ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: onebigmonkey on February 18, 2015, 12:18:32 AM
-
Blink-182 frontman has made waves in the conspiracy world with this interview covering UFOs and the like:
http://www.papermag.com/2015/02/tom_delonge_ufo_interview.php
Do you think the moon landing is real or do you think NASA faked it?
I think it's real, absolutely. People have to understand: you know that the Department of Defense is bigger than Apple, right? So when Apple releases an iPhone, Apple will plan it out and spend billions of dollars and get thousands of people to figure how to tell that story, how to manage that story and how to get their point across. There's nothing different in the Department of Defense when it does something big. So when we landed on the moon, they're gonna go and give you something to chew on. They're gonna go out and find a conspiracy. They're gonna plan out the conspiracy. They made everybody think that we never went there. That way, when you ask questions, you're asking questions they want you to ask. They didn't want the conspiracy to be the real fucking question, which is, "What was there when we got there?" They place the conspiracy, just like 9/11. The main thing is that terrorists did it, the backup story conspiracy they fed you was, "No, it was an inside job." What's the third story? Another nation state? An extra nation-state? You know? Who did that?
So there you are, they landed, but want to convince you they faked it - definitely a new spin on things!
-
I think it's real, absolutely. People have to understand: you know that the Department of Defense is bigger than Apple, right? So when Apple releases an iPhone, Apple will plan it out and spend billions of dollars and get thousands of people to figure how to tell that story, how to manage that story and how to get their point across. There's nothing different in the Department of Defense when it does something big. So when we landed on the moon, they're gonna go and give you something to chew on. They're gonna go out and find a conspiracy. They're gonna plan out the conspiracy. They made everybody think that we never went there. That way, when you ask questions, you're asking questions they want you to ask. They didn't want the conspiracy to be the real fucking question, which is, "What was there when we got there?" They place the conspiracy, just like 9/11. The main thing is that terrorists did it, the backup story conspiracy they fed you was, "No, it was an inside job." What's the third story? Another nation state? An extra nation-state? You know? Who did that?
So there you are, they landed, but want to convince you they faked it - definitely a new spin on things!
Time to invoke Mitchell and Webb again. What thought processes do these people go through? My understanding of this is that NASA landed on the moon and then created an illusion so people didn't ask what the moon is really like. So we're no longer the shills, the CTs are the shills?
Why do I still get a monthly cheque from NASA then? I no longer understand. Am I living inside the matrix? My head hurts. Can I go to bed now?
-
Do you think the moon landing is real or do you think NASA faked it?
I think it's real, absolutely. People have to understand: you know that the Department of Defense is bigger than Apple, right? So when Apple releases an iPhone, Apple will plan it out and spend billions of dollars and get thousands of people to figure how to tell that story, how to manage that story and how to get their point across. There's nothing different in the Department of Defense when it does something big. So when we landed on the moon, they're gonna go and give you something to chew on. They're gonna go out and find a conspiracy. They're gonna plan out the conspiracy. They made everybody think that we never went there. That way, when you ask questions, you're asking questions they want you to ask. They didn't want the conspiracy to be the real fucking question, which is, "What was there when we got there?" They place the conspiracy, just like 9/11. The main thing is that terrorists did it, the backup story conspiracy they fed you was, "No, it was an inside job." What's the third story? Another nation state? An extra nation-state? You know? Who did that?
This is what happens when you let children have unrestricted access to the Internet. <bangs head on desk>
-
I think it's real, absolutely. People have to understand: you know that the Department of Defense is bigger than Apple, right? So when Apple releases an iPhone, Apple will plan it out and spend billions of dollars and get thousands of people to figure how to tell that story, how to manage that story and how to get their point across. There's nothing different in the Department of Defense when it does something big. So when we landed on the moon, they're gonna go and give you something to chew on. They're gonna go out and find a conspiracy. They're gonna plan out the conspiracy. They made everybody think that we never went there. That way, when you ask questions, you're asking questions they want you to ask. They didn't want the conspiracy to be the real fucking question, which is, "What was there when we got there?" They place the conspiracy, just like 9/11. The main thing is that terrorists did it, the backup story conspiracy they fed you was, "No, it was an inside job." What's the third story? Another nation state? An extra nation-state? You know? Who did that?
So there you are, they landed, but want to convince you they faked it - definitely a new spin on things!
Time to invoke Mitchell and Webb again. What thought processes do these people go through? My understanding of this is that NASA landed on the moon and then created an illusion so people didn't ask what the moon is really like. So we're no longer the shills, the CTs are the shills?
Why do I still get a monthly cheque from NASA then? I no longer understand. Am I living inside the matrix? My head hurts. Can I go to bed now?
And now you are toast. Your post will forevermore be quoted as proof that you are indeed a NASA shill.
-
And now you are toast. Your post will forevermore be quoted as proof that you are indeed a NASA shill.
