[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Furi]

Normally this photo when presented in books or in the press is cropped to remove the foreground, and also rotated clockwise a little,

It was used in one CT book with an additional bit of Black at the top to provide spaxce, and to mask the clipping of Buzz suit which then produced photo analysis on the rotated and cropped picture

 

[technoextreme]

I make no apologies for not being as gullible as you. But never say never (or is that never say 'ever'?!).



You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

The problem is that it's not skepticism. It's a combination of stupidity and arrogance like most conspiracy theorists.

 

[Southwind17]

Well I've come in late, so I'll just sumarize.

Yeah, don't go wasting your time with any detail! Summaries always make the grade when it comes to compelling evidence!

1) Dark Moon is not worth the paper it's written on even if used as tiolet paper.

That's a constructive, mature and objective rebuttal! Well done.

2) To date no one has been able to track down Dr David Groves to see if he even exists, there are at least two possible candidates, but neither have replied to questions about their involvement so it is impossible to determine who he is, let alone get him to athenticate the study published by Aulis.

You might care to try looking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

I suppose we shouldn't place too much credence in your investigative skills!

3) If athentic, Groves claims to be able to measure the position of the "hotspot" on Aldrin's to a degree that is finer than the grain on the film, an impossiblity.

I'm not sure where Groves makes this claim, but my commentary above is related to the anomaly in the height of the camera from which the famous Aldrin photo was taken. The hot-spot anomaly does feature in the link above, though.

4) Even with all of this taken into consideration, there IS a light about 30-40cm to the right of the camera, it is Armstrong's shoulder reflecting the bright sunlight and can be seen on the TV footage while he is taking the photos of Aldrin.

I suggest you study the link above.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It wouldn't matter if a mickey mouse outline appeared aroun Buzz Aldrin's feet.

The men went, and you know why? The Soviets tracked them every step of the way. If anyone had any reason to call hoax on them, it was the Soviets.

I suppose they could have invented some fake ray to manipulate the Soviet technology, but then you have to ask, wouldn't it just be cheaper to go to the moon?

 

[technoextreme]

You might care to try looking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

I suppose we shouldn't place too much credence in your investigative skills!

Your investigative skills suck more than his though. I found this post in another forum about the movie that you just posted.

In one word... No. Jay has tried and can't even find out who he is or if he even exists. None of the Dr David Groves he has contacted has admitted to being Percy's one

PS. Who is Jay?

 

[Southwind17]

What's your basis for making this statement?

Normally this photo when presented in books or in the press is cropped to remove the foreground, and also rotated clockwise a little ...

Not quite what you wrote before:

... which is normally presented cropped and rotated retouched and highlighted to make it more palatable for the press and Poster material etc.

It was used in one CT book with an additional bit of Black at the top to provide spaxce, and to mask the clipping of Buzz suit which then produced photo analysis on the rotated and cropped picture

This is the basis for your statement?


I thought you were implying that available copies of the photo cannot be considered reliable evidence for analysis purposes, but your latest comments don't seem to support that. Is that what your implying?

 

[Furi]

Mmmm Shin Ramen

Your investigative skills suck more than his though. I found this post in another forum about the movie that you just posted.

PS. Who is Jay?

That Would be JayUtah as he posts on BAUT or ApolloHoax

there is a thread regarding searches into Groves here

 

[Belz...]

Yep. Everybody has their woo.

 

[Southwind17]

Your investigative skills suck more than his though. I found this post in another forum about the movie that you just posted.

PS. Who is Jay?

Let me get this straight: you don't even know who 'Jay' is, but you're prepared to accept as fact a statement made on this Forum that the said 'Jay' tried to contact David Groves, but couldn't, so that proves that Groves doesn't exist! So who's investigative skills suck the most, I wonder!

Premature Evaluation, I guess, suitably captures the sentiment!

 

[Davidlpf]

Your investigative skills suck more than his though. I found this post in another forum about the movie that you just posted.

PS. Who is Jay?

