Yes, I would change my opinions on the Apollo missions if it could be proved today that there is artifacts on the Moons surface. The pictures would however have to show without doubt that the objects can be proven to be the Apollo artifacts - not like the pictures released taken by the Clementine which show a small dot, which quite frankly could be anything.
No you wouldn't change your opinions! Your opinion is that Apollo landed on the moon. Why would photographs confirming that fact change anything?
Please try and cultivate a few neurons before your next response.
RDChemist
Unregistered User
(10/4/02 7:08 pm) Reply
My point about an apollo photo
You say you would change your stance if the orbital photos clearly show apollo hardware. My point is this:
Such orbital photos would not be as detailed as the detail shown in the Apollo photos already. The orbital photos would likely contain the same artifacts that are in the Apollo photos that you try to use and prove that the photos were fake. The Apollo photos have been shown to be authentic and the hoax believers still won't accept it as evidence. You will likely not accept an orbital photo as evidence either.
Re: You say you would change your stance if the orbital photos clearly show apollo hardware.
Dave changes his stance every 5 minutes. According to his latest post (well, the second half), such photos would not reverse his opinion because he believes only the photos and footage are fake and that Apollo did actually land on the moon. So, what opinions he's talking about (in the first half of his post) when he says that seeing photographs of Apollo remnants taken from orbit would reverse them, I have no idea.
More Contradictions.
To the people reading this thread (if indeed anyone actually reads this forum),
We'll find, if we look at some of Dave's responses earlier in this thread, several examples of his lack of consistency.
I offer you two more examples of contradictions by Mr Cosnette in this very thread:
"Let me also predict that the future Moon mission by China will be a failure. Either because they'll realise its not possible"
And
"Lets turn the tables and ask why Russia didnt bother to go to the Moon after any of the Apollo missions? I can also answer that in the same breath... its because they knew that it wasnt possible."
-Comic Dave 14/9/02
Compare this with his recent statements on the 4/10/02.
For example:
"I'm not exactly saying that they never went, I'm saying that the footage released seems to be bogus and show why I think it was faked".
Mr Cosnette was saying that it was impossible to go to the moon, now he has us believe that all along he was only suggesting that the footage was fake?
Also, on a seperate note, Dave said the following in his latest post:
"I also point out the difficulties that would be encountered on the way, and last but not least show the reader film footage showing blue sky outside of the Apollo 13 module when it is supposed to be 200,000 miles in deep space!"
It should be noted that a very in-depth rational explanation for this observation was provided to Mr Cosnette on the Bad Astronomy Forum last June. The thread in which this was discussed is here. Mr Cosnette of course refuses to accept this explanation, though for reasons unknown. He has been unable to construct any kind of coherent defense for "his" Apollo Hoax "theories". He probably doesn't even care.
the boss
Unregistered User
(10/9/02 9:34 am) Reply
if we had
well well well isnt it the usual old story if we had
its all very well to say if we had the clementine pictures andrew well we have and what do we see just a few outcrops of rocks and a few arrows saying LOOK EVERYBODY HERE IT IS well here what is? as far as im concerned it could be anything and most likely is anything but not the thing which even a child of six can identify and say look mummy is that a picture of the artifact left on the moon mummy to which mummy replies well it could be son but there again it could be a pile of old rocks all we want is a nice close up photo you no about 1000 yrds away not even the new 3" camera which we know they have just ONE photo will do any ONE COlour BLACKorWHITE digital 35mm is doesnt matter just a pic please by the way the budget argument is running a bit thin also we can see from the malin pics that they have the technolgy they have the capability so what the hell we waiting for?
I can't understand a word you're saying. I think you could be responding to my (and RDChemist's) posts in the other thread. All your questions are addressed over there.
RDChemist
Unregistered User
(10/9/02 12:31 pm) Reply
My point, boss
My point to this is that we can take pictures of the landing sites. We have the technology. However, you and littlegreys don't even accept the Apollo photos as authentic. Why would anyone believe you when you say that you'd accept a photgraph from orbit as proof? Please, address this question. Your original questions have been answered at least twice already. Don't restate your original argument.
the boss
Unregistered User
(10/12/02 4:26 pm) Reply
if
if we have the technology then why not the photos its that simple no excuses
They're coming.