I get Nectar points and $0.05 a post. Each year NASA send me a Christmas card with a £5 Marks and Spencer voucher. I'm quite open about what NASA pays me. ::)
-
And now you are toast. Your post will forevermore be quoted as proof that you are indeed a NASA shill.
I get Nectar points and $0.05 a post. Each year NASA send me a Christmas card with a £5 Marks and Spencer voucher. I'm quite open about what NASA pays me. ::)
Is that all? You must be a lower grade minion. I get a Ferrari per year.
-
Is that all? You must be a lower grade minion. I get a Ferrari per year.
I have a feeling of deja vu with this joke. I do believe that CTs have no sense of humour though, and they really can't deal with the self depreciation and general jokes we make out of their accusations. When I spent time chopping down bamboo in the wilds of YT a long time ago, ka9q made a similar observation. No matter how vile they became we usually poked fun back - but then it all got a bit out of hand.
-
... and they really can't deal with the self depreciation and general jokes we make out of their accusations.
Yeah, I noticed that Romulus even mentioned something about the "Lying BABB Maggots". That is a joke from back in the old days of the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. As I recall, it stated when an HB called us 'lying maggots' and it just caught on. I believe somebody even creating a Lying BABB Maggot logo. It was all just in fun, yet here we are a decade latter and Romulus brings it up as if it's some sort of evidence that we're NASA shills.
-
Yeah, I noticed that Romulus even mentioned something about the "Lying BABB Maggots". That is a joke from back in the old days of the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. As I recall, it stated when an HB called us 'lying maggots' and it just caught on. I believe somebody even creating a Lying BABB Maggot logo. It was all just in fun, yet here we are a decade latter and Romulus brings it up as if it's some sort of evidence that we're NASA shills.
I see the usuals had a thread dedicated to the name of band. Sadly the album cover is a broken link now.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?16899-Jay-Utah-and-the-Lying-BABB-Maggots
...and you even had a poll for the type of music that the band should play.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?16901-What-type-of-sound-are-the-Maggots-looking-for
There's even a reference to IDW in the poll comments.
-
I see the usuals had a thread dedicated to the name of band. Sadly the album cover is a broken link now.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?16899-Jay-Utah-and-the-Lying-BABB-Maggots
...and you even had a poll for the type of music that the band should play.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?16901-What-type-of-sound-are-the-Maggots-looking-for
There's even a reference to IDW in the poll comments.
Thanks for reminding me. I remember the name Lying BABB Maggots, but I forgot that it was supposed to be the name of a band. When I mentioned a logo, I was actually remembering the album cover. I see the vote was for Rock music; hopefully something mainstream. "Searing Radiation Hell" is the name of our heavy metal band.
-
Yeah, I noticed that Romulus even mentioned something about the "Lying BABB Maggots".
Wasn't that going to be a band name? Something like Phil and his Lying BABBling Maggots? Or was Jay the front man?
-
It was going to be Jay.
-
And now you are toast. Your post will forevermore be quoted as proof that you are indeed a NASA shill.
I get Nectar points and $0.05 a post. Each year NASA send me a Christmas card with a £5 Marks and Spencer voucher. I'm quite open about what NASA pays me. ::)
Is that all? You must be a lower grade minion. I get a Ferrari per year.
I get a new Gulfstream every year. That way, I don't have have an annual inspection done.
-
Nor do you have to empty the ashtrays.
-
"Searing Radiation Hell" is the name of our heavy metal band.
This has made me smile over the last few weeks. Providing I'm not nominated to be the drummer, I'm OK with that. :-X Maybe nomuse can make an 18" model of the LM (Instead of 18') that is lowered on to the stage. ka9q can make the amps that go up to 11, Dwight can record us on our first tour, and our first album can be called Black Mylar Glove.
-
I have a feeling of deja vu with this joke. I do believe that CTs have no sense of humour though, and they really can't deal with the self depreciation and general jokes we make out of their accusations. When I spent time chopping down bamboo in the wilds of YT a long time ago, ka9q made a similar observation. No matter how vile they became we usually poked fun back - but then it all got a bit out of hand.
I remember a conversation on a YT channel with one of IDW's socks. He accused me to use keyloggers. There was an Australian guy (krisdevalle). We made several jokes of being paid by NASA/CIA/NSA/KGB/whatever and were writing about the new cars for our observations, our new suits and sunglasses and all the other stereotype things for agents.
And guess what, IDW wasn't able to realize the obvious jokes we made. He responded to another HB and told him, that we had outed ourselves as government agents (he used other words, I don't remember them).
-
Shills? Disinformation agents?
Honestly, the OP's quote is fundamentally a slightly new variation on "That's what They want you to think, man!"
-
I once offered the keys to my house (I even posted a picture of it) to anyone who could prove I was on NASA's payroll. I had no takers.
