Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Hidden Science & Advanced Technology

View Poll Results: Do you think the Apollo Lunar landings are fake?
Yes 83 72.17%
No 21 18.26%
Not sure need to do more research. 11 9.57%
Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29-11-2012, 04:57 PM   #41
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
i was not really refering to the vids as the "big lie", rather the heart warming fable of human achievment commonly known as the "Apollo Missions".
Fine, believe what you want. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, they went as recorded. You have not presented any so far.

Quote:
admit it TG, even you have had your doubts.
Many years back with zero research, indeed I did. But through looking into the whole thing, I developed a great interest in it, not to mention finding that, without exception, every single claim was complete rubbish.

Quote:
Its almost toooooooooo obvious.
You just bypassed two posts with numerous points in them.

1. Geostationary satellites(or any for that matter) being able to provide useable pictures for the Apollo 11 TV transmissions - shown to be impossible.

2. The original raw scan negatives, unaltered, uncropped and all available. Please find one image that has been "manipulated" deceptively, then your claim may have some merit.

3. The video I asked you to watch. Shows another big piece of deception.

Last edited by truegroup; 29-11-2012 at 04:58 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 08:49 PM   #42
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Fine, believe what you want. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, they went as recorded. You have not presented any so far.



Many years back with zero research, indeed I did. But through looking into the whole thing, I developed a great interest in it, not to mention finding that, without exception, every single claim was complete rubbish.



You just bypassed two posts with numerous points in them.

1. Geostationary satellites(or any for that matter) being able to provide useable pictures for the Apollo 11 TV transmissions - shown to be impossible.

2. The original raw scan negatives, unaltered, uncropped and all available. Please find one image that has been "manipulated" deceptively, then your claim may have some merit.

3. The video I asked you to watch. Shows another big piece of deception.
1. Lets assume you are correct (law of averages/broken clocks ect ( im joking man )) then this is still not evidence of a manned landing, only that NASA was capable of sending a camera into space.
"impossible" is not what it used to be.
(please dont post actornauts looking out the window, its not Kubricks best work)

2. I agree. Will NASA, if i ask nicely, show me the ORIGINAL film rolls, and let me examine them ?
We both know the answer.

3. I will watch the vid over the weekend.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 09:18 PM   #43
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
1. Lets assume you are correct (law of averages/broken clocks ect ( im joking man )) then this is still not evidence of a manned landing, only that NASA was capable of sending a camera into space.
"impossible" is not what it used to be.
(please dont post actornauts looking out the window, its not Kubricks best work)
If it isn't evidence, please explain completely how it was done. I'm surprised you haven't postulated the unmanned probe contention, but that one opens up a whole new series of problems.

A hidden space program and all it entails, design staff, assembly staff, unseen launch of a very large rocket(!), monitoring, a team to receive the pictures etc. Then we have the problem of filming the Earth from the probe that uses a camera simulating a man operating it in a weightless environment, showing the Earth through a window, with the Earth disappearing to the side of the window as the camera zooms back.

Then we have signals from an orbiting craft, doppler effects of a craft following the landing trajectory of the LM, pictures of the Moon as the craft lowers its orbit, video as it descends that matches exactly to the terrain in detail not visible from orbit.

Then we have the problem of audio coming from that probe, that shows no extra delay from double relay from a closer Earth position. There's more, but that's enough to completely dismiss this as feasible.

Quote:
2. I agree. Will NASA, if i ask nicely, show me the ORIGINAL film rolls, and let me examine them ?
We both know the answer.
Now you are moving the goalposts. Once we have established that there are no problems with the pictures, you now want to suggest that the original raw scans have been doctored. Your point about altered images has been refuted by the raw scans that have not been.

Quote:
3. I will watch the vid over the weekend.
I look forward to your confirmation that the film maker is using dishonest tactics.

Last edited by truegroup; 30-11-2012 at 10:15 AM. Reason: clarified a small point
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 09:33 PM   #44
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petermay View Post
Only NASA can admit to re touching images, (why not ask them I?m sure they will tell you why) however I understand the paragraphs from Clavious. We see exactly what Clavious wrote, and not what you imagined they wrote. NASA certainly do retouch images in terms of PR, i.e. lens flares, shadows. There is nothing wrong here, is there? The original negatives remain untouched,
and unchanged. No conspiracy?
My question remains:
Where did you find this as you state:
?Claviers state themselves that NASA "manipulates" and "alters" apollo images to please advertisers or to show the public what they would expect to see?