Jay is is JAy windley of the Clavuis moonbase, he pretty much an expert on debunking moon hoaxes and his website is listed as a web resource.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=17

 

[Furi]

EEEh it's all sticky

Not quite what you wrote before:




This is the basis for your statement?


I thought you were implying that available copies of the photo cannot be considered reliable evidence for analysis purposes, but your latest comments don't seem to support that. Is that what your implying?

Retouching and highlighting for various posters I have seen for sale, and also adjustment of contrasts regarding various books printing methods have been done,

The picture is repeated across so many sources it would be difficult to track, there are even quite a few avatars that use it on this and other boards, it's sort of an iconic image.

Just do a quick image search on google for AS11-40-5903, and you can find many images of varying cotrasts on compression crops and rotations, these are done either to be more aesthetic to the person in question (rotation to level the horizon for example, Colour balancing to bring out different details) the one CT book I mentioned was because it is one of those that all the others copy from and present the same analysis and errors,

common type of manipulation is this type from the bbc

 

[PixyMisa]

So, Southwind, what exactly do you believe happened?

Did the Mercury missions proceed as NASA states?
How about the Gemini missions? Were they real?
The Space Shuttle? The Hubble telescope? The International Space Station? Real?

Now, how about the Saturn V, heart of the Apollo program? Did the huge crowds of spectators imagine each of the 13 launches of this 360 foot, 3000 ton rocket? Or are you suggesting that NASA threw away billions of dollars (1960s dollars, when a billion dollars was a lot) throwing empty tin cans at the moon and then bringing them back again?

Radar echoes coming and going, faked? Transmissions from lunar orbit and the lunar surface, picked up at multiple receiving stations outside the US, faked? Over 10,000 photos, faked? Laser reflectors left on the surface of the moon, still working today, faked?

What about the unmanned lunar orbiters and landers, the Surveyor and Ranger missions, that NASA launched prior to Apollo? What about Kaguya and Chang'e 1, the Japanese and Chinese lunar orbiters launched in September and October this year? Are they fake too?

What about Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking? If they were faked, how come so many of them crashed, blew up, or simply missed their targets? How about Spirit and Opportunity, the little rovers that are still trundling around the surface of Mars? Are they fake too?

And if NASA and others have successfully launched probes to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, plus various asteroids and comets, plus constant traffic to and from Earth orbit, why would you suggest that they didn't also send men to the Moon?

The Saturn V is clearly capable of making the trip. It was built. It was launched. It did indeed go to the Moon. The Command Module did indeed come back.

So where's the problem?

 

[sts60]

How could I possibly not like the outcome, if it's so compelling? You're not suggesting it's open to doubt, are you?

Please realize that I'm not fighting the CT corner here, athough it might appear like that to some. I'm simply not yet satisfied with the refutations that have been proffered in response to some of the evidence presented by certain CTists.

Southwind17, I addressed several questions you posed about the ALSEP in post 85. I'd be interested in your comments; apologies if you are already working on a reply.


If you're interested, you might want to look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package /ALSEP/ flight system familiarization manual, revision B. I can direct you to a great deal more detailed technical and scientific information having to do with ALSEP if desired.

The attached image shows Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean deploying the A12 ALSEP (the shadow is from Pete Conrad, taking the down-sun image). High-resolution still images as well as video imagery of ALSEP deployment are available at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site.

 

[Belz...]

So, Southwind, what exactly do you believe happened?

Did the Mercury missions proceed as NASA states?
How about the Gemini missions? Were they real?
The Space Shuttle? The Hubble telescope? The International Space Station? Real?

Now, how about the Saturn V, heart of the Apollo program? Did the huge crowds of spectators imagine each of the 13 launches of this 360 foot, 3000 ton rocket? Or are you suggesting that NASA threw away billions of dollars (1960s dollars, when a billion dollars was a lot) throwing empty tin cans at the moon and then bringing them back again?

