Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

[livo74]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

Thankyou origin,
alas, won't let me do that either.
(won't acknowledge i've asked/show options of where to save to)

thankfully, had friend at another forum embed vid at another site for me to view.
http://www.divshare.com/download/12831336-115

so, this is the astronauts "looking out at the moon, out the window, for the first time in human history!"

houston, we may have a problem.

and, if this is the ONLY vid that purports to show them 'in person' over the lunar surface,
houston, we have a problem.

___________-----------------____________
(yes, would of been too/very bright to see 'great' detail panning from inside to outside, but still would not of stopped them/me/you also SHOWING THE THE EFFING MOON OUTSIDE THE WINDOW!!!!!!

..and no, "cutting" to another view of the lunar surface doesn't count.

repeat, 'cutting'.)
__________-------------------------______________________________

*as we were informed by Mr Armstrong that we "were lied to, for our own protection", i am simply looking back for evidence of the lie. whether THIS is a 'chunk' of the evidence showing the lie, i know not.

if this is the ONLY vid, i suspect it may well be.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

Hoax Believer !

When did Armstrong say we were lied to re: Apollo ?

And the astronauts turning the camera on and off is "proof" of such a lie ? You're kidding ... right ?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

Hoax Believer !

When did Armstrong say we were lied to re: Apollo ?

And the astronauts turning the camera on and off is "proof" of such a lie ? You're kidding ... right ?

LMAO!

Excellent use of that pic! Five Stars!

 

[livo74]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

Hoax Believer !

When did Armstrong say we were lied to re: Apollo ?

And the astronauts turning the camera on and off is "proof" of such a lie ? You're kidding ... right ?

love donald,
don't love your 'tone'.
for that reason, work it out for yourself, smarta@#
(when you do, call me psychic.. i predict you also think gordon and edgar were not actually meaning what they said either)

Don't care for you, not responding to you again, thanks for your input anyways.
_______----------__________----------------___________

ps: never said 'cutting' presented 'proof' of anything. (just implied 'not helping cause')

pps: if you think you haven't been lied to numerous times by your government, you are welcome to those thoughts.
whether they lied/mis-represented in the case of apollo, i know not; but i am interested in finding out.
(and am very appreciative of the assistance given from this site in my inquiries; no doubt even from people who think my 'concern' is ridiculous )
__________---------------------____________-------------------

pps: mod, please move this to "moon fakery" forum. should of known to put it there myself.

ppps: gotta love donald, (even when on the receiving end.)

 

[Eschat]

This has always amazed me.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

pps: mod, please move this to "moon fakery" forum. should of known to put it there myself.

Yes you should have. Your wish is granted, you are now in with the woo woo hoax crowd.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

Hoax Believer !

When did Armstrong say we were lied to re: Apollo ?

And the astronauts turning the camera on and off is "proof" of such a lie ? You're kidding ... right ?

love donald,
don't love your 'tone'.
for that reason, work it out for yourself, smarta@#
(when you do, call me psychic.. i predict you also think gordon and edgar were not actually meaning what they said either)

Don't care for you, not responding to you again, thanks for your input anyways.
_______----------__________----------------___________

ps: never said 'cutting' presented 'proof' of anything. (just implied 'not helping cause')

Odd, when you said this above ...

i am simply looking back for evidence of the lie. whether THIS is a 'chunk' of the evidence showing the lie, i know not.

if this is the ONLY vid, i suspect it may well be.

It sure seemed to me that the vid (as it's the only one) was somehow considered as "proof". Besides that, if you don't accept all the other evidence how would a panned shot from inside the CM, purportedly showing the Moons surface, be in any way convincing ? Couldn't it have been faked akin to all the other footage ?

pps: if you think you haven't been lied to numerous times by your government, you are welcome to those thoughts. whether they lied/mis-represented in the case of apollo, i know not; but i am interested in finding out.
(and am very appreciative of the assistance given from this site in my inquiries; no doubt even from people who think my 'concern' is ridiculous )
__________---------------------____________-------------------

pps: mod, please move this to "moon fakery" forum. should of known to put it there myself.

ppps: gotta love donald, (even when on the receiving end.)

Bill Clinton lied numerous times. So did Nixon. So did a lot of prior Congressmen and Presidents. None of this has any bearing on the Moon landings though as we're not dependant on them, or NASA, being truthful to know said landings happened. Read this whole thread and/or many others like it on the WWW.