Fact. We clearly see you have change the facts, and context of the Clavious information. Your text is both false and misleading to say the least. ?MANIPULATES!
I don?t know anything about a ?paper trail? being ?destroyed? ?along with original recordings?
Names please, where, when, why?
Which Apollo hoax threads are you referring to? Still no names, who, where, when, why?
NASA shills, still no names, who, where, when why?
Might I ask for post numbers?
The Freud, and Nazi propaganda padding are irrelevant.
i have no need to ask NASA again as this has been covered, they have curators and PR men who like manipulating the images to create the perfect snapshot. They freely admit this and do not see a problem.
Fair play to the old boys, this originally started after "some" claimed that ALL NASA images were untouched.
Have you ever examined or seen the original film roll ?
I have no need to cut and paste the whole clavius site, follow the link.

The "destroyed paper trail" is all covered at length in other threads if you are unaware of this evidence.
The apollo threads must contain tens of thousands of posts, this is not light reading.

Finally the "padding" is actually very relevant if you wish to see the "big picture".
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 10:18 PM   #45
ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Humanchester
Posts: 16,494
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

What you do have to wonder about regarding the Apollo Program is, considering all the things they DID manage to foresee, they were unable to see the future value of cameras pointing back at Earth to see all the journey away, and cameras facing towards the moon to record the approach from as best a vantage position as possible. Instead, we got the shitty set up they had, which certainly wasn't designed for maximum recording abilty and with future viewers in mind.
ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 10:55 PM   #46
apollo_gnomon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,392
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
What you do have to wonder about regarding the Apollo Program is, considering all the things they DID manage to foresee, they were unable to see the future value of cameras pointing back at Earth to see all the journey away, and cameras facing towards the moon to record the approach from as best a vantage position as possible. Instead, we got the shitty set up they had, which certainly wasn't designed for maximum recording abilty and with future viewers in mind.
Today, you could strap a couple of 9 dollar webcams to a spacecraft, keep the moon and earth centered in frame with a 4 dollar microcontroller chip programmed by a highschool robotics club and save the entire journey from both cameras, both ways, in realtime, on a thumbdrive from Best Buy.

In the late '60s? Not so much. Keep in mind the Earth, spacecraft and Moon are all moving, the moon and earth are not in front of and behind the spacecraft (ever, really), and the spacecraft itself is rotating "barbeque" style for thermal equalization.

They had a pretty long list of engineering challenges already, dealing with the problem of getting mass to the moon and back and keeping humans alive the whole time. Satisfying the needs of conspiracy theorists 42 years later was not on the agenda. Besides, if you read the way these guys can glibly dismiss incontrovertible evidence that DOES exist, you quickly realize even that footage would not convince them. They have an entrenched belief system like religious fanatics and no fact will ever shake their faith.
apollo_gnomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 08:46 AM   #47
ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Humanchester
Posts: 16,494
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon View Post
Today, you could strap a couple of 9 dollar webcams to a spacecraft, keep the moon and earth centered in frame with a 4 dollar microcontroller chip programmed by a highschool robotics club and save the entire journey from both cameras, both ways, in realtime, on a thumbdrive from Best Buy.
Aye, the advances in video recording have certainly outshone those involved in travelling to the moon and back, that's for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon View Post
In the late '60s? Not so much. Keep in mind the Earth, spacecraft and Moon are all moving, the moon and earth are not in front of and behind the spacecraft (ever, really), and the spacecraft itself is rotating "barbeque" style for thermal equalization.
They'd have only needed to switch the cameras on at say, 500 miles above the moon's surface on approach, and the same coming back towards Earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon View Post
They had a pretty long list of engineering challenges already, dealing with the problem of getting mass to the moon and back and keeping humans alive the whole time. Satisfying the needs of conspiracy theorists 42 years later was not on the agenda.
I'd have thought getting a useful visual record of at least the first attempt would have been a priority, just for clues if shit went pear-shaped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon View Post
Besides, if you read the way these guys can glibly dismiss incontrovertible evidence that DOES exist, you quickly realize even that footage would not convince them. They have an entrenched belief system like religious fanatics and no fact will ever shake their faith.
I get all that, but let's say it had been the Russians who had got there first and the available footage had been equally as shitty, do you think you'd be any more critical of their claims?

Let's say they produced no video evidence, and just claimed it in a press conference - if they were lying, how would it be proven beyond doubt? Even had the west been aware they were launching a supposed mission to the moon, it's not like they'd be able to follow its entire progress if the crew were maintaining radio silence.