Radar echoes coming and going, faked? Transmissions from lunar orbit and the lunar surface, picked up at multiple receiving stations outside the US, faked? Over 10,000 photos, faked? Laser reflectors left on the surface of the moon, still working today, faked?

What about the unmanned lunar orbiters and landers, the Surveyor and Ranger missions, that NASA launched prior to Apollo? What about Kaguya and Chang'e 1, the Japanese and Chinese lunar orbiters launched in September and October this year? Are they fake too?

What about Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking? If they were faked, how come so many of them crashed, blew up, or simply missed their targets? How about Spirit and Opportunity, the little rovers that are still trundling around the surface of Mars? Are they fake too?

And if NASA and others have successfully launched probes to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, plus various asteroids and comets, plus constant traffic to and from Earth orbit, why would you suggest that they didn't also send men to the Moon?

The Saturn V is clearly capable of making the trip. It was built. It was launched. It did indeed go to the Moon. The Command Module did indeed come back.

So where's the problem?

Good luck getting an answer to that, Pixy.

 

[technoextreme]

Let me get this straight: you don't even know who 'Jay' is, but you're prepared to accept as fact a statement made on this Forum that the said 'Jay' tried to contact David Groves, but couldn't, so that proves that Groves doesn't exist! So who's investigative skills suck the most, I wonder!

Premature Evaluation, I guess, suitably captures the sentiment!

Wow you can't even read. You mocked phantom wolf for his inability to do research. The fact is that he knew about that video when he made that comment. Ergo, his original point still stands. And as a side note that analysis is flawed. You can't tell where the light source is from that information.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Let me get this straight: you don't even know who 'Jay' is, but you're prepared to accept as fact a statement made on this Forum that the said 'Jay' tried to contact David Groves, but couldn't, so that proves that Groves doesn't exist! So who's investigative skills suck the most, I wonder!

Premature Evaluation, I guess, suitably captures the sentiment!

Maybe he didn't know who "Jay" is, but he knows who PhantomWolf is. Therefore, he had a basis for tentatively accepting the information. Further, no one said that it "proves" Groves doesn't exist.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Jay is is JAy windley of the Clavuis moonbase, he pretty much an is the world's foremost expert on debunking moon hoaxes and his website is listed as a web resource.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=17

Fixed that for you.

 

[uruk]

I'm referring to the photo you've posted - the 'famous Aldrin on the Moon' shot.

Interesting caveat:

What's your basis for making this statement?

Did you happen to notice that Aldrin is standing in a small crater?

 

[Southwind17]

It wouldn't matter if a mickey mouse outline appeared aroun Buzz Aldrin's feet.

If even the thought of that wouldn't cast a little doubt in your mind it's clear what's driving your conviction!

The men went, and you know why? The Soviets tracked them every step of the way. If anyone had any reason to call hoax on them, it was the Soviets.

Oh, so here's Exhibit 2. You seem to be placing a lot of faith in the Soviets. First, they didn't fake it, so that proves NASA couldn't have; now the Soviets 'tracked them every step of the way'. Would that include Armstrong's 'giant step for man'?! How, exactly, did the Soviets 'track' that particular 'step'?!

I suppose they could have invented some fake ray to manipulate the Soviet technology, but then you have to ask, wouldn't it just be cheaper to go to the moon?

So it was just a question of hard cash was it?!

 

[Southwind17]

Retouching and highlighting for various posters I have seen for sale, and also adjustment of contrasts regarding various books printing methods have been done,

The picture is repeated across so many sources it would be difficult to track, there are even quite a few avatars that use it on this and other boards, it's sort of an iconic image.

Just do a quick image search on google for AS11-40-5903, and you can find many images of varying cotrasts on compression crops and rotations, these are done either to be more aesthetic to the person in question (rotation to level the horizon for example, Colour balancing to bring out different details) the one CT book I mentioned was because it is one of those that all the others copy from and present the same analysis and errors,

common type of manipulation is this type from the bbc

Just for the record, none of the manipulations described impact on or affect the conclusion of the Groves analysis.