 

[Archer17]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

It ain't Houston that has a problem here livo74.

Hoax Believer ! ...When did Armstrong say we were lied to re: Apollo ?

And the astronauts turning the camera on and off is "proof" of such a lie ? You're kidding ... right ?

love donald,
don't love your 'tone'.
for that reason, work it out for yourself, smarta@#
(when you do, call me psychic.. i predict you also think gordon and edgar were not actually meaning what they said either)

That's not how it works here. You need to show us where Neil Armstrong said something like that regarding his or other Apollo missions with no woo misdirection. That means keeping Cooper and Mitchell out of this.

pps: if you think you haven't been lied to numerous times by your government, you are welcome to those thoughts. whether they lied/mis-represented in the case of apollo, i know not; but i am interested in finding out.

I don't believe you. There's a difference between healthy skepticism and what you bring to the board. To even consider the Apollo missions were hoaxed you'd need to believe in much more than "our government lies to us" for starters, you'd need to believe in a global conspiracy that hearkens back at least to the end of the Second World War and exists up until this day. That's not rational thinking, that's paranoia, and no amount of good-intentioned efforts by anyone here will do any good as we've already seen with this weird "I need a certain camera-angle" bullcrap of yours.

If you want to keep this going I suggest you knock off the games. The burden of evidence for a conspiracy is yours and yours alone. It's not up to us to coddle you while defending the monumental achievements of our space program and those that put their lives on the line to see it through.

 

[livo74]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

It ain't Houston that has a problem here livo74.

Hoax Believer ! ...When did Armstrong say we were lied to re: Apollo ?

25th anniversary of apollo, at whitehouse
".."Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. 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 truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..."

"..breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..."

if something was not true, it was a lie.
HE DID NOT SAY "DISCOVERY'S
HE DID NOT SAY "WISDOM'S"
HE DID NOT SAY "INVENTIVENESS'S"
(..ETC)
HE SAID "TRUTH'S".

AS FOR "..PROTECTIVE LAYERS.", HE IS STATING THAT IT WAS ' DEEMED NECESSARY FOR OUR "PROTECTION")
(probably a good idea/wording considering where he is standing)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx1SURbb3g)

i am not stating that we did not go to the moon! ..only that (it leads me to suspect) we did not go in a cardboard thin foil craft. We would not of survived.
(We recently had to lower the Shuttle's limit due to the levels of radioactivity... AND THAT ISN'T OUT OF THE EARTHS ORBIT.)

HOW DID WE GET THERE (IF WE DID)?
Well, i suspect that ..
-Gordon Cooper,
-Edgar Mitchell,
-J. A Hynek,
-Nathan Twining,
-Jesse Marcell,
-Gerald Ford,
-Roscoe Hillencotter,
-Cady Coleman
-Azim Daudpota
-Hugh Dowding
-James McAshan
-Corrado Balducci
-Mikhail Gorbachev
-Jimmy Carter
-Donald Keyhoe
-John Callaghan
-Nurjadin Roesmin
-James McDonald
-James Irwin
-James Lovell
-Richard Russell
-Wilfred De Brouwer
-Victor Afanasyev
.. all have a VERY GOOD idea as to what technology/craft would be capable of such a feat.

(i could go on, but that should suffice.)

can imagine the denial/conjecture "some" here at 'space' will post after my commenting on said technology,

but i well suspect there will not be a single 'skeptic' here at 'space' who would be in a better position to know the facts than the people quoted above;
let alone the rest of the prominent names i could provide.

(please feel free to state why it would be wrong to accept/suspect that.)

pps: if you think you haven't been lied to numerous times by your government, you are welcome to those thoughts. whether they lied/mis-represented in the case of apollo, i know not; but i am interested in finding out.

It's not up to us to coddle you while defending the monumental achievements of our space program and those that put their lives on the line to see it through.

you have taken it a bit too personally(especially for someone who did not partake in any involvement of the apollo missions.)

i also think the 'actual' man-made tech's that went into the apollo missions were indeed monumental achievements.

As for "bullcrap camera angles", show me a single vid (or photo for that matter) of the astronauts in the tin can looking at the moon, mate!

if you find one, you are a better man than i, and please share it with me.

