|
|
Post by BertL on Feb 13, 2012 20:15:15 GMT -4
Just in case you have forgotten this. You going to say anything about this? Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything. What about rural areas or other places? Where I grew up there are no mountains or distinguishing landmarks anywhere. I have some pictures of me standing in a grass field in the Netherlands, but there are no coffeeshops, mills or wooden shoes in the picture. How on Earth would this mean I never went there? |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 13, 2012 22:31:16 GMT -4
You know what's a distinguishing feature about a photo's being taken on the Moon? Practically everything.
ETA--Also, I'm not sure I have any pictures of myself from my one and only trip to Washington, D.C. Does that mean I didn't go?
|
|
vq
Earth
What time is it again?
Posts: 129
|
Post by vq on Feb 13, 2012 23:38:24 GMT -4
Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything. Cultural landmarks are more common in NYC than on the surface of the moon. What specific landmarks are missing from what specific photo, and what is the basis for your expectation of said landmarks? |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 14, 2012 0:53:30 GMT -4
Just in case you have forgotten this. You going to say anything about this? Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything. Me, I save my stubs and receipts. The interesting ones, anyways. I visited Berlin a couple months ago and out of almost four gigs of pictures only ONE shows me....as a reflection in a mirror. Not all tourists feel compelled to stand around grinning like chimpanzees from somewhere in the plaza on the wast face of Notre Dame, or pretending to prop up that little tower in Pisa. And, heck, it isn't like just anyone can buy a ticket to the Moon. There was hardly a reason to flip up their visors and grin into the camera to show that these PARTICULAR two men had been there! What, do you think it was "Neil Armstrong, famous test pilot, posing at the site of his latest conquest?" How many people outside the community would have heard of either of them had they NOT been on the Moon? So the Aunt-Mabel-Visits-Broadway is hardly an apt comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 14, 2012 2:39:43 GMT -4
Just in case you have forgotten this. You going to say anything about this? Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything. Rightyho. This is a direct quote from your post number 9 on page 1. I cannot find a single photo taken from the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon walk with a landmark identiying the site as unique. Generic nothing if you ask me. I think your point is pretty good however. But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time.From your reply I took the impression there was some professional interest or some technical aspect that did not fit and your experience included familiarity with a lunar surface. Your incredulity is not evidence they did not land. Now lets look at one phrase you use in this later reply. "That is for sure". Sure how? Please elaborate. And "As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully." Why? What aspect have you pull apart? And "They are proof of a hoax if anything." Why? |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 14, 2012 4:07:18 GMT -4
The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. And precisely what landmarks that are unique to the Sea of Tranquility, a wide, largely flat, featureless lunar plain, do you expect to see? Your argument is patently absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 14, 2012 4:09:56 GMT -4
Maybe the sock meant they should have landed somewhere like Mars....so they could get their picture taken with their arm around (one of the lower) shoulders of Tars Tarkus.
Or perhaps it thinks Hoagland is right and the astronauts should have thought to include some nicely framed shots of themselves posing in front of the glass domes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 14, 2012 6:23:29 GMT -4
I am thinking there should be a sign, along the lines of Wile E Coyotee and the one he puts out for bird seed. Only it says "The Moon".