Last edited by ragnarok; 30-11-2012 at 08:49 AM.
ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 09:54 AM   #48
petermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sweden but born in England
Posts: 290
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
Aye, the advances in video recording have certainly outshone those involved in travelling to the moon and back, that's for sure.

They'd have only needed to switch the cameras on at say, 500 miles above the moon's surface on approach, and the same coming back towards Earth.


I'd have thought getting a useful visual record of at least the first attempt would have been a priority, just for clues if shit went pear-shaped.

I get all that, but let's say it had been the Russians who had got there first and the available footage had been equally as shitty, do you think you'd be any more critical of their claims?

Let's say they produced no video evidence, and just claimed it in a press conference - if they were lying, how would it be proven beyond doubt? Even had the west been aware they were launching a supposed mission to the moon, it's not like they'd be able to follow its entire progress if the crew were maintaining radio silence.

It is essential to be able to communicate with the crew of the spacecraft.

Last edited by shanticat; 30-11-2012 at 11:02 AM. Reason: insult
petermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 10:39 AM   #49
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
They'd have only needed to switch the cameras on at say, 500 miles above the moon's surface on approach, and the same coming back towards Earth.
What do you think this would have helped with? Please be specific. Telemetry gives all the information needed, pre-determined lunar orbital injection burns were followed, there is reasonably good quality landing footage and many pictures during all the numerous orbits.

Quote:
I'd have thought getting a useful visual record of at least the first attempt would have been a priority, just for clues if shit went pear-shaped.
Why? This wasn't the first attempt, it was the third one. Apollo 8 had already established the orbital swap procedure and verified it. With a bit of physics and clever people, it wasn't that difficult to put something in orbit.

Apollo 10 had verified the separation of the LM in orbit, landing process, and re-docking. It aborted just above the surface.

Quote:
I get all that, but let's say it had been the Russians who had got there first and the available footage had been equally as shitty, do you think you'd be any more critical of their claims?
Depends whether they had the USA tracking them, the UK tracking them and they brought back 840lbs of rocks - verified as authentic by every geologist that has ever looked at them. The footage on the later missions is actually not that bad when you view the better high quality version - Spacecraft films did this. Many of the MPEGs on the ALSJ are pretty good as well.

Quote:
Let's say they produced no video evidence, and just claimed it in a press conference - if they were lying, how would it be proven beyond doubt? Even had the west been aware they were launching a supposed mission to the moon, it's not like they'd be able to follow its entire progress if the crew were maintaining radio silence.
Hypothetically. If the USA had not taken any photographs, video, kept radio silence(why?), did not release their transmission frequencies, brought back rocks that they kept within NASA and only examined internally.

I'm not sure how anybody would be expected to take it as read that they had landed 6 times I would certainly not be debating this issue if that were the case.

BUT! None of that is actually true. So they landed, as the evidence shows.

Last edited by truegroup; 30-11-2012 at 10:45 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 10:40 AM   #50
petermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sweden but born in England
Posts: 290
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
i have no need to ask NASA again as this has been covered, they have curators and PR men who like manipulating the images to create the perfect snapshot. They freely admit this and do not see a problem.
Fair play to the old boys, this originally started after "some" claimed that ALL NASA images were untouched.
Have you ever examined or seen the original film roll ?
I have no need to cut and paste the whole clavius site, follow the link.

The "destroyed paper trail" is all covered at length in other threads if you are unaware of this evidence.
The apollo threads must contain tens of thousands of posts, this is not light reading.

Finally the "padding" is actually very relevant if you wish to see the "big picture".

When did you ask NASA about the photographic record?
Who at NASA "freely admitted manipulating the images? Names, when, where?
Why did you falsifiy the Clavious information with "manipulated?
I have known about the Clavious site for some years.

Last edited by petermay; 30-11-2012 at 11:26 AM.
petermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 11:30 AM   #51
ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Humanchester
Posts: 16,494
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Truegroup, don't you think that for an organisation that put a lot of effort into selling this venture to the US public, and the rest of the world, they were amazingly short-sighted in their commercialisation of their venture? Can you imagine how many copies they'd have sold of decent quality footage of the moon approach and return to Earth? You can't say the footage seen was designed with getting the best visual documentary evidence of their missions. In fact, it's almost as if it was an afterthought to film any of the experience of getting there and back and all the effort went into producing almost comical footage of them actually on the moon.

Last edited by ragnarok; 30-11-2012 at 11:31 AM.
ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 12:06 PM   #52
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
Truegroup, don't you think that for an organisation that put a lot of effort into selling this venture to the US public, and the rest of the world, they were amazingly short-sighted in their commercialisation of their venture? Can you imagine how many copies they'd have sold of decent quality footage of the moon approach and return to Earth?
None, since they have made available all footage and pictures free. I suppose they could have sold it, but imagine the backlash from that, since it would no longer be public domain it would not be allowed on any places like youtube.

Quote:
You can't say the footage seen was designed with getting the best visual documentary evidence of their missions.
Not for Apollo 11, not for the broken tube on Apollo 12, but they tried using the best technology for Apollo 14, and then massively improved it for Apollo 15-17 with remote control from Earth and moveable TV cameras on the rovers. So in general, I can say that.

Quote:
In fact, it's almost as if it was an afterthought to film any of the experience of getting there and back and all the effort went into producing almost comical footage of them actually on the moon.
That is two logical fallacies in one sentence. The "If I ran the Zoo", followed by the "Appeal to incredulity". If you had seen all the footage and still thought it comical, it is still only your opinion. It doesn't look comical to me and I have seen an awful lot of it over the years.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 12:15 PM   #53
ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Humanchester
Posts: 16,494
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
None, since they have made available all footage and pictures free. I suppose they could have sold it, but imagine the backlash from that, since it would no longer be public domain it would not be allowed on any places like youtube.



Not for Apollo 11, not for the broken tube on Apollo 12, but they tried using the best technology for Apollo 14, and then massively improved it for Apollo 15-17 with remote control from Earth and moveable TV cameras on the rovers. So in general, I can say that.



That is two logical fallacies in one sentence. The "If I ran the Zoo", followed by the "Appeal to incredulity". If you had seen all the footage and still thought it comical, it is still only your opinion. It doesn't look comical to me and I have seen an awful lot of it over the years.
You missed out "argument from ignorance." I'll be completely honest and admit I've put about... ooh, let's say 1 whole day's worth, of serious study into this topic. I've definitely watched more Simpsons episodes than I have space exploration programs.
ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 01:11 PM   #54
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the pharaoh View Post
What Happened On The Moon - Part 2
What Happened On Moon - Part 2 - YouTube
Ok, so moving on. The latter part of this video brings up a few more claims.

From this blog....

Quote:
Minutes 17-20 Introduces David Groves and Bill Wood, makes more bare assertions and casts "suspicion", nothing really said.

Minutes 20-22 Shows a "contradiction" in the Kodak film used, where a NASA spokesman says it was specially made, and a Kodak man who says it was not. The Kodak man was mistaken. The film implies subterfuge as is the normal theme running through it. Simple mistake from the Kodak man. The narrative is building the strawman that the film could not possibly survive in space because it uses standard available film.

"Kodak Film in Space: John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth, Kodak film recorded his reactions to traveling through space at 17,400 miles per hour. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions double-perforated 70mm film, which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black and white. Apollo 8 was one of the first missions to use this film. There were three magazines loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film - which produced 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs from the Apollo 8 mission."

Minutes 22-23 I really don't know what the film is suggesting. Jan Lundberg confirms the camera was specially adapted by Hasselblad on NASA's original specification, which they then improved upon.

Minutes 23-24 More deception. Shows photographs where the cross hairs(reticles) appear to disappear "behind" objects. He deliberately uses low resolution photographs, knowing that the higher resolution ones do indeed show the reticles, but fainter on brighter areas where the light has bled on to the film. He makes the strawman statement about how it would be totally impossible for objects to get in front of the reticles, when no such thing ever occurs!

Demonstration of this on Earth:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/cross.htm

A good debunking of the subterfuge:-

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/photoret.html

Minute 24 Shows Jan Lundberg appearing to disagree with NASA about the use of Reticles to judge distance by suggesting that stereo-pairs were needed to perform this. They then just lie about there not being any stereo-pair photographs from the mission! The link just above has one of many examples used in the Apollo photographic record.