The shill argument is just lazy, and more to the point inaccurate. To be a 'shill' (in my mind) implies I am pretending that I am something I'm not - I've never pretended to be anything but opposed to what the HB community believe in. It's the same knee-jerk contrarianism that bleats 'false flag' at the drop of a hat.
Th shill chant has the same invalidity as the constant posting of Werner von Braun's Nazi connections as some sort of argument against Apollo: even if I was on NASA's payroll, collecting cash on a pay-per-post basis to drown out the idiots, it does not invalidate the science and engineering behind Apollo. It's another game of arguing about the metadata, not the data.
I have also pointed out many times that WVB was actually pretty good at rocket science, ask anyone who was alive in the Blitz.
-
I actually work with NASA personnel who are paid to say things over the Internet. The dirty secret... is that it's all mundane stuff about launch this, and mission assurance that, and those kids sponsored in a robotics competition, and workforce diversity and spinoff technology and planetary science and the anniversary of Mercury x or Apollo y or Pioneer z, and so on... oddly enough, not one of them spends any time talking about Adrian or IDW or what's-his-name from Australia. But in the conspiracists' heads there's this giant 24x7x365 program to suppress them.
-
I have also pointed out many times that WVB was actually pretty good at rocket science, ask anyone who was alive in the Blitz.
While I completely understand what you are implying here and agree with it, I would just offer this correction.
"The Blitz" is universally recognized as a period of 267 days, beginning on 7 September 1940 and ending 21 May 1941. They were air raids in which more than 30,000 tons of high explosive bombs were dropped from a variety of German aircraft (He111, Ju88, Ju87, Do17 and Do217) in 127 bombing raids across 16 cities.
The V1 and V2 bombs were not used on London until 1944; the V1 was first on June 13, and the last in mid-October when the last launcher within range of London was overrun by invasion troops. The first V2 to strike London was on September 8, 1944 and the last was 27th March 1945. They stopped because the advancing allied troops caused the launchers to be pulled back too deep into Germany to keep London in range.
-
I have also pointed out many times that WVB was actually pretty good at rocket science, ask anyone who was alive in the Blitz.
While I completely understand what you are implying here and agree with it, I would just offer this correction.
"The Blitz" is universally recognized as a period of 267 days, beginning on 7 September 1940 and ending 21 May 1941. They were air raids in which more than 30,000 tons of high explosive bombs were dropped from a variety of German aircraft (He111, Ju88, Ju87, Do17 and Do217) in 127 bombing raids across 16 cities.
The V1 and V2 bombs were not used on London until 1944; the V1 was first on June 13, and the last in mid-October when the last launcher within range of London was overrun by invasion troops. The first V2 to strike London was on September 8, 1944 and the last was 27th March 1945. They stopped because the advancing allied troops caused the launchers to be pulled back too deep into Germany to keep London in range.
Point taken :)
-
The shill argument is just lazy, and more to the point inaccurate.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. A "shill" is supposed to be a confederate of someone selling a product who masquerades as an (enthusiastic) member of the audience to excite the rest of them into buying.
But we're discussing facts, and a fact is still a fact even if it's spoken by only one person, and a falsehood is still a falsehood even if it's spoken by a thousand.
-
The V1 and V2 bombs were not used on London until 1944; the V1 was first on June 13, and the last in mid-October when the last launcher within range of London was overrun by invasion troops. The first V2 to strike London was on September 8, 1944 and the last was 27th March 1945. They stopped because the advancing allied troops caused the launchers to be pulled back too deep into Germany to keep London in range.
I missed the Blitz, but I was a baby during the V1/V2 bombardment. The house diagonally opposite on our crossroads and another at the bottom of our garden were both destroyed by V1s.
-
I actually work with NASA personnel who are paid to say things over the Internet. The dirty secret... is that it's all mundane stuff about launch this, and mission assurance that, and those kids sponsored in a robotics competition, and workforce diversity and spinoff technology and planetary science and the anniversary of Mercury x or Apollo y or Pioneer z, and so on... oddly enough, not one of them spends any time talking about Adrian or IDW or what's-his-name from Australia. But in the conspiracists' heads there's this giant 24x7x365 program to suppress them.
I guess you are in part referring to NASA's educational oureach program. NASA has produced wonderful resources and a knowledge base for the world, and talking as a UK citizen I am thankful for all their good work, whether it be high level science or outreach and the popularisation of science for younger people. Having been involved in outreach myself, children are massively engaged by space, and their imaginations run into amazing places. Sadly the UK science curriculum is dull. I wish there was a greater amount of space science and astroscience in the science we teach.
People like what's-his-name from Australia can posture all they like about their study in astrophysics and geology, but as far as I am concerned if they haven't got the grace to accept their arguments are tired and have been debunked a long time ago, then they really are missing out on the wonders that NASA has given the world. All because they can't see past their over inflated egos. More fool them.
I recall that WHNFA once described the HTS as NASA's expensive toy. For someone that is emotive about his interest in space science from an early age, it shows a remarkably partisan attitude towards NASA because he believes NASA faked the moon landing. That is what saddens me most about the whole Apollo hoax position; it's not really about Apollo, it is about NASA. I feel the anti-NASA sentiment is either borne from jealousy that these people will never be good enough to work for NASA or are are anti-US. It's probably a little bit of both if the truth be known.
-
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. A "shill" is supposed to be a confederate of someone selling a product who masquerades as an (enthusiastic) member of the audience to excite the rest of them into buying.
Several people I know refer to ourselves as shilling for my ren faire boss, in that we'll tell people about his quality merchandise at the drop of a hat--and sometimes, we'll drop the hat ourselves. But it's worth noting that I wouldn't even do that if I didn't believe it actually is quality merchandise.
-
The shill argument is just lazy, and more to the point inaccurate.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. A "shill" is supposed to be a confederate of someone selling a product who masquerades as an (enthusiastic) member of the audience to excite the rest of them into buying.
But we're discussing facts, and a fact is still a fact even if it's spoken by only one person, and a falsehood is still a falsehood even if it's spoken by a thousand.
Careful now. You've just given them a rhetorical straw to keep grabbing at.
-
Careful now. You've just given them a rhetorical straw to keep grabbing at.
They already do. We do have self-comparisons to Galileo as one of our bingo card squares, right?
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
Anyone who gets on a car and drive along the road to a place far enough away from a big city on a clear, clear, moonless night, will be ecstatic at the spectacle ... I can understand that an inhabitant of New York refuses to see the stars, but an astronaut, with the invaluable advantages enjoyed by the lack of atmosphere it says not see the stars? really?
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
No. They were asked if they remember seeing stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare, not if they saw stars in general. The asker of the question was referring to a specific experiment done. As for being guided by stars, they even mentioned in their answer about looking through the optics (I don't remember the exact phrasing).
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
The astronauts said they saw stars clearly when they were in the shadow of the Moon.
Anyone who gets on a car and drive along the road to a place far enough away from a big city on a clear, clear, moonless night, will be ecstatic at the spectacle ... I can understand that an inhabitant of New York refuses to see the stars, but an astronaut, with the invaluable advantages enjoyed by the lack of atmosphere it says not see the stars? really?
Yes, on a moonless night you can see a lot of stars. But when the astronauts travelled to the Moon it was not night time. Also, they were inside a spacecraft with the lights on so they could see what they were doing. If you are inside a lit room at night time and look out the window you will not see many stars.
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
What is the benefit of a camera on the Moon looking at the Earth? The Apollo astronauts took some photos of the Earth from the Moon, and there is some video footage of the Earth taken by the TV camera on the rovers of Apollos 15, 16 and 17. But the main purpose of TV and photo cameras on the Moon was to take images of things on the Moon.
-
"Astro-nots"? Oookay.
-
As for Armstrong not seeing stars.... From the mission transcripts.. When they entered lunar orbit and went into lunar shadow, he made this comment
071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
-
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
Covered... http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=699.0
-
"Astro-nots"? Oookay.
I believe I must go change my socks.
-
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
There are dozens of cameras in space looking at the earth every hour of every day, and they have been doing it for over fifty years. Weather, earth resources, espionage. What could a camera on the moon do that one in earth orbit couldn't do better?
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
How many stars can YOU see in daylight? Why were the optics used? You have not a clue, do you?
Anyone who gets on a car and drive along the road to a place far enough away from a big city on a clear, clear, moonless night, will be ecstatic at the spectacle ...
So what? The astronauts were not travelling anywhere on a "clear moonless night" the frakkin moon was right in front of them. Furthermore it was all in daylight. Clear frakkin' daylight from the sun. The only exception was on the farside of the moon and guess what? On the farside they could see stars and reported such.
I can understand that an inhabitant of New York refuses to see the stars, but an astronaut, with the invaluable advantages enjoyed by the lack of atmosphere it says not see the stars? really?
Two fails. Astronaut eyes are no different than any eyes and there is no difference between stars viewed from space than from stars viewed from earth to the human eye.
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth?
"astro-nots"? give me a break from that kind of failed rhetorical device. Why would they leave a camera pointing at the earth? What purpose would it serve? Wouldn't it have failed long ago?
since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost?
It's a question of purpose. What would be the purpose? To satisfy your incoherent demands? Is it your demand that a camera should have been left? To what end? What would be the scientific value of such a camera? What knowledge would it add? How could you justify such an expenditure? Is it not the case that you are applying arbitrary demands which have NO VALUE AT ALL onto a scientific endeavour just because you want to? Why should NASA agree to those arbitrary demands, given that you claim to be not American, don't live there and contribute no taxes to the effort?
Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
NASA currently has no indigenous heavy lift capacity, and so must hitch a ride with the Russians in order to reach the ISS. This does not imply that they have not in the past nor will do so in the future.
I put it to you that you so clearly have no clue what you are talking about that it is obvious to everyone, but you, that all of the crackpot notions you have propounded are complete and abject bovine fecal matter.
-
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
If I ran the zoo, there would be unicorns and dragons and other fantasy animals.
-
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors....
Care to address the idea you already raised? Or are you abandoning that point to move to this one?
-
Funny* how someone that is having to use Google Translate to post can so rapidly slip into the childish playground rhetoric favoured by YouTube hoax believers ("astro-nots", " fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times").
Your MO is fairly well known around these parts tarkus- a semi-polite first post that usually contains a half-apology, normally it along the lines of "I'm just asking questions" or "I was wondering". In your case its a version of "English is not my native language so I might not get this right". The tone rapidly changes to one of arrogance and insults when it is realised that this isn't a place populated by idiots or by people that don't know what they are talking about. It's a much different playground than YT, one populated by grown-ups who will go a long way to help with someone's understanding, but can be scathing when the same tired old hoax beliefs are trotted out. A gish-gallop of posts (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop) usually follows in an attempt to avoid having to answer the criticism of the original posts (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=864.msg29031#msg29031).
I forsee a flounce in your immediate future, tarkus. I'm just not sure whether you will implode in a spittle-flecked tantrum or just quietly disappear once you realise that the beliefs that you are clinging to have been debunked time and time again. Again, this behaviour has been observed many times on here.
Then again, I might be completely incorrect. You might realise that this place is a place where you can actually learn a lot of stuff- stuff that is a million times more intellectually satisfying than watching ridiculous YouTube hoax videos and going "hur-hur-hur. Stupid NASA astro-nots".
I bet that the former is more likely to happen than the latter though....
*Not really.
-
Funny* how someone that is having to use Google Translate to post can so rapidly slip into the childish playground rhetoric favoured by YouTube hoax believers ("astro-nots", " fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times").
<respectful snip for brevity>
This is an interesting thing. It is linguistically unlikely. Is that a term which google recognises? No. Is it a term which we see many times? Why, yes.
What conclusion may we draw from that?
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
People have beaten me to the punch (frenat), but this is one of the most misquoted parts of the astronauts testimonies. The person who asked the question was no other then Sir Patrick Moore, and he had every reason to ask the question from an astronomical perspective. He asked if they could see 'stars in the solar corona.'
Please get it right, use a full quote and not a cherry picked version, and put the quote into context.
-
Yeah, I was wondering about the "astro-not" thing, too. I'd also note that using Google translate to argue a complex scientific and historical point is not what I'd choose to do for fun. Are there no Spanish-language sites you could use instead?
-
If he were arguing from knowledge, he could use math and diagrams to make his point. So I guess we are left with some version of "fun" as the reason and apollohoax.net as the forum of last resort for such a trill seeker.
-
Yeah, I was wondering about the "astro-not" thing, too. I'd also note that using Google translate to argue a complex scientific and historical point is not what I'd choose to do for fun. Are there no Spanish-language sites you could use instead?
It is not a Spanish native speaker thing. Google is irrelevant. It is a term specific to certain individuals who are pleased to pretend to be linguistically challenged in order to promulgate their particular flavour of nonsense by means of pretending to be in possession of functionally inadequate English.
I have seen it many times and in each case, it has been a ruse. I see no reason to consider it different on this rotation of the hamster wheel.
That said, if our proponent can demonstrate anything to support anything he states then fine. So far, not a jot and on the evidence so far, I have a fair idea who this is.
-
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
The US, Russia and China have all landed unmanned spacecraft on the moon. In addition, Japan, India and the European Space Agency have launched lunar orbiters. How many of these have had cameras that pointed at Earth? To save you the research, the results are the same as for Apollo, the occasional picture had the Earth in shot, but the vast majority of pictures were taken of the Moon.
As others have already said, you can photograph the Earth much better from Earth orbit.
-
It is not a Spanish native speaker thing. Google is irrelevant. It is a term specific to certain individuals who are pleased to pretend to be linguistically challenged in order to promulgate their particular flavour of nonsense by means of pretending to be in possession of functionally inadequate English.
I have seen it many times and in each case, it has been a ruse. I see no reason to consider it different on this rotation of the hamster wheel.
I've seen it many times, too. This is far from my first rotation of the hamster wheel. My point was more, "A, that's not a term Google Translate would provide. B, why would you argue all this on a site in a language you can't speak anyway?"
-
I think you're harping too much on this. If the guy says he didn't feel comfortable writing in English, then I take him at face value. I think he did say he could read it. You don't need high proficiency in the language to read hoaxer forums and pick up the usual expressions like "astro-not" and sprinkle them into whatever you're writing in your own language. Google Translate will usually pass through as-is words it doesn't understand in the source language.
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
No. They were asked if they remember seeing stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare, not if they saw stars in general. The asker of the question was referring to a specific experiment done. As for being guided by stars, they even mentioned in their answer about looking through the optics (I don't remember the exact phrasing).
You lie, the reporter asking the question did not mention any solar corona, and this one 1970 interview Armstrong again lied by saying that the only visible objects in space are the Sun and Moon (?)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o)
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
The astronauts said they saw stars clearly when they were in the shadow of the Moon.
And why just behind the dark side? in space there is no air can scatter light as here on Earth.
Anyone who gets on a car and drive along the road to a place far enough away from a big city on a clear, clear, moonless night, will be ecstatic at the spectacle ... I can understand that an inhabitant of New York refuses to see the stars, but an astronaut, with the invaluable advantages enjoyed by the lack of atmosphere it says not see the stars? really?
Yes, on a moonless night you can see a lot of stars. But when the astronauts travelled to the Moon it was not night time. Also, they were inside a spacecraft with the lights on so they could see what they were doing. If you are inside a lit room at night time and look out the window you will not see many stars.
Of course there is no day and night as below in space, it is not necessary that you treat me like an idiot ... too weak your argument because NASA says astronauts were guided by the stars using a sextant but they deny remember seeing them not withstand scrutiny.
Also, if the problem was the lights inside the capsule ... enough to turn them off !!! and look out the window.
It is incredible to read the desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable, fly into space for a cruise of a week and not see the stars seem confession of a madman or a pathological liar.
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
What is the benefit of a camera on the Moon looking at the Earth? The Apollo astronauts took some photos of the Earth from the Moon, and there is some video footage of the Earth taken by the TV camera on the rovers of Apollos 15, 16 and 17.
And what was the benefit of playing golf on the moon?
You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space. Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.
But the main purpose of TV and photo cameras on the Moon was to take images of things on the Moon.
By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission ... on the website of Wikipedia and show the hidden side of the Moon Apollo 16, 1972:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
... And so it did in 2006 LRO:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg/640px-Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg)
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
-
There are dozens of cameras in space looking at the earth every hour of every day, and they have been doing it for over fifty years.
Photograph the Earth just 300 km altitude is like trying to portray the beauty of a woman focusing on 3 centimeters away from your skin ...
(http://st.depositphotos.com/1315854/2511/i/950/depositphotos_25119063-Human-skin-macro-picture.jpg)
Weather, earth resources, espionage. What could a camera on the moon do that one in earth orbit couldn't do better?
No satellite orbiting at a distance great enough to appreciate the full scope of the Earth, hence the utility of using the Moon as an ideal observatory. Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_west_2048.jpg)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/globe_west_2048_zpsyfsnjdii.jpg)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-29%20at%201.11.30%20AM_zpso5dhsynm.png)
Because it is much more difficult to manipulate videos while they retouch photographs are not able to equip a probe of a video system, and this despite the remarkable miniaturization respect to the Apollo era.
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
No. They were asked if they remember seeing stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare, not if they saw stars in general. The asker of the question was referring to a specific experiment done. As for being guided by stars, they even mentioned in their answer about looking through the optics (I don't remember the exact phrasing).
You lie, the reporter asking the question did not mention any solar corona, and this one 1970 interview Armstrong again lied by saying that the only visible objects in space are the Sun and Moon (?)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o)
You are completely wrong and again showing your ignorance of the subject. In the post-mission conference Patrick Moore specifically asked about the solar corona. In the Sky at night interview, Armstrong replies to a question about what he could see from the lunar surface with an answer about what he could see from the lunar surface, which was the sun and the Earth.
-
And why just behind the dark side? in space there is no air can scatter light as here on Earth.
Because there was no sun or glare from the lunar surface.
Of course there is no day and night as below in space, it is not necessary that you treat me like an idiot ...
You could give us some evidence that this isn't true...
too weak your argument because NASA says astronauts were guided by the stars using a sextant but they deny remember seeing them not withstand scrutiny.
They saw them. They referred to them a lot. They photographed them.
http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/starryskies.html
Also, if the problem was the lights inside the capsule ... enough to turn them off !!! and look out the window.
It is incredible to read the desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable, fly into space for a cruise of a week and not see the stars seem confession of a madman or a pathological liar.
They did turn them off - they turned them off to take photos of the stars, like this one:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2egbk3s.jpg)
And what was the benefit of playing golf on the moon?
You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space. Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.
Only morons are discussing the real shape of the Earth. Hey - did you know other people put satellites and astronauts up there?
By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission ... on the website of Wikipedia and show the hidden side of the Moon Apollo 16, 1972:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
... And so it did in 2006 LRO:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg/640px-Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg)
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
Really?
This is pretty desperate stuff. Go look at the India, Japanese, Russian and Chinese images and see how different they are. I can tell you why those two images are different, if you're too dumb to work it out using just Google Moon there's no point even trying to explain it.
