ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Photo hound on November 07, 2014, 03:30:26 PM
-
Why can we see only one photo of earth that was taken from the moon surface? Will somebody show me some photos of earth that the astronauts took.
Why did they not take pictures of earth while standing on the moon surface?
-
There are some photos with the Earth taken from lunar surface. But anyway you should remember, Apollo was a mission to the Moon to examine the lunar surface, not the lunar sky.
-
Why can we see only one photo of earth that was taken from the moon surface? Will somebody show me some photos of earth that the astronauts took.
Why did they not take pictures of earth while standing on the moon surface?
There were several. In addition to the ones from Apollo 17 with the flag in them, Gene took some pictures of earth from the base of South Massif near Nansen. (Station 2, I believe?)
Al Shepard took nine pictures of the earth with the LM in them. I believe it was Apollo 12 which also got a couple with the LM. There are probably others.
And of course, there are several pictures of the earth from lunar orbit, with the moon in the foreground. Apollo 8 and 14 among them, IIRC.
Sorry I don't have the catalog numbers right now, but that's a start. I've got some things to do before looking them up. I'm sure others will provide some.
-
Why can we see only one photo of earth that was taken from the moon surface? Will somebody show me some photos of earth that the astronauts took.
Why did they not take pictures of earth while standing on the moon surface?
There is more than one..
Here is one from Apollo 11 for instance.. (AS11-40-5923)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/sc4zk8.jpg)
-
Why can we see only one photo of earth that was taken from the moon surface? Will somebody show me some photos of earth that the astronauts took.
Why did they not take pictures of earth while standing on the moon surface?
For one thing, there's more than one photo taken on the Moon that shows the Earth. I don't have the time or inclination to go looking for them right now.
The biggest point is they didn't go all the way to Moon to take a bunch pictures of the Earth, they obviously went there to explore and photograph the Moon.
-
Apollo 14
(http://i60.tinypic.com/f9p6x4.jpg)
-
This is one from Lunar Orbit Apollo 15
(http://i58.tinypic.com/10oduhc.jpg)
-
and of course the famous Apollo 17 one, not to mention all the Earthrise ones taken from Lunar Orbit.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/e7xxky.jpg)
-
Google image search is your friend...
https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=849&q=Earth+from+the+Moon&oq=Earth+from+the+Moon&gs_l=img.3..0l10.821.3914.0.5094.19.11.0.0.0.0.1097.2278.3-1j6-1j1.3.0....0...1ac.1.58.img..16.3.2270.-bVMdI7miGc
Some are mock-ups, some are real and some are unrelated. You have to learn to pick which are which.
This might give you more consistent results...
https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=849&q=Earth+from+the+Moon&oq=Earth+from+the+Moon&gs_l=img.3..0l10.821.3914.0.5094.19.11.0.0.0.0.1097.2278.3-1j6-1j1.3.0....0...1ac.1.58.img..16.3.2270.-bVMdI7miGc#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=earth%20from%20the%20moon%20nasa&revid=1816297138&imgdii=_
-
There are also several views of Earth filmed by the rover's TV cameras.
-
Why can we see only one photo of earth that was taken from the moon surface? Will somebody show me some photos of earth that the astronauts took.
Why did they not take pictures of earth while standing on the moon surface?
Well, can you tell me first why they should have taken pictures of Earth while standing on the Moon?
We already had lots of pictures of the Earth from space. It wasn't going to look much different. Why should they have wasted precious time and film on pictures that would not have given a particularly good view of Earth from space?
This is a serious question. If you are more than a drive-by poster, please answer it.
-
You also have to consider, with a chest-mounted camera, just how difficult it was to get shots of anything above horizon level - something you can also see on the rover TV footage.
-
You also have to consider, with a chest-mounted camera, just how difficult it was to get shots of anything above horizon level - something you can also see on the rover TV footage.
Yes.
I imagine in order to take the photo of Harrison Schmidt, the Flag and the Earth that Bryanprorobson posted in Reply#8, that Gene Cernan would have had to have leaned back quote some way.
-
Cernan was essentially kneeling on the ground in order to get the right angle. For most of the landing sites, Earth was more or less directly overhead. It wasn't an easy shot to get, nor a shot considered especially important or desirable.
-
Why can we see only one photo of earth that was taken from the moon surface?
Why do you believe that there's only one?
Will somebody show me some photos of earth that the astronauts took.