 

[Archer17]

Re: is there a single video of the astronauts in lunar orbit?

25th anniversary of apollo, at whitehouse
".."Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. 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 truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..."

"..breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..."

if something was not true, it was a lie.
HE DID NOT SAY "DISCOVERY'S
HE DID NOT SAY "WISDOM'S"
HE DID NOT SAY "INVENTIVENESS'S"
(..ETC)
HE SAID "TRUTH'S".

AS FOR "..PROTECTIVE LAYERS.", HE IS STATING THAT IT WAS ' DEEMED NECESSARY FOR OUR "PROTECTION")
(probably a good idea/wording considering where he is standing)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx1SURbb3g)

Heh, I'm the one that's psychic here. I knew where you were going with this. Woos have been trying to put words in Armstrong's mouth at that White House gig since it happened but at no point does he ever say we couldn't or didn't land men on the moon.

i am not stating that we did not go to the moon! ..only that (it leads me to suspect) we did not go in a cardboard thin foil craft. We would not of survived.
(We recently had to lower the Shuttle's limit due to the levels of radioactivity... AND THAT ISN'T OUT OF THE EARTHS ORBIT.)

You disappoint me. Obviously you haven't put a lot of effort into researching the range of issues of things like shielding or the Apollo astronauts' total radiation exposure. Nor have you examined trajectories and learned of how things like the Van Allen Belts were addressed. There are many, many resources out there with which to look into these issues and instead you choose to embrace HB YouTube videos and toss out a bunch of names, many of whom don't even deny the manned Apollo missions.

HOW DID WE GET THERE (IF WE DID)?
Well, i suspect that ..
-Gordon Cooper,
-Edgar Mitchell,
-J. A Hynek,
[snip]
... all have a VERY GOOD idea as to what technology/craft would be capable of such a feat.

(i could go on, but that should suffice.)

can imagine the denial/conjecture "some" here at 'space' will post after my commenting on said technology,

but i well suspect there will not be a single 'skeptic' here at 'space' who would be in a better position to know the facts than the people quoted above;
let alone the rest of the prominent names i could provide.

(please feel free to state why it would be wrong to accept/suspect that.)

Your list sucks. Being a darling of the flying saucer set doesn't make one an expert on space travel and/or Apollo and even Cooper and Mitchell didn't allow their ufological views to make them Hoax Believers. A better list would incorporate all those who were involved in the Apollo missions. I noticed you didn't even try to go that route.

you have taken it a bit too personally(especially for someone who did not partake in any involvement of the apollo missions.)

I don't have a lot of respect for HBers and even less respect for those that pretend to be objective and then post the cherry-picked garbage you do. Jimmy Carter?!? I guess you didn't know his "UFO" was Venus, did you?

i also think the 'actual' man-made tech's that went into the apollo missions were indeed monumental achievements.

Well, that's nice.

As for "bullcrap camera angles", show me a single vid (or photo for that matter) of the astronauts in the tin can looking at the moon, mate!

if you find one, you are a better man than i, and please share it with me.

The thing is, even if such narrow criteria were offered it wouldn't be sufficient to validate the Apollo missions on it's own. That's why your obsession with it is so lame. There's a veritable mountain of data out there that support the Apollo missions and you choose to nit a lack of a particular window view? :roll:

 

[3488]

To all Hoax Believers, the following animations reflect your arguments!!!

Andrew Brown.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

To all Hoax Believers, the following animations reflect your arguments!!!
Andrew Brown.

Oh oh Andrew. You're gonna be labeled a smarty pants. And then be ignored by all the HB'ers and ... errr ... hey, wait just a minute, you're really on to something here !!

ps - here's a device sure to of use in this thread ....

 

[Archer17]

To all Hoax Believers, the following animations reflect your arguments!!!
Andrew Brown.

Oh oh Andrew. You're gonna be labeled a smarty pants. And then be ignored by all the HB'ers and ... errr ... hey, wait just a minute, you're really on to something here !!

You bet your Van Allen Belt he is! You didn't think he was just horsing around, did you?