Boss, Dave's pointed out to us that NASA are preparing to send probes back to the moon again. Some private companies as well as other space agencies are also planning missions to head back to the moon. The pictures are coming, they'll just take time.
MID Registered User
Posts: 8
(6/16/05 11:49 pm) Reply
Re: The Apollo Fiasco on 'The Sky at Night'
There are NO photographic anomalies in any Apollo photograph. There are only things that you do not understand, and other things that have been added to photos by generations of reproduction or perhaps deliberately by idiots wanting to make a name for themselves...however affectatious that is (making a "name" for yourself by expounding idiocies regarding a moon landing hoax conspiracy only gives one the name "nutcase").
THERE IS NO C on the rock in that Apollo 16 Photo which seems to make the front cover of every imbecillic Apollo hoax site. It is AS126-107-17473. I have an 11x17 print of that photo (1972 print). No C on the rock. It's either been put there deliberately or became an artifact of generations of repros, which is a common photographic thing.
There are no "huge radiation levels" in space which would've affected film in insulated metal magazines. The radiation issue is perhaps the biggest crock put forth by hoaxers--it rather sounds like they've been reading 1950s speculation on the radiation fields surrounding earth...before we actually knew anything about them, and actually flew close to, or into them during the Gemini program...where it was discovered that the radiation wasn't as grave as anyone might have speculated. Of course, no Apollo astronaut was ever exposed to radiation levels coming any where near close to a dangerous level on any flight...despite idiotic claims to the contrary.
Any of the photographic "anomalies" cited by this website, or any of the other ignorant repositories of such garbage, can be duplicated right here on earth on any sunny day...where shadows are cast on undulating surfaces, for instance, or where you take a panaorama and paste the photos together at their common places---voi la! Shadows in different directions on the same photo...or so it seems.
There's even one of these pans on this site...digitally enhanced and cleaned up so as to not show the seams in the assembled panorama (AS12-46-6730 through 6745...although not all of them in the example shown). You're actually looking at several photos wherein the sun was at different angles to the photographer, and thus, appear at different anmgles relative to the viewer. Cool illusion, easily and naturally accomplished here on earth, were you to do the same thing.
The fact that trhe author calls this compelling evidence of "multiple light sources" really points to his lack of intelligence and lack of investigation into simple photographic matters.
Ona also needs only a lens body with lenses in it, and a certain sun-angle relative to that lens to create a halo in a photo. Atmosphere and water has nothing to do with it.
By the way...there is no film of the Surveyor that was taken by Apollo 12 on its approach to landing. The film you cite is a cute, yet somewhat idiotic fabrication. The only camera filming the approach to landing was the 16mm DAC, mounted in the right hand window of the LM. It never saw Surveyor, as Surveyor was some 200 feet below them and about 350-400 south of the LM when it passed by...completely out of the field of view of the DAC (in other words, it was behind them as they passed by it).
And, there was no "buggy" on Apollo 12.
Jesus...where does this stuff come from?
Edited by: MID at: 7/3/05 4:53 pm
MID Registered User
Posts: 9
(6/17/05 12:08 am) Reply
Re: What about the Rusians
In reply to gustvoc:
I think your question has been answered in some of the replys. But the part about why they stopped trying after Apollo 11 wasn't.
First of all, a Russsian probe wasn't landing a few kilometers from Apollo 11. A Russian probe, Luna 15 (one of many in the Luna Program that was conducted from 1959 until 1976) was in fact in Lunar Orbit with Apollo 11. It was a sample return probe that crashed into the lunar surface (i.e., failed) on July 21, 1969, hundreds of miles from Apollo 11 in the Sea of Crises. The Russians and US were in communication and shared trajectory data to insure that Apollo 11 wasn't in any danger from the Luna probe.
Furthermore, a little known fact is that the moon race was over a couple weeks before Apollo 11 launched. On July 4, 1969, the Russians were planning an earth orbital test of their manned lunar package (similar to our Apollo 9 mission, conducted 4 months earlier). During fueling, their massive booster was destroyed in an explosion, which destroyed the launch complex completely, their launch vehicle (obviously), and ended the moon race with the Russians. It was over on July 16, 1969.