Click me (http://bit.ly/1otj2hv)
Why did they not take pictures of earth while standing on the moon surface?
They did.
-
Cernan was essentially kneeling on the ground in order to get the right angle. For most of the landing sites, Earth was more or less directly overhead. It wasn't an easy shot to get, nor a shot considered especially important or desirable.
You can see Cernan and the position he adopted in the visor. :)
-
The lunar suits for the later J mission had more flexibility, making the bending needed for special shots easier than in the first landings,or perhaps even possible.
There was of course nothing scientific to be gained from such shots. And while some attempts were made, there was little chance of getting a photo with more artistic impact that William Anders "earthrise" photo from Apollo 8.
-
Here's a really nice one from the Chinese lunar probe Chang'e 5 T1
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/10/30/chang_e_5_photo_of_moon_and_earth.html
NOTE: No stars... must be faked then ::)
-
You know . . . I try not to ask for much, especially given my relative lack of knowledge about Apollo. But I do get awfully sick of "why don't we see [thing]" when two minutes of research shows that we do!
-
Here's a really nice one from the Chinese lunar probe Chang'e 5 T1
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/10/30/chang_e_5_photo_of_moon_and_earth.html
NOTE: No stars... must be faked then ::)
Oh, wow...That's my new screensaver!
-
You know . . . I try not to ask for much, especially given my relative lack of knowledge about Apollo. But I do get awfully sick of "why don't we see [thing]" when two minutes of research shows that we do!
I know what you mean. I once replied to a guy in the Daily Mail who was questioning why there were no pictures of the Lunar Rover being deployed from the LM. I pointed out to him that there are numerous videos of it cunningly concealed on Youtube!
-
You know . . . I try not to ask for much, especially given my relative lack of knowledge about Apollo. But I do get awfully sick of "why don't we see [thing]" when two minutes of research shows that we do!
I know what you mean. I once replied to a guy in the Daily Mail who was questioning why there were no pictures of the Lunar Rover being deployed from the LM. I pointed out to him that there are numerous videos of it cunningly concealed on Youtube!
Ooh, yes! It beautifully kiboshes that oldie but 'goodie', "How did they get the rover out of the LM hatch', with the short answer being 'They didn't.'
-
Here's a really nice one from the Chinese lunar probe Chang'e 5 T1
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/10/30/chang_e_5_photo_of_moon_and_earth.html
What I really like about that one is how it looks both familiar and unfamiliar, the unfamiliar part being the far side of the moon that we don't normally see. Yet this is exactly what we should see from that vantage point; it emphasizes just how far away it is.
-
You know . . . I try not to ask for much, especially given my relative lack of knowledge about Apollo. But I do get awfully sick of "why don't we see [thing]" when two minutes of research shows that we do!
I know what you mean. I once replied to a guy in the Daily Mail who was questioning why there were no pictures of the Lunar Rover being deployed from the LM. I pointed out to him that there are numerous videos of it cunningly concealed on Youtube!
Those NASA fiends! ;)
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
Is two not enough for you? How many are you expecting to see? And why?
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
There are 6 just from Apollo 11, AS11-40-5923, AS11-40-5924 and some 4 views from the LM window AS11-37-5506, AS11-37-5507, AS11-37-5508 and AS11-37-5509. 5507 wasn't very good. All of these were taken ON THE SURFACE.
The one's from 14 and 17(AS17-134-20384, AS17-134-20384, AS17-134-20461, AS17-134-20463, AS17-134-20464, AS17-134-20465, AS17-134-20471, AS17-134-20473, AS17-137-20911 and more) were taken FROM THE SURFACE, so that's already "more" than your claim with only 50 seconds research. :)
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
A personal favourite.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg)
-
(http://i57.tinypic.com/29epx4x.jpg) one of mine. :)
-
There are 6 just from Apollo 11, AS11-40-5923, AS11-40-5924 and some 4 views from the LM window AS11-37-5506, AS11-37-5507, AS11-37-5508 and AS11-37-5509. 5507 wasn't very good. All of these were taken ON THE SURFACE.
The one's from 14 and 17(AS17-134-20384, AS17-134-20384, AS17-134-20461, AS17-134-20463, AS17-134-20464, AS17-134-20465, AS17-134-20471, AS17-134-20473, AS17-137-20911 and more) were taken FROM THE SURFACE, so that's already "more" than your claim with only 50 seconds research. :)
Now that you've given him 15, can we expect, "Yeah, but there [sic] to [sic] SMALL!"
-
Now that you've given him 15, can we expect, "Yeah, but there [sic] to [sic] SMALL!"
They're only the ones I did on a quick search, there are a couple more from 14 and some more on 17, I can't find the ones from 12 I, like you, thought there were some. I'm wondering if we are confusing them with the ones from 11?
-
I've also done a quick scan through the Apollo 12 surface pictures, but couldn't find any examples of earth. As with Apollo 14, the geometry of the Apollo 12 landing would only have given a crescent Earth.
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
Aw, diddums. Getting cranky all ready?
Your first post stated that there was only one. Now you say there's only two. Which is it?
And if you ask for help and then get grumpy when people answer you then why don't you go and do some research yourself???
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
You still haven't told us how many should have been taken and why. Until you can do that, two is plenty.
-
You still haven't told us how many should have been taken and why. Until you can do that, two is plenty.
A bit like going on a geology field trip to an island a couple of miles off the coast. Would you then stand on the beach when you got there, taking pictures of the coast where you just come from?
-
I can't figure out what "realistic looking" means in this context either. That says to me there are some as-yet unknown expectations being applied. Someone who says a thing isn't "realistic" should be able to go further and say, "It should look like _____ but instead it looks this other way." That lets us talk about "should look like," which a useful discussion would include.
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
I don't know what you count as 'realistic' but you if you do a little more than 2 minutes research you will find that the Earth in those lunar surface pictures, including the live TV:
- Shows the Earth's terminator exactly where it should be at the time the photo was taken
- Shows the Earth at the correct angle
- Shows the correct land masses for the time the photographs were taken
- Shows time and date specific weather patterns exactly as recorded by meteorological satellites
The Apollo 14 images of Earth taken from the lunar surface also contain Venus, exactly where it should be.
So, if that doesn't seem realistic to you, it would seem you are on a different planet to the rest of us.
-
And don't forget the far ultraviolet images (http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/) taken on Apollo 16, several of which contain the Earth.
-
Colin Mackellar over at honeysucklecreek.net used the hi-res version of AS11-40-5923 and found that when properly rotated the land mass seen is Australia, NSW in the morning hours, with the location of HSK being pretty much line-of-sight.
Ed Fendell also zoomed the GCTA onto the earth for all the J missions at least once per mission.
And may I add my concerns at your readiness, there Photo Hound, in getting cranky when given a list of quite a few photographs (and video) of something you claimed only one of which existed. What gives?
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
I'm not sure if anyone else has asked you outright as I sometimes miss detail in threads that I have only just seen and skim read. I've been fairly busy all day with work, so sorry to the regulars. Here goes...
Photo hound, do you think that the moon landings were hoaxed?
-
And don't forget the far ultraviolet images (http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/) taken on Apollo 16, several of which contain the Earth.
Easily one of my favourite of all the scientific experiments. Not sure if the retro-reflectors trump the UV images given the beauty of the latter.
-
Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.
You can't really control a discussion by just dropping in with an occasional demanding posts. How about taking a great part in the thread if you want something specific out of it.
-
You can't really control a discussion by just dropping in with an occasional demanding posts. How about taking a great part in the thread if you want something specific out of it.
It's eerily familiar behaviour, isn't it?
-
And don't forget the far ultraviolet images (http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/) taken on Apollo 16, several of which contain the Earth.
Easily one of my favourite of all the scientific experiments. Not sure if the retro-reflectors trump the UV images given the beauty of the latter.
And in this case, taking pictures of the Earth *does* have scientific value, thanks to the unusual spectrum imaged.
-
And in this case, taking pictures of the Earth *does* have scientific value, thanks to the unusual spectrum imaged.
And to the appropriate field of view. Taking pictures of astronomical objects with a wide-angle lens is not very effective.
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence. I was never cranky, just looking to clarify. But now I have seen what a bunch of assholes you people are. What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your shitty attitudes. Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....I will not take part anymore in your fucking hang man games. Good bye!
-
You made an affirmative statement about what existed. For a full page, people showed that you were wrong. Yes, I was surly, though also right. You then made another affirmative statement, with no clarification of what exactly "realistic looking" meant. You still haven't acknowledged those. "Thank you" would be a good place to start.
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence. I was never cranky, just looking to clarify. But now I have seen what a bunch of assholes you people are. What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your shitty attitudes. Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....I will not take part anymore in your fucking hang man games. Good bye!
I don't believe you were on the fence when you arrived here. I think you're either a true hoax believer, or more likely, just common variety troll. Be careful not to let the door hit you in the ass on your way out! ;)
-
Is this one of the regular hoaxers, or a new one?
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence.
No, you weren't. People who legitimately want to know something listen carefully when they're told that their questions are wholly misconceived. They want to know, and they want to ask the right questions. You slapped everyone across the face with your preconceptions and refused to be told differently than what you already believed.
What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your shitty attitudes.
That's how we know you weren't really on the fence. If that obvious non sequitur is your "proof" of a hoax then you got the excuse you came here to get. You got pages of factual responses and discussion, including corrections to your misconceptions. You swept it all aside and dove straight into the personal recriminations.
-
A personal favourite...
As an electrical and communications engineer who was inspired into the field partly by Apollo, AS11-40-5923HR has to be my favorite. It shows the LM S-band antenna pointed back at earth. At the time, the fact that we were seeing and hearing what was happening live via that antenna amazed me as much as the fact that humans were on the moon.
-
Sometimes people here have, in the past, gone too far, but, honestly, all I see here is a bunch of sour grapes and a severe case of the flounce on your part, Photo hound.
You said there was only one of something, and you got proven wrong.
If there was some teasing on your account, it was because you were so atrociously, audaciously wrong, in ways you so very easily yourself could have worked out, but no, you barge in here, ask loaded questions with no interest in actually learning or becoming less ignorant, and run away when people prove you wrong.
Sadly, typical.
-
You said there was only one of something, and you got proven wrong.
Politely so, I might add. The first page and most of the second (including Gillianren's allegedly snarky response) is a quite civil recitation of the available data, some necessary and well-meant requests for clarification, and a correction of the central misunderstandings.
Photo hound made three essential points. First he asserted that only one picture of Earth was taken from the lunar surface. Second he asked for additional photos of Earth taken by the astronauts (no qualification there that they had to be from the lunar surface -- that came later). Third he asked why there weren't more.
All these three points were met. The initial assertion was proven wrong, whereupon the rest of the post could have been dismissed according to a subversion of its support. Additional Apollo photos of Earth were quickly provided; only later were the criteria refined to mean only those taken from the lunar surface. And finally, a discussion ensued regarding the propriety of photographing Earth from the Moon's surface using the general-purpose still cameras. In short, the poster's question was answered quickly, thoroughly, and with appropriate decorum.
Sadly, typical.
It is indeed sadly typical of a recent spate of posters who seem to demand that they have been abused by the regulars no matter what. Photo Hound is arrogant and dismissive. Not someone "on the fence."
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence. I was never cranky, just looking to clarify. But now I have seen what a bunch of assholes you people are. What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your shitty attitudes. Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....I will not take part anymore in your fucking hang man games. Good bye!
What? Proving you wrong means you're right?
Do you honestly think this type of approach is a new one?
"Hey I'm not saying it was a hoax. but isn't if funny that [insert dumb premise here]" followed shortly afterwards by "a-ha, well, it seems to me that [insert standard conspiracy BS here]".
You made a statement that clearly demonstrates ignorance of the subject and an inability to use search engines and you got your ass handed to you. Grow up.
-
Something oddly familiar about that one. I don't mean the common hoaxie approach path, or the commonality of claims and complaints. I mean something about the use of language that's making my sock radar go "ping."
Just as likely a false signal, though. I've got the sensitivity on that thing turned way too high.
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence. I was never cranky, just looking to clarify. But now I have seen what a bunch of a$$$$$$$ you people are. What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your s$$$$$ attitudes. Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....I will not take part anymore in your $$$$$$$ hang man games. Good bye!
Sadly I wasn't around earlier to help all the 'a$$$$$$$'s here to run you off, as you clearly deserved to be judging by this last post in which you reveal yourself as not only an incompetent 'researcher', but foul-mouthed as well. You could only find one image? And after all that information was spoon fed to you, instead of thanking those who helped prove you 100% wrong, it is a supposedly 's$$$$$ attitude' that is the basis for you to judge truth or falsehood? That's just laughable, and you deserve to be ripped off by the scamming predators who run the Apollo denial websites - they do it precisely for ignorant pretenders just like you. Please waste your time and money as much as possible on supporting them, for you deserve each other.
Don't let the door hit you as you flounce.. and I think I can speak for all when I say we aren't cranky - you are quite entertaining, in a sad train-wreck sorta way...
BTW - Does an IP check reveal anything familiar, LO? :D
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence. I was never cranky, just looking to clarify. But now I have seen what a bunch of assholes you people are. What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your shitty attitudes. Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....I will not take part anymore in your fucking hang man games. Good bye!
Wow, the indignant flounce, nobody saw that coming! :D :D
-
Is three posts a new record for a full on flounce? There has been seagulls, by definition, with less, but a full on 'Oh you brutes!' flounce?
-
What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your shitty attitudes.
Congratulations. With that method of reasoning, you demonstrated that you applied more critical thought to the hoax theory than 99% of your cohorts.
(http://forums.joerogan.net/images/smilies/applause.gif)
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence.
With a bag of stones to begin chucking.
I was never cranky, just looking to clarify.
People her clarified.
But now I have seen what a bunch of assholes you people are.
Cry me a river.
What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your ****** attitudes.
I guess we've also helped you believe the world is a disc in space based on the photos, and sometimes that disc is not a full disc. Sometimes it's a crescent, sometimes it is half a disc.
Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....
Now I'm confused.
I will not take part anymore in your ******* hang man games.
Shame, I had one for you.
_ _ _ _ _ _
goodbye!
Have a lovely day.
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence. I was never cranky, just looking to clarify. But now I have seen what a bunch of assholes you people are. What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your shitty attitudes. Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....I will not take part anymore in your fucking hang man games. Good bye!
Oh that is really funny.
You come here demanding photos of the earth from the lunar surface, claiming that there is only one.
Several people show that there are numerous such photos readily available on the interwebz with just a few minutes research.
You now claim that you were neutral but have decided that the Apollo landing were hoaxes purely on the basis that you didn't like the help we gave you.
I know who the arsehole is here, and it ain't any of us.
PS: I smell socks!!
-
Well...it looks like we saved about 5 pages of typical hoaxie BS.."I'm only asking questions..", "In my opinion..." before Photo Hound de-cloaked and declared his/her real beliefs.
Hey, coming in I was on the fence.
No you weren't. Your approach was typical of the lazy hoax believer- wedded to an idea, too idle to do a modicum of research and ready to get all hurty.
just looking to clarify.
See my first point above.
What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax
No-one on here, not one, gives two toots about your internal beliefs. In fact, pretty much no-one in the world cares, as the vast majority of people outside the tiny group of whackos that persist in pushing the hoax idea know that the Apollo missions happened as described and don't really care about stuff that happened 40 years ago.
In addition, no-one on here has any duty to make you believe anything. I presume you are an adult, so howsabout actually acting like one, instead of a pre-pubescent teenager?
Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....I will not take part anymore in your fucking hang man games. Good bye!
I read this as "Im going to shout and scream and hold my breath and stamp my feet and slam the door unless I get my own way". Blimey, maybe you ARE a pre-pubescent teenager. Nice to see that you were still logging on a day after your tantrum and flounce.
-
Well, that escalated quickly. Three ill-tempered comments and out. Just for once it would be nice for a Hoax Believer to come on here and actually engage with us. To answer the reasonable questions we ask them and provide us with explanations as to why they hold their particular beliefs.
Are their belief systems so fragile that any kind of disagreement automatically induces meltdown?
And Photo hound? Nobody believes you were 'on the fence'. Nobody who is genuinely open minded behaves like you did. You were trying to pick a fight. And when you didn't get one, you pretended you had to justify your flounce.
-
Are their belief systems so fragile that any kind of disagreement automatically induces meltdown?
You should have a read of DAKDAK's meltdown. Now that was a quality implosion from a weapon-grade idiot.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=92.0
-
I dont know about the rest of you, but this flounce took me totally by surprise. No, really, it did!
-
On the plus side, his short visit did give me the chance to revisit some pretty ace photos. And that Change3 one was amazing.
-
I dont know about the rest of you, but this flounce took me totally by surprise. No, really, it did!
Who'd have thunk it, eh? ::) ::)
The MO is quite similar to that (self-proclaimed, natch) famed investigative journalist and photography expert, Allan Weisbecker. Keep an eye on YT for a new video declaring proof that the Moon landings were hoaxed as there is only a single photo of Earth from the Moon. It'll probably be mixed in with videos of Weisbecker trying to get into the panties of a drunken surfer-girl half his age, by impressing her with his outstanding knowledge of the hoax... ;D
-
On the plus side, his short visit did give me the chance to revisit some pretty ace photos.
There is always a positive.
And that Change3 one was amazing.
It was doing the rounds on Facebook. It is indeed a wonderful photograph, with no stars either. :)
-
I dont know about the rest of you, but this flounce took me totally by surprise. No, really, it did!
I saw the thread, made a post, went to bed and the man flounced. It was all a bit of a flash in a pan. Have you worked out exactly what Stan told you yet?
-
Hoax believers who have half a brain have been subsequently convinced of their errors.
Those that haven't..... well..... we just saw an example.
-
Hey, coming in I was on the fence.
That would be your first lie.
I was never cranky, just looking to clarify.
..and the question you asked was clarified and answered.
That you have completely ignored those answers tells us a whole lot about you.
But now I have seen what a bunch of ******** you people are. What you all accomplished was make me believe that it was a hoax; only because of your ****** attitudes.
So because you didn't receive the response you "wanted"...because most of us have heard it all, and have very short fuses when it comes to ignorant Moon hoax belief....because of that, the landings were hoaxed?
I see an HBer who doesn't even pretend to look at this from a rational perspective.
Now who's going to be cranky? Not me....I will not take part anymore in your ******* hang man games. Good bye!
Such a lame excuse....why not hang around and learn something if you have the courage to do that.
Do you?
-
I dont know about the rest of you, but this flounce took me totally by surprise. No, really, it did!
Who'd have thunk it, eh? ::) ::)
The MO is quite similar to that (self-proclaimed, natch) famed investigative journalist and photography expert, Allan Weisbecker.
Didn't immediately recognize the name until you mentioned...
....It'll probably be mixed in with videos of Weisbecker trying to get into the panties of a drunken surfer-girl half his age, by impressing her with his outstanding knowledge of the hoax... ;D
Oh, that guy.
Talk about one strange creepy fellow...and that's before knowing his hoax beliefs.
-
For someone calling himself Photo Hound, his photographic tracking abilities were extremely poor.
-
For someone calling himself Photo Hound, his photographic tracking abilities were extremely poor.
Well, sight hounds follow motion, and he was looking at still pictures. ;D
-
Good bye!
I take it that your goodbye includes coming back in to check on the progress of your ass-whooping?
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1093x238q90/910/UEXtM8.jpg)
-
I dont know about the rest of you, but this flounce took me totally by surprise. No, really, it did!
I was just sure he was going to take my kindly advice and turn around so we could all engage in a frank and open conversation.
-
I was just sure he was going to take my kindly advice and turn around so we could all engage in a frank and open conversation.
That was my expectation too. It is every time a hoax believer arrives. I always try to have such expectations as I am a strong believer in benefit of the doubt, and genuine skepticism is something for which I have time.
-
I read this as "Im going to shout and scream and hold my breath and stamp my feet and slam the door unless I get my own way". Blimey, maybe you ARE a pre-pubescent teenager. Nice to see that you were still logging on a day after your tantrum and flounce.
As the old saying goes, if you have half a mind to be an Apollo Hoax Believer, then you already have more than enough qualifiications.
-
Why can we see only one photo of earth that was taken from the moon surface?
Hey Photo hound, how about identifying for us the particular photo that you mistakenly thought was the only one. What is its AS number?
Were you pleased to find that there were more?
Just in case you don't know, one way to find many of the photos of Earth from the lunar surface, is to:--
1. Go the the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
2. Click on the link to each landing mission, Apollo 11 first.
3. Click on the link to its Image Library.
4. Do a search for "Earth" (for Apollo 11 you could save time by paging down to or searching for film 40 -- AS11-40-**** -- the only one taken on the lunar surface).
5. Once you find a photo the includes Earth, read the caption so you understand what the photo shows (for instance, some Apollo 17 shots of Earth were taken looking up the side of a large mountain, South Massif -- a fact which fooled some hoax-believers who didn't bother reading the captions, so they prattled on needlessly about how Earth could never have been that close to the lunar surface , which was only true if they were talking about a flat and level part of the surface).
6. Note the number of the image, such as AS11-40-5924, and its link.
7. Check the photos before and after that one -- the captions won't necessarily mention Earth, but the photos might include it.
8. Repeat the procedure for Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
I hope that's useful and that you won't accuse me of being the same thing you said about others in your third post. But my feelings won't be hurt if you do -- we're pretty used to hoax-believers behaving like that. Perhaps they're too young to be able to help themselves.
