earth with instantaneous replies, because the radios were not standard radios. They kept reminding the astronauts about the 1 1/2 second turn around time rule from the control center.
It was actually quite funny if you knew what was happening.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
-
The moon landing photos were staged. The recent analysis in aulis.com under Apollo/Moon and titled: Scientific Analysis of Apollo images, proves it. How can otherwise the errors mentioned in the article, be explained? Any ideas?
-
Were the Apollo moon landing photos faked?
Yes. So what?
No. So what?
Next question, please.
-
The moon landing photos were staged. The recent analysis in aulis.com under Apollo/Moon and titled: Scientific Analysis of Apollo images, proves it. How can otherwise the errors mentioned in the article, be explained? Any ideas?
The same publi$her also has websites alleging photo-fakery on JFK assassination & 9/11 attack.
http://jfkstudies.org , http://jackwhites911studies.org , http://aulis.com/
All the photo-analyses are by the late Jack White (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jack_White) BA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts) who had a serious case of paranoia, and no science qualifications.
-
The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance between Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15) and the two Lunokhod missions.[1] The time for the reflected light to return is measured.
To me, these experiments, which have been done for years, and anew each year, show we were on the moon to place the reflectors. Once there it is not hard to take pictures. All tourists use cameras.
-
I'm always amazed at these bogus attempts to claim things like that in the title. There's nothing wrong with those photos, only your assumptions and conclusions about them. In fact I see zero reason to come to the same conclusion that the OP did.
There is ample evidence that astronauts landed on the moon. The corner reflectors being there allow us to bounce lasers off the moon to make distance determinations between Earth and Moon. We were in a space race with the Soviet Union at that time and if there was any flaw in things like determination of where the radio signals were coming from by the Apollo astronauts they would have pointed it out to the world to show that NASA and the USA to be liars. Nothing like that ever happened.
Give it a rest will you?