This is why the Russians didn't keep trying. They could no longer have a chance at winning the race to the moon, and it would be a very long time before they could re-join the battle. Besides, we'd already been to the moon twice on Apollo 8 and 10.
Before Apollo 11 launched, the race was an American challenge to land and return safely before the decade was out...with no added pressure from the Russians. Their lunar program was destroyed...strangely, in a fireworks display that rivaled any that was going on here in America on July 4, 1969!.
MID Registered User
Posts: 10
(6/17/05 12:18 am) Reply
Re: Perhaps you'd like to explain...
You can, of course, have anything you want to on this site...and, you do!
Unfortunately, it is all trash: unintelligible (in many places) rubbish. Now, that being said, It's now 2005. Of course we've developed photographic resolving capabilities that might well be capable of imaging Apollo artifacts on the moon's surface (from the proper orbit, etc...).
The question still begs, why would anyone waste the effort and money to do so, when we already have perfectly good photos of all of it, and reams of data from the instruments left on the surface, and intensive video and film records of the events?
Are you daft?
MID Registered User
Posts: 11
(6/17/05 12:23 am) Reply
Re: if we had
We're not waiting for anything.
There is no purpose in going to the trouble of photographing Apollo artifacts on the lunar surface.
Edited by: MID at: 7/3/05 4:55 pm
MID Registered User
Posts: 12
(6/17/05 1:15 am) Reply
Re: Yes...
I often wondered if the author of this site was for real...
Apparently so.
You are obviously far too young to have been around then. 'if it could be proved that there are artifacts on the moon.' Sounds like the mindless prattlings of someone who has far too much time on his hands.
The only pictures you'll ever see of these artifacts is when someone goes back to the moon and takes some photos of the old sites. You still wouldn't believe them. What a maroon! We'll never send a mission to the moon to photograph what's obviously there, in order to satisfy anyone's curiosity...I can tell you that. And we certainly won't mollify the idiotic speculations of anyone putting forth conspiracy theories about the lunar landings.
You may suggest that the footage shot on the moon isn't real, but that's simply because you have no idea what you're talking about. You make up imbecillic arguements regarding stars in the sky and stuff like that, and all it does is prove your lack of understanding of relatively simple principals.
And as to "transcripts"...you haven't uncovered anything. These so-called transcripts are fabricated pieces of conversations constructed to appear as if they are a seamless event, when in fact, one line may be from a completely different conversation hours, or even a day apart from the statement just preceeding it. You speak of astronauts talking in "code"...My God, you are twisted.
Code indeed.
Just one idiotic quote:
DUKE (Apollo 16 LMP):
"Boy I'll tell you, these EMUs and PLSSs are really super-fantastic!"
AUTHOR OF WEBSITE:
"It is obvious that the astronauts are talking in code--meant to disguise what they are referring to. Could this be merely due to the collecting of moon rocks, as they would have us believe? Or did they find something much more substantial, which was not meant for public knowledge?"
Yea, meathead, it's code. Charlie, bless his enthusiastic heart, was talking about his suit and backpack (EMU and PLSS respectively), which he rather liked the performance of!
It's a hell of a lot easier to use EMU and PLSS (pronounced Pliss) that to say, "...these Extravehicular Mobility Units and Portable Life Support Systems are really super fantastic!"
Try saying that a couple of times!
It's like you using the term "UFO" rather than saying, "Unidentified Flying Object". It's easier, that's all. Many highly technical things were abbreviated, and if you know nothing about space flight and everything that goes into it (like you, for instance) it can all sound Greek (for instance....REFSMATT, DAC, RCS, CMC, LOI, DOI, PDI, CSI, LPD, AGS, PGNS, etc....) It's all code, yea...
It would bore you if I wrote all that "code" out as: Reference to Stable Member Matrix, Data Aquisition Camera, Reaction Control System, Lunar Orbit Insertion, Descent Orbit Insertion, Powered Descent Initiation, Concerntric Sequence Initiation, Landing Point Designator, Abort Guidance System, Primary Guidance and Navigation System, etc... wouldn't it? Jesus, of course it's code...abbreviation, for logical reasons.
But I know, it's all really about aliens.
