|
Post by twik on Feb 4, 2012 19:18:01 GMT -4
It would seem to me that the map is not detailed enough. they say the map experts could not decide between 14 different spots all within 5 miles of one another. "They" say? Oh, well, then. "They" never say anything wrong, or foolish, do "they"? Who exactly are "they", again?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Feb 4, 2012 21:40:18 GMT -4
I had to laugh on Friday, here in Germany on RTL we telecast "Who Wants to be a Millionare" and one question was "Who of the following pioneers is still alive?", with the correct answer being Neil Armstrong. When one of the celebrity guests said she didnt think the US landed, Guenter Jauch, the host, gave her a rightful bollocking on air. I had to chuckle, and also wonder why, if I truly am the paid shill idiot-theorists like to paint me as, didnt I just hit the "FADE TO BLACK" button on the mixer???
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Feb 5, 2012 0:32:26 GMT -4
Let me guess: you're going to tell us the Apollo 11 photographic record is suspicious because there isn't enough Armstrong in it. LOL. I love when they say that. It's because Neil had the camera almost the whole time on the lunar surface...
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 5, 2012 16:14:30 GMT -4
Buzz did take the camera at times, but he used it to document specific things on his checklist like his soil mechanics experiments, the landing pads and the underside of the LM.
There's plenty of Armstrong in the photographic record of the mission. He's on TV nearly the whole time, and he's also in the 16mm footage shot through the LMP's window. There just aren't many good Hasselblad pictures of him, that's all. One, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 6, 2012 16:34:54 GMT -4
Buzz did take the camera at times, but he used it to document specific things on his checklist like his soil mechanics experiments, the landing pads and the underside of the LM. There's plenty of Armstrong in the photographic record of the mission. He's on TV nearly the whole time, and he's also in the 16mm footage shot through the LMP's window. There just aren't many good Hasselblad pictures of him, that's all. One, maybe? I have read that there is only one single Hasselblad photograph of Armstrong in which his whole body is imaged. I read this was a part of a panoramic shot taken by Aldrin. I have seen that photo. Armstrong is seen in right profile. His image is fairly dark. (I also read that Aldrin was called "Buzz" because his little sister called him "buzzer" instead of brother. Does anyone know if that is true?) If it was the case that on the other NASA moon expeditions both astronauts carried cameras then Aldrin not having a camera goes along with a hoax vs a real landing.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Feb 6, 2012 16:41:53 GMT -4
Why? Why does it go along with a "hoax vs a real landing" That's a real leap of logic I just don't grasp.
|
|
|
Post by darrenr on Feb 6, 2012 16:52:28 GMT -4
So... by that torturous logic, if both astronauts carried cameras on later missions that means they were real, doesn't it? And if they were real, then there's no reason for Apollo 11 to be a hoax, is there?
My head hurts.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 16:56:08 GMT -4
I also read that Aldrin was called "Buzz" because his little sister called him "buzzer" instead of brother. Does anyone know if that is true? Yes, that is where Aldrin says he got his nickname. Explain why you think so.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 6, 2012 17:08:58 GMT -4
If it was the case that on the other NASA moon expeditions both astronauts carried cameras then Aldrin not having a camera goes along with a hoax vs a real landing. So are you claiming that the post-Apollo 11 flights were real, then?
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 6, 2012 17:13:01 GMT -4
I also read that Aldrin was called "Buzz" because his little sister called him "buzzer" instead of brother. Does anyone know if that is true? Yes, that is where Aldrin says he got his nickname. Explain why you think so. Thanks for the confirmation on the nickname. Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. Of all the things that should be redundant a second camera would be viewed as critical on a first moon landing. I read the camera was very expensive and dependable but that is no guarrantee. If this was a moon landing and Armstrong's camera malfunctioned then we would not have have any photos. I know that is stressing a circumstantial point. But looking at Apollo closely now for the first time in my life I find these circumstantial points very convincing. For a year now two of my girlfriends and I have really gotten into looking at these types of things. We are not professional scientists but all 3 of us have backgrounds in science. What makes it fun is that these circumstantial anomalies keep coming up over and over again. All three of us side with the hoax side now mostly because we have discovered anomalies on our own. That is what makes the American space story such a wild adventure. There is so much material out there to look at. It is like a puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 6, 2012 17:26:31 GMT -4
If this was a moon landing and Armstrong's camera malfunctioned then we would not have have any photos. Not exactly. If you had read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, you would know that they had an extra Hasselblad camera for intra-vehicular activities (IVA camera). They used it to take pictures of the lunar surface through the LM windows. The IVA camera didn't have the protective silver coating that the EVA camera did, so it wouldn't have been very effective for lunar surface photography. But if the EVA camera had malfunctioned, we would certainly not have been left entirely without photos. Source: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.step.htmlThen why do you think you're more qualified to comment on Apollo's authenticity than the professional scientists who say it was real?
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 6, 2012 17:30:33 GMT -4
If this was a moon landing and Armstrong's camera malfunctioned then we would not have have any photos. Not exactly. If you had read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, you would know that they had an extra Hasselblad camera for intra-vehicular activities (IVA camera). They used it to take pictures of the lunar surface through the LM windows. The IVA camera didn't have the protective silver coating that the EVA camera did, so it wouldn't have been very effective for lunar surface photography. But if the EVA camera had malfunctioned, we would certainly not have been left entirely without photos. Source: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.step.htmlThen why do you think you're more qualified to comment on Apollo's authenticity than the professional scientists who say it was real? A camera in hand on the lunar surface is worth a million inside a lander. I am more qualified because I am more thoughtful. I am not easily fooled. The scientists are gullible.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 17:31:34 GMT -4
Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. According to whom? And what relevance to safety does the camera hold? Viewed by whom? And for what reason? Not a mission requirement. Convincing to whom? Equivocation. Exactly what does that mean, and are you claiming relevant expertse? Yes, hoax claimants have been beating this drum for decades without any significant credibility. How are you defining "anomaly?"
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 6, 2012 17:32:15 GMT -4
If it was the case that on the other NASA moon expeditions both astronauts carried cameras then Aldrin not having a camera goes along with a hoax vs a real landing. So are you claiming that the post-Apollo 11 flights were real, then? Yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 17:32:54 GMT -4
A camera in hand on the lunar surface is worth a million inside a lander. Says who? Special pleading.
|
|