Edit. At a jaunty angle.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 14, 2012 7:53:15 GMT -4
Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything. Reasoning by analogy is a poor substitute for addressing first principles. I could take you to windswept deserts in Texas that are table top flat with no visible features in the distance. It would be harder to tell one photo background from another than it is in the A11 photos. I could than drive you to mountains that have distinct features that are unmistakable to those of us who have seen them before. You are comparing one trip in which you visit places that are popular and widely known to one in which Armstrong and Aldrin were visiting a place where no one had ever been before. You then compound this problem by limiting to a small subset of all photos taken on the moon by excluding other missions. This is a complete failure in reasoning and the fact that you consider it to be "proof of a hoax" is telling of your preconceptions rather than being a product of clear thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 15, 2012 7:43:36 GMT -4
The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. That is just idiotic. Consider what the pictures (not just from A11, but from every Apollo mission) do show: Apart from the astronauts and their own artifacts, the scene contains absolutely no signs of life or human civilization. No animals, trees, grass or other vegetation. No roads, houses or other buildings. There are no signs of any phase of water: no clouds, no haze, no lakes, rivers or oceans. There's absolutely no sign of an atmosphere. The sky is jet black even though it's daytime. Distant objects appear razor sharp, often creating optical illusions in which things appear much closer (and smaller) than they really are until an astronaut walks toward them. There's no wind; except when recently handled by an astronaut, flags remain absolutely stationary. The astronauts are wearing pressure suits to protect themselves from this environment, and their spacecraft is clearly incapable of flying in an atmosphere or in anything but a reduced gravity field. Underscoring the absence of an atmosphere, the entire surface is thoroughly saturated with craters of all sizes. Even the small craters are obviously produced by extremely high energy explosions caused by hypervelocity impacts that could not occur within a significant atmosphere. When astronauts kick up the dust layer, all the particles regardless of size follow uniform parabolic arcs, completely unimpeded by air drag. Objects in ballistic trajectories, such as the astronauts themselves when they walk, are clearly under reduced gravitational acceleration. Even on relatively flat plains, the ground is much more uneven than on the earth, consistent with low gravity. The very large scene is uniformly lit by one intense and well collimated light source that remains in a nearly constant position in the sky even when (on the later missions) the astronauts film themselves moving kilometers in one direction or another. When mountains are present in the background (again on the later missions) it is clear from the slowly changing visual perspective that they are very large and very far away, again reinforcing the size of the scene and the nature of the single light source. Said light source rises very slowly in the sky at only 1/2° per hour. (On the earth, the sun moves across the sky at about 15° per hour.) Besides this light source, there's another conspicuous object in the sky: a blue-and-white cloud-covered ball about 2° in diameter, four times the size of the moon as seen from the earth. Unlike the sun, it barely moves at all. Antennas and reflectors can be manually pointed at it and they will operate indefinitely without further adjustment. No place on earth has even one of these quite distinctive characteristics. Only one place anywhere near it has them all: Luna. Earth's moon. The place where all these pictures were taken. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Feb 15, 2012 13:44:27 GMT -4
There is also the obvious difference that all the NYC landmarks you mention are man-made. Given that the moon is uninhabited, man-made landmarks are pretty rare. If I take some pictures of my family on the North Yorkshire Moors, they are a pretty non-descript, generic nothing, in terms of recognisable features ... and could just as easily have been taken on Dartmoor, or in one of several areas in the Scottish Lowlands.
How a lack of man-made features can ever be said to be evidence for a fake moon landing is truly beyond my ability to comprehend HB-speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 15, 2012 21:31:49 GMT -4
Yes...what the pictures do NOT show is equally important. Daylight (an obvious small, bright source) without skyglow of any kind. No atmosphere; not even a hint of it. Reduced gravity. Find one spot on Earth with those conditions, where you roam about as widely as they did!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Feb 17, 2012 13:12:33 GMT -4
Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything. Just as I thought. You were debunked and you never came back.. Pretty sad. You can't even back up what you claim is facts.HA! |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 17, 2012 16:21:13 GMT -4
Just as I thought. You were debunked and you never came back.. Pretty sad. You can't even back up what you claim is facts.HA! Forthetrhillofital was banned the next day, not that coherent support for the post would have been forthcoming anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 17, 2012 19:41:12 GMT -4
Just as I thought. You were debunked and you never came back.. Pretty sad. You can't even back up what you claim is facts.HA! Forthetrhillofital was banned the next day, not that coherent support for the post would have been forthcoming anyway. Like a little thing like that would stop Prof, um Patrick, from coming back  |
|