Can anybody offer me a citation for the credentials of their "expert" Bill Wood? Please watch that film and look out for the numerous examples where they make unsupported statements.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 01:36 PM   #55
thommo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Where ever the journey takes me
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Why hasn't anyone ever pointed one of the nice big telescopes or even one of the high powered surveillance satellites at the moon and taken pictures of all the stuff left on the moon by NASA. Would that put the whole moon hoax to bed?
__________________
Peace, love & respect

thommo

http://conspoetry.wordpress.com
Where conspiracies and poetry collide
thommo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 01:53 PM   #56
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thommo View Post
Why hasn't anyone ever pointed one of the nice big telescopes or even one of the high powered surveillance satellites at the moon and taken pictures of all the stuff left on the moon by NASA. Would that put the whole moon hoax to bed?
The problem is that the telescope mirror would need to be really massive. It was originally thought they could possibly use the VLT with interferometry to see Apollo artefacts, but the Moon has too little contrast for this to work properly. It's very good at boosting the resolution to see distant stars against the black of space, but useless at seeing something silver(for example) against the grey of the Moon.

http://www.eso.org/public/about-eso/...t-paranal.html

"Q: Could the VLT take a picture of the Moon-landing sites?

A: Yes, but the images would not be detailed enough to show the equipment left behind by the astronauts. Using its adaptive optics system, the VLT has already taken one of the sharpest ever images of the lunar surface as seen from Earth: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0222/. However, the smallest details visible in this image are still about one hundred metres on the surface of the Moon, while the parts of the lunar modules which are left on the Moon are less than 10 metres in size. A telescope 200 metres in diameter would be needed to show them. Although the VLT, when used as an interferometer (VLTI), reaches the same equivalent resolution, it cannot be used to observe the Moon. You may be wondering whether the Hubble Space Telescope would have better luck. In fact, while a space telescope is not affected by the atmosphere of the Earth, it is not substantially closer to the Moon. Also, the Hubble is smaller than the VLT, so it isn’t able to obtain images that show the surface of the Moon with higher resolution. The sharpest images of the lunar landers have been taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html."



Maybe when this one is complete, with a 42m mirror, tied in with the others(using interferometry), they will be able to do it.

http://www.space.com/14073-worlds-la...tion-2012.html

Last edited by truegroup; 30-11-2012 at 01:55 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 02:06 PM   #57
petermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sweden but born in England
Posts: 290
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thommo View Post
Why hasn't anyone ever pointed one of the nice big telescopes or even one of the high powered surveillance satellites at the moon and taken pictures of all the stuff left on the moon by NASA. Would that put the whole moon hoax to bed?
Because apature is everything.
petermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 02:19 PM   #58
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thommo View Post
Why hasn't anyone ever pointed one of the nice big telescopes or even one of the high powered surveillance satellites at the moon and taken pictures of all the stuff left on the moon by NASA. Would that put the whole moon hoax to bed?
The LRO should of been the apologists first example.
Designed to map the moon in fine detail it proved a disappointment as far as the apolo hardware detection was concerned.
Its telling that the LRO takes low prioraty in answering your question.
__________________
My definition of being a flatmooner is the apolow footage was filmed in a studio
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...2&postcount=55

Last edited by ianw; 30-11-2012 at 02:20 PM.
ianw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 04:59 PM   #59
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
The LRO should of been the apologists first example.
You don't appear to have read the question properly. When the question actually refers to "nice big telescopes" or "high powered surveillance satellites" it refers to ground based Earth observatories and craft spying on Earth in orbit. The LROC is neither, it only has a 195mm mirror.

http://www.lroc.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lro...specifications

Quote:
Designed to map the moon in fine detail it proved a disappointment as far as the apolo hardware detection was concerned.
No it did not. It showed the Apollo hardware exactly where it should be, in detail matching the resolving capabilities of the mirror on the LROC camera and at the distance it orbited. Even if it had shown them in the most exquisite detail, that would still not be enough for some people.

The LROC has taken pictures of the Apollo hardware, and that kind of answers the second question asked by Thommo. People still doubt the landings. Now they have to protect that claim by suggesting people 40 odd years later are still maintaining the "hoax that never was", by altering the photos. Needless to say, they give no answer to how this could possibly be done. I have previously posted a big list of reasons why this was basically impossible, provided by an expert in taking the raw transmissions and extracting the data into picture format.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 05:21 PM   #60
ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Humanchester
Posts: 16,494
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

So, am I right in assuming that all these pictures we see of distant galaxies and other artifacts of deep space are not taken using optical telescopes, and are actually computer-generated images built up from the data from radio telescopes? What would be "seen" if you pointed a radio telescope at the moon?

Last edited by ragnarok; 30-11-2012 at 05:23 PM.
ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:37 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.