 

[livo74]

You disappoint me archer.
am sure you 'were told that they addressed' the issue of van allen belts.
guess they just mis-addressed it in the newer shuttles design :roll:

anyways, ain't nothing wrong with the list of 'flying saucer darlings'.
(as i am sure you are well aware!)
..as i didn't say anything about those persons not believing in the apollo missions.
(did i )

i just said they were more capable than you on being aware of other tech that is apparently capable of such a feat,
(a point i am correct to make :lol: , darlin')

if you have a go at that list of people again(after i had to clarify to you their validity in said statement),
then you are a joke mate.
(you would not have a clue compared to these people on said subject.)

you are a sheep, or have an agenda.
am wasting my time talking to you. (bye)

you are going to get an awfull shock one day.
i am not going to take any joy from that shock, i am just aware of it.

____________----------_____________

for anyone else who read my thoughts on subject, regardless of your opinion..
thanks for taking the time to read.
cheers

(i'll give you a hint..

it's the ones taken from low earth orbit)

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

You disappoint me archer.
am sure you 'were told that they addressed' the issue of van allen belts.
guess they just mis-addressed it in the newer shuttles design :roll:
{snip-a-roo}

Huh ? Are you trying to compare the rad shielding on the Space Shuttle to that of the Apollo hardware ? Are you aware they had 2 very different design goals and requirements as a result of their intended missions ? How much time were the Apollo astronauts exposed to VAB radiation ? How much was expected from potentially repeated Shuttle flights (including the SAA) ?

 

[origin]

am wasting my time talking to you. (bye)

You certainly are wasting your time! By the way, if you happened to stick around, I doubt there is a camera in existence that could take the picture you want to see, the brightness between the moon and the inside of the moon unit (zappa reference) would make it so the pictures would be completely washed out or too dark to see anything.

But we have seen this all before - no amount of logic can overcome a true conspiracy theorists delusions.

 

[livo74]

i searched myself, and could not find any.
i came here to ask for your knowledge of any, and found apparently not.
i thank you for your time,
i will not disturb you further.

(see you at the finish line.)

 

[origin]

(and we will see you at the swedish line)

 

[Archer17]

You disappoint me archer.
am sure you 'were told that they addressed' the issue of van allen belts.
guess they just mis-addressed it in the newer shuttles design :roll:

You have no idea how sorry I am that I disappointed you here. I think one of the reasons you chose to take your ball and go home is because you'd be expected to elaborate on gibberish such as this.

anyways, ain't nothing wrong with the list of 'flying saucer darlings'.
(as i am sure you are well aware!)
..as i didn't say anything about those persons not believing in the apollo missions.
(did i )

i just said they were more capable than you on being aware of other tech that is apparently capable of such a feat,
(a point i am correct to make :lol: , darlin')

So those who believe "UFOs" are ET-controlled are "more capable" than me in "being aware of other tech that is apparently capable of such a feat." Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself?

if you have a go at that list of people again(after i had to clarify to you their validity in said statement),
then you are a joke mate.
(you would not have a clue compared to these people on said subject.)

A couple things bear mentioning here. First, I'm not your "mate" or "darlin," and when it comes to anyone being a "joke" here, I'm not the one that posted a list of flying saucer advocates in a Apollo Hoax thread.

you are a sheep, or have an agenda.
am wasting my time talking to you. (bye)

I've noticed you have a problem with anyone that doesn't dance to your tune but you better get used to it if you're going to try to qualify something extraordinary with such an underwhelming approach. You'll also need thicker skin. You were right about one thing, I do have an agenda here - I do my modest bit to promote science and critical thinking wherever and whenever possible. Not so much for those like yourself that come across as needing a shrink to address genuine paranoia issues, but for those impressionable lurkers out there, primarily young kids, who are just getting their feet wet with science and astronomy and need to see pathetic woo for what it is. That's where you and those like you come in. It's not personal.

you are going to get an awfull shock one day.
i am not going to take any joy from that shock, i am just aware of it.

Let me guess, you're really my boss. Heh, that would explain a few things....

 

[adrenalynn]

I doubt there is a camera in existence that could take the picture you want to see, the brightness between the moon and the inside of the moon unit (zappa reference)

Don't hate me for this. Just an observation:

In the 50's and early 60's when the tech was primarily developed? Agreed.