-
I suppose our ****** attitude is to not immediately roll over, and cry "Merciful heavens, you're right! They only took one picture of the earth the entire time! That's proof of a hoax."
It's like a three-year-old going "you're mean!" when her parent won't give her another cookie, because it's almost dinnertime.
So, basically, not having enough pictures of the Earth proves a hoax. But pointing out there are many pictures of the Earth from the lunar surface, and that there was no particular reason to concentrate on such pictures, also proves a hoax, because ... well, because *nice* people wouldn't point that out and make him feel bad, and if we're not nice, we are in on a hoax.
By the way, Photo Hound, if you ever decide to rescind your decision to leave, my question is still outstanding:
Can you tell me first why they should have taken pictures of Earth while standing on the Moon?
We already had lots of pictures of the Earth from space. It wasn't going to look much different. Why should they have wasted precious time and film on pictures that would not have given a particularly good view of Earth from space?
This is the heart of your enquiry, is it not? I'm afraid that you have no chance of persuading anyone on this board (or most other places) if you can't tell us why few pictures of Earth is a suspicious circumstance.
-
You know what the most frustrating thing about the Moon Hoaxers (and others of their ilk)? So many of them won't tell you what they're actually thinking. Half of them have the idea that they're going to enlighten us by some sort of Socratic dialogue, but when we don't play, they pack up and go home.
So far, in this thread, we've had:
PH: Why isn't there more than one picture of the Earth from the surface of the Moon.
Us: Well, there are more than one. But assuming there weren't, what would that mean?
PH: Goodbye, cruel forum!
I really want to know why he felt this was relevant in the first place. How would our agreement to the statement "You're right, there's only one picture of the Earth from the Moon?" have moved his position forward at all?
-
I really want to know why he felt this was relevant in the first place. How would our agreement to the statement "You're right, there's only one picture of the Earth from the Moon?" have moved his position forward at all?
I'm guessing it's a similar argument to the one about 'no stars'. That the absence of the Earth in photos is because NASA couldn't fake it in a 'realistic' way. Or, at least, not consistently.
-
You know what the most frustrating thing about the Moon Hoaxers (and others of their ilk)? So many of them won't tell you what they're actually thinking.
To be fair though, most of them appear to be incapable of thinking at all. if they were, then they'd soon start seeing the blatantly obvious inconsistencies in their "arguments".
-
I think he may be on GLP now -- saw some similar arguments flying past. Or maybe it is just the latest trend among HBs.
I did see an absolutely wonderful post, though, which I just have to share a bit of here:
When apollo 11 started for the moon from earth it was almost the same distance from its meeting point with the moon, as the moon was from that same meeting point.
The moon was traveling perpendicular to the rocket at a fairly similar speed as the rocket was going.
So when the moon and rocket met, the rocket had to do a significant breaking maneuver to get down to orbit speed. ie it basically stopped in space. But the moon was still traveling from the rockets side at full speed (4000m/s). How could the rocket travel at 4000m/s at right angles to its motion in order to match the moons motion, yet be almost stopped in space at the same time?
you can try it at home...... get a car to travel along at 30km/hr with a door removed from its side at a right angle to you. Then sprint full speed and try meet the car at a point on the road and end up sitting in the car's seat unharmed.
the moon would've crashed into apollo 11 or they would've completely missed each other Right? It is impossible to insert into a moon orbit.
-
I think he may be on GLP now -- saw some similar arguments flying past. Or maybe it is just the latest trend among HBs.
I did see an absolutely wonderful post, though, which I just have to share a bit of here:
When apollo 11 started for the moon from earth it was almost the same distance from its meeting point with the moon, as the moon was from that same meeting point.
The moon was traveling perpendicular to the rocket at a fairly similar speed as the rocket was going.
So when the moon and rocket met, the rocket had to do a significant breaking maneuver to get down to orbit speed. ie it basically stopped in space. But the moon was still traveling from the rockets side at full speed (4000m/s). How could the rocket travel at 4000m/s at right angles to its motion in order to match the moons motion, yet be almost stopped in space at the same time?
you can try it at home...... get a car to travel along at 30km/hr with a door removed from its side at a right angle to you. Then sprint full speed and try meet the car at a point on the road and end up sitting in the car's seat unharmed.
the moon would've crashed into apollo 11 or they would've completely missed each other Right? It is impossible to insert into a moon orbit.
Saw that one. Funny.
-
Well, if you could run at a speed precise to 0.05 meter per second, along a direction precise to 0.001°, and the car's path were similarly determined, you could. It's impossible to walk on a tightrope -- except of course to the few who can.
-
I think he may be on GLP now -- saw some similar arguments flying past. Or maybe it is just the latest trend among HBs.
I did see an absolutely wonderful post, though, which I just have to share a bit of here:
When apollo 11 started for the moon from earth it was almost the same distance from its meeting point with the moon, as the moon was from that same meeting point.
The moon was traveling perpendicular to the rocket at a fairly similar speed as the rocket was going.
So when the moon and rocket met, the rocket had to do a significant breaking maneuver to get down to orbit speed. ie it basically stopped in space. But the moon was still traveling from the rockets side at full speed (4000m/s). How could the rocket travel at 4000m/s at right angles to its motion in order to match the moons motion, yet be almost stopped in space at the same time?
you can try it at home...... get a car to travel along at 30km/hr with a door removed from its side at a right angle to you. Then sprint full speed and try meet the car at a point on the road and end up sitting in the car's seat unharmed.
the moon would've crashed into apollo 11 or they would've completely missed each other Right? It is impossible to insert into a moon orbit.
Oh, that is priceless!
I guess he's never heard of gravity then?
-
PH: Goodbye, cruel forum!
Goodbye cruel forum, I'm leaving you today. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.
I feel a song coming on, now, where's my little black book with my poems in?
-
I really want to know why he felt this was relevant in the first place. How would our agreement to the statement "You're right, there's only one picture of the Earth from the Moon?" have moved his position forward at all?
I'm guessing it's a similar argument to the one about 'no stars'. That the absence of the Earth in photos is because NASA couldn't fake it in a 'realistic' way. Or, at least, not consistently.
That's what I think they were heading for, but since they admit there was one photo, apparently NASA could do it.
It may simply be an extension of the stars argument - "But logically, people who had spent years and billions of dollars to put men on the Moon would want those men to spend their time taking pictures of the Earth (which would be a little less valuable than pictures from Earth orbit), rather than pictures of the Moon surface itself (which can only be obtained when on that surface), because ... oh, look, a puppy!"
I still would prefer the HBers to spell out what they're hinting at. At least Moon Man had the guts to do that. The current crop always seem to fade away before they ever get anywhere near the point they were trying to make.
That makes me wonder if they're more trolls than honest believers. An honest believer shouldn't have a problem in saying "they couldn't show the Earth because it's just too hard to show a crescent with a vague pattern of ocean, land and clouds on it!"
-
I'm guessing it's a similar argument to the one about 'no stars'. That the absence of the Earth in photos is because NASA couldn't fake it in a 'realistic' way. Or, at least, not consistently.
That's what I think they were heading for, but since they admit there was one photo, apparently NASA could do it.
Either that or he was simply making a "if I ran the zoo" argument. You know the argument... "had Apollo been real then surely NASA would have had the astronauts do (insert activity here)."
It may simply be an extension of the stars argument - "But logically, people who had spent years and billions of dollars to put men on the Moon would want those men to spend their time taking pictures of the Earth (which would be a little less valuable than pictures from Earth orbit), rather than pictures of the Moon surface itself (which can only be obtained when on that surface), because ... oh, look, a puppy!"
I would consider this a prime example of the "if I ran the zoo" argument rather than a stars arguments. You can insert an activity into that sentence and the argument would be the same.
I still would prefer the HBers to spell out what they're hinting at. At least Moon Man had the guts to do that. The current crop always seem to fade away before they ever get anywhere near the point they were trying to make.
I think they're just trying to keep their options open. By not committing to anything they can adapt their argument to the flow of the discussion, i.e. keep moving the goalposts. To them its not about taking a stand, defending a position, and seeking the truth. It's about trying to win the debate. By keeping their argument fluid they can weasel their way around and try not to be pinned down on any specific point.
Often times, also, they don't take a position because their trying to spring some sort of trap. They want us to commit to something first so they can jump out and say "now I've got you", followed by their big reveal. I usually find this tactic to be pretty transparent.
That makes me wonder if they're more trolls than honest believers. An honest believer shouldn't have a problem in saying "they couldn't show the Earth because it's just too hard to show a crescent with a vague pattern of ocean, land and clouds on it!"
I haven't seen an honest HB in a long time.