PS - I found lots of identical craters. You just haven't looked hard enough for Tsiolkovskiy, Fermi, Litke and Delporte amongst others.
-
No satellite orbiting at a distance great enough to appreciate the full scope of the Earth, hence the utility of using the Moon as an ideal observatory. Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_west_2048.jpg)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/globe_west_2048_zpsyfsnjdii.jpg)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-29%20at%201.11.30%20AM_zpso5dhsynm.png)
If you weren't so lazy and didn't just spew up the nonsense being peddled around idiotic conspiracy sites you would actually read the information about that photograph, and you would know that it is a composite image taken over several months. No-one ever claimed it was anything else.
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723
Because it is much more difficult to manipulate videos while they retouch photographs are not able to equip a probe of a video system, and this despite the remarkable miniaturization respect to the Apollo era.
You have evidence of the Apollo photographs being retouched, obviously?
So the TV pictures they broadcast back live from Apollo showing time and date specific images of Earth are genuine? Excellent.
-
You lie, the reporter asking the question did not mention any solar corona, and this one 1970 interview Armstrong again lied by saying that the only visible objects in space are the Sun and Moon (?)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o)
Tarkus,
I hope you realise how obnoxious you are making yourself appear? There are two Sir Patrick Moore questions asked about visibility: The one that you linked and the main A11 press interview:
In the latter, Sir Patrick specifically asks about visibility in the solar corona. I'm not going to show you the exact spot- go and do your own research.
Regarding the 1970 Sky at night interview, please explain exactly what you would expect to see when stood on a high-albedo surface, in full sunlight and with an illuminated Earth disc on the sky. Please show your workings.
You are completely wrong and again showing your ignorance of the subject. In the post-mission conference Patrick Moore specifically asked about the solar corona. In the Sky at night interview, Armstrong replies to a question about what he could see from the lunar surface with an answer about what he could see from the lunar surface, which was the sun and the Earth.
Now, in your original post you were not specific and you did not qualify which interview you were referring to. To then accuse someone of lying is extremely bad mannered, especially when you did not frame your question correctly. You owe OBM an apology.
By the way, can you please answer this post?
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
And what about commenting on the other areas that you were so sure of in your original post?
- The number 13?
- The filming of Haise?
- The use of the LM motor?
- The heatshield?
Why ignore the answers that you were given on these to comment only on your erroneous interpretation of the photos of the CSM/LM stack? I wouldn't like to assume that you have now conceded the other points......I'd much rather hear you say that.
-
There are dozens of cameras in space looking at the earth every hour of every day, and they have been doing it for over fifty years.
Photograph the Earth just 300 km altitude is like trying to portray the beauty of a woman focusing on 3 centimeters away from your skin ...
Ridiculous straw man argument.
No satellite orbiting at a distance great enough to appreciate the full scope of the Earth, hence the utility of using the Moon as an ideal observatory. Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.
Please explain why the moon would make an "ideal observatory". Detail your workings out on maintenance of equipment, data transfer speeds and the science that would make such a location "ideal".
Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.
But then, you'd distrust the images from your "ideal" Lunar observatory too.... ::)
Because it is much more difficult to manipulate videos while they retouch photographs are not able to equip a probe of a video system, and this despite the remarkable miniaturization respect to the Apollo era.
Excellent. To reiterate OBM's point, you have no problem with the video from the Moon and the Apollo videos are exactly as described.
-
It is incredible to read the desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable, fly into space for a cruise of a week and not see the stars seem confession of a madman or a pathological liar.
Except of course for all the photographs that were taken of the stars during the Apollo 16 mission. You seem not to regard these as important. Why?
-
You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space.
What would you expect to see in a live video feed of the Earth from lunar distance?
Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.
Morons will always debate it, because there will always be a portion of the population who refuse to accept what is right in front of them. Why would a live feed counter this fringe movement when literally thousands of images of the Earth from deep space doesn't?
By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission
Yes, do you really not understand that the view of a spherical object will be different depending on where it is taken from?
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
Show your rigorous work to show that not one single crater matches up, taking into account illumination angle, position of the camera, and so on.
-
You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space. Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.
For clarity tarkus, are you one of the raving loonies people who claim that the Earth is flat, or are you just using one of their forums as source material?
I ask because the post below would suggest that you cannot understand that an oblate sphere will show different aspects when photographs of it are taken from different positions. You have already shown that you have a clear problem in understanding perspective (the CSM stack)...should we add this to the list of things that you can't get your head around (you and hunchbacked would make a fine pair in this regard!)
By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission ... on the website of Wikipedia and show the hidden side of the Moon Apollo 16, 1972:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
... And so it did in 2006 LRO:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg/640px-Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg)
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures.
Because both are FALSE.
Just because you say something it doesn't follow that it is the case.
-
But the main purpose of TV and photo cameras on the Moon was to take images of things on the Moon.