By the way, Buster, Smokey, and other such "codes" refer to craters and surface features. "Hotel" is the radio transmission method of saying the letter "H" (leaves no doubt over the radio what your saying, like other radio letters, as in Bravo (B), Charlie (C), Juliet (J),. Alpha (A), etc. "Condorset Hotel" means Condorset H, a part of the complex of craters surrounding Crater Condorset, on the far side of the moon (Ron Evans didn't land on the moon, he stayed in orbit...that such a basic fact escapes you is very telling). "Barbara" was also a crater, if you really must know...named after someone's wife...imbecile.
You want explanations to all the inane questions you pose in that section of crap and fabricated conversations? I'll be glad to provide them for you. And show just what kind of fraud and manipulator you, and people like you are.
The "blue sky" out the windows of the Apollo 13 CM...and every other Apollo CM photographed in deep space, has likely already been explained somewhere...refraction, thick glass, sunlight, film exposure...it's all common stuff. The film registers blue, the eye only saw a glowing bright light...c'mon man, get real, don't you understand anything about film and photography. I'm really more interested in flight mechanics and things like that. You make alot of horse crap assertions (many based on that imbecile Kaysing's assertions)...regarding lunar dust, blast craters from engines, no sound on the COMM loops of engines roaring (you've got to be kidding, right?), flames from engines operating in vacuum, etc., etc...that really should be addressed. That would be fun!
MID Registered User
Posts: 13
(6/17/05 11:37 pm) Reply
Re: Yes...
There is a place on this site which discusses how "Apollo Moon Conversations and Pictures Show NASA Cover-up" (sic).
The so-called conversations are a howl...because firstly, they're not identified as to when, where, etc...and secondly because they are pieced together snippets of different statements. In other words, they never quite happened the way they're presented.
This Wilson fellow, responsible for alot of this trash, is quoted throughout.
There's a short "conversation" called "Apollo 16: Another strange conversation:
I'll quote it, and then show you just how stupid it is by putting down the actual transcripts of where these various statements came from and when...
"Wilson writes (p.141): "While on the Moon, did any of our astronauts see any indication of alien handiwork, such as strange constructions, disturbances or the like? Consider this strange Apollo 16 conversation:"
ORION: Orion has landed. I can't see how fat the (garbled)...this is a blocked field we're in from the South Ray--tremendous difference in albedo. I just get the feeling that these rocks may have come from somewhere else. Everywhere we saw the ground, which is about the whole sunlit side, you had the same delineation the APollo 15 photography showed on Hadley, Delta, and Radley Mountains..."
First of all, no one ever said "Orion has landed". The actual conversation from which this mish-mash was assembled went like this (the statements of interest will be in CAPITALS):
John Young was giving a window geology briefing to the ground, a very extended description of the landing site from the LM windows. Capcom Tony England asked: "...How about the albedo?"
YOUNG: TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE IN THE ALBEDO. On the...North Ray is pure White; South Ray is pure white, and it blends into gray as you move away from either crater, and then over here by us, it's almost totally gray. I GUESS YOU JUST GET THE FEELING THAT THESE ROCKS MAY HAVE COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. There's a big sub-angular rock that I see at 10 o'clock--no at 11 o'clock at about 100 meters that I would sure like to go over and look, because it looks like it's just one big piece of whatever rock it is."
Alot more discussion went on for the next five minutes, and then Charlie Duke added the following comment, from which the remainder of this so-called "quote" came from::
DUKE (five minutes later): A second comment has to do with the orbital, since we got so much look at the ground sailing around waiting to come down. EVERYWHERE WE SAW THE GROUND, WHICH IS JUST ABOUT THE WHOLE SUNLIT SIDE--in the crater walls and on the ridges, WE HAD THE SAME LINEATION THAT THE APOLLO 15 PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWED ON HADLEY DELTA AND HADLEY MOUNTAIN. It was remarkable how, in the crater walls, primarily, and in the ridges...And it gave you the impression that it was a fracture pattern that was all trending to the...concentric around the craters. In the craters, and on the ridge though, they were either parralel to the ground or at some dip, be what that may, over."
ENGLAND: Okay, very good.