"in existence" would suggest that includes today. Today we have Wide Dynamic Range (WDR) cameras. The latest WDR processor I developed for production can sample 512 blocks within the sensor's active area, and dynamically adjusts each block for exposure compensation, and 256 blocks for color compensation, moire cancellation, auto white-balance, and digital noise reduction. DSP based, and reproducing 14 bits/pixel. The DSP is even fast enough to black car headlights, for example, in realtime so that a license plate can be captured at night, and to perform wavelet analysis and OCR on the text, again in realtime, all in-cam.

Time and technology marches on.

As you were referring to:
I have a long dark breezeway(?) leading up to my front door, and the summer sun backlights it thirty feet away. The cameras from Apollo era would have been able to capture the exposure up close, but the sun hitting them would have burned the tube. CCD and CMOS CCTV cameras from even a few years ago would have been able to properly expose up close, blowing out the background - or properly expose the background wildly underexposing the area close to my door. The camera over my front door today provides perfect exposure all the way down the breezeway, to the street, across the street, and into my neighbor's front lawn and driveway. In the morning, that's more than a _dozen_ stops of compensation, in firmware, in realtime. At night, it drops from 80hz to 20hz (ESS - Electronic Slow Shutter) and is able to reproduce recognizable images down to 0.0001 lux with the IR off, and 0 lux for ~150ft with the IR on.

We don't have to live in imaginary worlds to see pure freakin' magic all around us, as clearly you know, but some others seem to miss.

 

[origin]

"in existence" would suggest that includes today. Today we have Wide Dynamic Range (WDR) cameras. The latest WDR processor I developed for production can sample 512 blocks within the sensor's active area, and dynamically adjusts each block for exposure compensation, and 256 blocks for color compensation, moire cancellation, auto white-balance, and digital noise reduction. DSP based, and reproducing 14 bits/pixel. The DSP is even fast enough to black car headlights, for example, in realtime so that a license plate can be captured at night, and to perform wavelet analysis and OCR on the text, again in realtime, all in-cam.

Whoa - that is pretty cool. You were in that development - congratualations! It is almost like magic, especially reading a license plate through the headlight glare, really amazing. :shock:

 

[adrenalynn]

I was the principle investigator, CTO, and the mathematician. I had firmware engineers, although I implemented a lot of the algorithm work myself. So it really was a team effort.

I was going to launch into the theory, but the more I try to trim it down the less sense it makes, and the longer the post would become for something [almost] no one would care about.

See if I can post some images if you're interested, though, when I'm in the office.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Today we have Wide Dynamic Range (WDR) cameras. The latest WDR processor I developed for production can sample 512 blocks within the sensor's active area, and dynamically adjusts each block for exposure compensation, ...

Not to run all the woo out of this thread ( :lol: ) but out of curiousity ....

Are you talking single frame WDR or multiple frames with differing exposures (blended afterwards ala HDR) ? I get the impression it's the former and if so, how is that done ? Is the sensor "special" so that there's way to use a different bias voltages or electronic shutters across different sections of the sensor for each exposure ? Or am I reading too much into it ?

 

[adrenalynn]

It's a single frame made up of multiple subframes. If you're familiar with the binning on a traditional CCD, this is a little different in that we're doing parallel serial bins making up the subframes. The CCD is a different construction so that we can digitally attenuate or even throw completely away some bins without blooming or clipping others. Going back a few generations of CCD design - it's like taking smear rejection to the next level. [We've also done some interesting new zoned smear rejection too as a natural biproduct of these imagers] Sampling is at 80hz and we're throwing away 20hz of that data for optimal subframe creation.

Traditional single-frame WDR is done with just different exposure on alternating scan-lines. But even that's capable of rendering the image Origin was mentioning.

 

[frodo1008]

So Adrenalynn, what you are saying is that we have now developed the capability of taking such images of competing light value objects at the same instant of time. So if we go back to the moon we would now have the ability to take images that would show both the moon and the inside of the vehicle on the way to the moon at the same time. Truly excellent!

Not only would I not hate you for this, I congratulate you on a truly great advancement in mankind's abilities to make significant images in space!!

It is progress like this that will greatly facilitate our abilities to go back to the moon and even do greater amounts of exploration and exploitation of the moons resources than we were able to do the first time around.

Further, as we did not have such abilities when Apollo went to the moon (heck, I do not even think that we even had viable Charged Coupled Devices CCD's at that time), then that would certainly explain why such images were not taken at that time.

Again, Thank You for your efforts in behalf of human progress in space and other activities.