Seriously? This close enough for you?
Were you foolish enough to question the authenticity of what this photo depicts, why would you have a different opinion about a detailed orbital shot of the landing site?
Photo: Apollo 11 landing site
- Thread starter Bill Morris
- Start date
Were you foolish enough to question the authenticity of what this photo depicts, why would you have a different opinion about a detailed orbital shot of the landing site?
The many hours of video footage of the lunar excursions including the rover in the later J missions (15-17) would severely test the skills of the modern CGI shops. 1969-1972 technology certainly wouldn't be up to faking it. What you see is the real deal.
Is this denial of mankind's greatest achievements a modern phenomenon, or has it always existed? There are the also the "Pyramids were built by aliens" looneys, but they are more obviously considered nuts by the general populace.
Is this denial of mankind's greatest achievements a modern phenomenon, or has it always existed? There are the also the "Pyramids were built by aliens" looneys, but they are more obviously considered nuts by the general populace.
When travel to the moon becomes routine, say in a hundred years, should the Apollo landing sites be visited for historical research? Would we want a future generation of astronauts to mess up the original footprints of Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad, Cernan and all the other men who walked on the lunar surface?
This is exactly my point and sounds exactly like some religious fanatic who's responding to someone who doesn't believe in what they believe in.... it solves nothing in regards to the whole conflict with the moon landing.
Someone doesn't believe the moon landing really occured?
Ok..... ask them the reasons why and give them logical answers that counter their existing claims. If they have a room of error or just assumed to be true due to hearsay, then there's a problem and thus a probability (no matter how remote) for those claims to be false.... which allows the skeptic to hold true to their position until further information is provided.
Just because people don't simply believe what they're told and actually want evidence to form a decent opinion on something, is not a sign of mental illness, in fact I'd say it's the opposite.
They may be wrong in believing the moon landing didn't happen, but their approach isn't..... it's the best way to formulate your own view on something with as much given information as possible.
For me personally, one of the issues that came to me over some of the images of the landing are many photo elements that I had questions about, since I'm a photo editor and graphic designer. At the time I didn't claim the landing never happened, I was just asking questions as to why some things were the way they were.
Instead of getting a logical answer, I got shatted on and finger pointed as a hoax supporter...........
......... that's still not an answer and it sure doesn't help the cause of proving one way or another, let alone helped explain the things I was wondering about in regards to issues in photography and film. All that looks like is a closed frame of mind, unwilling to explain what they believe in, which raises more qustions.
Perhaps the Apollo sites will be left alone by future explorers. But there's plenty of other man-made junk that might be of interest. After Armstrong and Aldrin rejoined Michael Collins in the Apollo 11 command module, they jettisoned the ascent stage of Eagle (the lunar module). I assume that it fell back to the lunar surface. Does NASA know the location of the wreckage?
The laser reflectors that the astronauts set up are sufficient. Because if the astronauts didn't put them there, then how did they get there?
Ah see.... this and a number of other previously provided examples of "Proof" can be explained in a number of ways that are still quite logical.
Just playing devil's advocate cuz I like the role..... those laser reflectors and everything else on the surface of the moon could have been easily placed there the same way as we got equipment on Mars without any humans being on the planet.
The technology for remote control operation did exist back then and was actually used (or claimed to be used) in the camera that was left on the surface to take a shot of the guys heading back to earth.
Everybody was on the ship, it launched, and yet the camera followed the launch almost perfectly.... therefore someone was either holding the camera or it was operated by remote. If it was operated by remote, then them getting the timing right perfectly from earth compared to the given time delay was quite impressive...... if it was done on the pod as they were leaving, still quite tallented.
That's the problem.... where there is one explanation on how something was done, there can and will be several other explanations that could also be used.
Until they are all squashed without a doubt and with proper evidence, there will always be doubters.
Actually I have seen some footage from different landing operations that were supposed to be located very far from one another, yet in a couple of examples, the background/hills, etc. were almost identical.... that was something else that raised some questions for me.
Seriously? This close enough for you?
Were you foolish enough to question the authenticity of what this photo depicts, why would you have a different opinion about a detailed orbital shot of the landing site?
I seen that photo along with many others during the landing and was part of my previous post on problems with the photos..... this one in paticular has a few issues, but I will address another time, I'm off for now.
What more evidence could you possibly need? There's video evidence, there's photgraphic evidence, there's the accounts of people who worked on the project -do you really think they could keep something like this secret for 40 years?
Like I said earlier this is the problem with moon hoaxers they have nothing beyond "Uhhh, maybe it didn't happen."
And all the nonsense that has been pointed out over the years has been debunked many times my people who know what they talk about. Even all of the photographic anomolies people claim that there are.
Yeah. Makes perfect sense. The camera followed the pod as it launched away fromt he moon. So either something as simple as a remote-tracking device was used or a vast conspiracy of 100s of people faked the moon landing.
There's no stars in the photos! Brilliant! Either the exposure time of the cameras wasn't set ti capture the dim light from the stars int he daylight of the moon or there's a vast conspiracy that has kept the moon landing hoax a secret for 40 years.
Your tin-foil hat is sliding off.
That's happened many times over.The laser reflectors that the astronauts set up are sufficient. Because if the astronauts didn't put them there, then how did they get there?
Ah see.... this and a number of other previously provided examples of "Proof" can be explained in a number of ways that are still quite logical.
Just playing devil's advocate cuz I like the role..... those laser reflectors and everything else on the surface of the moon could have been easily placed there the same way as we got equipment on Mars without any humans being on the planet.
The technology for remote control operation did exist back then and was actually used (or claimed to be used) in the camera that was left on the surface to take a shot of the guys heading back to earth.
Everybody was on the ship, it launched, and yet the camera followed the launch almost perfectly.... therefore someone was either holding the camera or it was operated by remote. If it was operated by remote, then them getting the timing right perfectly from earth compared to the given time delay was quite impressive...... if it was done on the pod as they were leaving, still quite tallented.
That's the problem.... where there is one explanation on how something was done, there can and will be several other explanations that could also be used.
Until they are all squashed without a doubt and with proper evidence, there will always be doubters.
It's no wonder I have a permanent palm on my face.
The lunar liftoff camera could have been operating in response to a set of commands recorded earlier. If the camera was carefully positioned a preplanned distance from the lander the ascent stage's motion would have been very predictable and there would have been the usual countdown to ascent engine ignition.
One case where a task being rocket science wouldn't be a problem
One case where a task being rocket science wouldn't be a problem
A programed servo times to tilt the camera off or possibly linked to a tracking device in the pod?! NONSENSE!
It makes far more sense that the moon landing was faked and, DO-OH! We forgot that there'd be no one on the moon to move the camera, so we fucked up. Let's just hope some conspiracy theorists out-there don't pick up our huge error.
Yep, the time delay was known, and the LM crew was giving a countdown. A guy in Houston tilted the camera up accounting for the 250 mS or so delay.
As for you, Praxis and your problems with the photos, I have 1 word for you:
Mythbusters.
As for you, Praxis and your problems with the photos, I have 1 word for you:
Mythbusters.
NO NO NO!!!
It doesn't make sense! Remotely tilting a camera up?! Are you insane?! They OBVIOUSLY FAKED IT!!! They didn't have the technology to remotely tilt up cameras in 1969! Cripes! The computer in the LEM and Saturn IV were little more than pocket calculators!