By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission ... on the website of Wikipedia and show the hidden side of the Moon Apollo 16, 1972:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
... And so it did in 2006 LRO:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg/640px-Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg)
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
WRONG. They are harder to match because one shows the entire back side and the other shows part of the front and is rotated.
But they do match.
-
Weather, earth resources, espionage. What could a camera on the moon do that one in earth orbit couldn't do better?
No satellite orbiting at a distance great enough to appreciate the full scope of the Earth, hence the utility of using the Moon as an ideal observatory. Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_west_2048.jpg)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/globe_west_2048_zpsyfsnjdii.jpg)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c22/groovejedi/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-29%20at%201.11.30%20AM_zpso5dhsynm.png)
Because it is much more difficult to manipulate videos while they retouch photographs are not able to equip a probe of a video system, and this despite the remarkable miniaturization respect to the Apollo era.
so weather satellites don't exist now? Are you going to claim the Earth is flat next? Are you one of those types of hoaxies?
I love how the hoaxies love to show the SAME photo of Earth to prove cloned clouds in ALL photos. All you've proven is the clouds are the same in that ONE photo.
-
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
Wrong.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/1830/lymA8n.jpg)
They aren't particularly hard to match. 10 minutes with Virtual Moon Atlas (http://www.ap-i.net/avl/en/start) did the job
Can you now retract your assertion tarkus? Or do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong?
-
My apologies...there is a typo in the graphic above. "Otswald" should read "Ostwald"
-
, it is not necessary that you treat me like an idiot ...
If you don't want to be considered an idiot, don't act like one.
-
, it is not necessary that you treat me like an idiot ...
If you don't want to be considered an idiot, don't act like one.
He/she has a bit of a thin hide, doesn't he/she? Getting all butt-hurty but no too sensitive not to insult others....
You lie,
so absurd I can only laugh
We believe that the astro-nots ...
Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
-
o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?
The astronauts said they saw stars clearly when they were in the shadow of the Moon.
And why just behind the dark side? in space there is no air can scatter light as here on Earth.
The Sun was visible. The cabin lights were on. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to sunlight. Stars are much fainter than the Sun.
Anyone who gets on a car and drive along the road to a place far enough away from a big city on a clear, clear, moonless night, will be ecstatic at the spectacle ... I can understand that an inhabitant of New York refuses to see the stars, but an astronaut, with the invaluable advantages enjoyed by the lack of atmosphere it says not see the stars? really?
Yes, on a moonless night you can see a lot of stars. But when the astronauts travelled to the Moon it was not night time. Also, they were inside a spacecraft with the lights on so they could see what they were doing. If you are inside a lit room at night time and look out the window you will not see many stars.
Of course there is no day and night as below in space, it is not necessary that you treat me like an idiot ... too weak your argument because NASA says astronauts were guided by the stars using a sextant but they deny remember seeing them not withstand scrutiny.
When the astronauts looked through the sextant they saw only a tiny fraction of the sky. This greatly reduced the amount of sunlight affecting their vision.
They did not deny seeing the stars. They reported seeing lots of stars when they were in the shadow of the Moon.
Also, if the problem was the lights inside the capsule ... enough to turn them off !!! and look out the window.
It is incredible to read the desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable, fly into space for a cruise of a week and not see the stars seem confession of a madman or a pathological liar.
Yes, they could turn off the lights if they wanted. On occasions they did. I believe Ken Mattingly was one who did this while orbiting the Moon alone on Apollo 16, while in the Moon's shadow.
You keep saying the astronauts denied EVER seeing stars. They did not say this. They spoke of times when they could not see stars and of other times when they could.
We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.
What is the benefit of a camera on the Moon looking at the Earth? The Apollo astronauts took some photos of the Earth from the Moon, and there is some video footage of the Earth taken by the TV camera on the rovers of Apollos 15, 16 and 17.
And what was the benefit of playing golf on the moon?
It was a five minute piece of entertainment from an astronaut who liked to play golf. The cost was one golf club head and two golf balls. This is much cheaper than a camera designed to film the Earth from the Moon. It also graphically demonstrated the effect of the Moon's lower gravity in terms many people could immediately understand.
You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space. Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.
In some ways watching the Earth from the Moon would be boring to ordinary people. It wouldn't move, and it would take a month to complete a cycle from Full Earth to New Earth to Full Earth. And from the distance of the Moon there wouldn't be much detail.
-
From the moon, the Earth is only TWO DEGREES of the sky - four times the diameter of the Moon seen from Earth.
-
From the moon, the Earth is only TWO DEGREES of the sky - four times the diameter of the Moon seen from Earth.
Or about the width of two fingernails held at arms length. I can't see how that would make for much of an interesting view!
I'm sure that tarkus will be along any moment to tell why a lunar-surface-based Earth observatory would be such a great idea.... ::)
-
Don't hold your breath. Or postpone your dinner. Or stop planning for a vacation.
-
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
Are you claiming LRO is fake too?