____________________________________________________
So, one can rather easily see how this Wilson idiot misleads one...not only by taking small snippets of lengthy statements made many minutes apart by two different people and making it sound like it's one person saying something; he also mis-inteprets what he's hearing, and mis-quotes what was actually said, further confusing ther matter.
What he wrote makes for a very strange conversation, but the actual conversation, which lasted well over an hour after the Apollo 16 landing, was a geological briefing on the surroundings, combined with talk about housekeeping, schedules, eating, and a rest period.
The entire menagerie of so-called conversations listed here in this site is just like this one brief quote. They're all bogus, fabricated junk. It amazes me that someone can actually get a book published with completely fabricated crap in it, undocumented and unsubstantiated.
The author asks what the real meanings of terms like structure, blocked field, terraces, and such are...I think everyone knows what a "structure" is, a blocked field means a rocky field (you know, blocks in it...boulders, rocks), and a terrace is also self-explanatory.
READ THE REAL TRANSCRIPTS AND THE MEANING OF THE TERMS BECOMES APPARENT IN CONTEXT.
What an ass.
MID Registered User
Posts: 15
(7/16/05 7:53 pm) Reply
Re: Some of the common items cited as evidence of a hoax...
Some of the common "evidence" put forth in support of the lunar landing hoax theory is that there was no blast crater under any of the Apollo LMs, and that areas in shadow were too brightly lit in the photographs.
These things are discussed as if they were never mentioned by anyone who actually walked on the moon, and as if they are things "discovered" by the hoax theorists...like they caught us all asleep or something.
A message in the guestbook by someone made mention of the fact that he watched the entire 3 hours of the Apollo 11 EVA and that he never once saw the shadows "move" during the whole thing.
Besides the fact that the EVA video available is just a little over 2:20, and the idea that the movement of shadows that would only decrease in size by perhaps 1" per hour on the lunar surface could actually be seen by anyone watching grainy B/W TV is idiotic, it amazes me that the details that actually are available on these videos aren't noticed.
Case-in-point are the two commonly cited pieces of evidence above.
If you really bother to watch and listen to the very first lunar EVA, you will note the following:
1) within about 2 1/2 minutes of the first step on the moon, Neil Armstrong is looking underneath the LM and describing in some detail that there is no blast crater underneath the vehicle. He speaks of slight ray patterns extending outward from the engine bell area, but describes them as
"insignificant".
2) Approximately 2 minutes later, as he is standing in the LM shadow, he graphically observes just how efficient the backlighting of the shadow side of the LM is, as he looks up at Buzz Aldrin in the LM window. He specifically mentions the effective backlighting in the shadowed areas.
This all happens within the first 5 minutes of man's first lunar excursion. And yet, you hoaxers mention these things as if you've caught NASA asleep at the wheel...as if these were details that they never thought about when staging this incredible hoax.
Why, if this were a hoax, would Mr. Armstrong mention these seemingly insignificant details just minutes after he first set foot upon the moon?
...I know someone's going to say, "To cover their asses, of course!" However, that's stupid, since hoaxers don't seem to realize that these things were documented by the first man on the moon on July 20, 1969, and none of you have ever mentioned the fact. That's because, you never bother to actually watch and listen!
The real reason is that Neil Armstrong, like all the other astronauts, was trained to make analytical observations and report on them. At the time, no one watching likely paid any attention to these observations (save those who were interested in them), and apparently, none of the hoax proponents, who of course were not around when all this happened, pay very close attention to what they're seeing and hearing at all.
Your supposed evidence was accounted for within 5 minutes of the first steps on the moon, and you act as if these things were un-accounted for by NASA...because they didn't think of these miniscule details during their planning the elaborate hoax.
The blast crater issue is well understood, of course, and the photographs accurately document the backlighting issue. It took a whole other generation, coddled by all the technical advancements that Apollo provided and accustomned to a new, and quite frankly lazy intellectual paradigm to come up with this hoax idiocy.
But everything you cite is junk, the product of intellectual laziness, and gross ignorance, as well as a keen inability to observe, listen, and understand basic concepts pertinent to space flight, the lunar environment, and celestial mechanics.
I'm sure these topics are not covered much in school anymore. That's kind of sad.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies