Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
...They will really hate this image! member jra beat me to making this one and posting it.




Top part from dac film camera as Apollo 17 left the moon!!
Bottom LRO image of the Apollo 17 site
Compare the tracks !!!!! and object positions

All the object positions are recorded and photographed on the moon.

I never saw that comparison before. That's good stuff! Those footprints in the LRO picture are spot-on relative to the Apollo 17 DAC film frame.

Thanks jra and wmd.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by wmd_2008
...They will really hate this image! member jra beat me to making this one and posting it.




Top part from dac film camera as Apollo 17 left the moon!!
Bottom LRO image of the Apollo 17 site
Compare the tracks !!!!! and object positions

All the object positions are recorded and photographed on the moon.

I never saw that comparison before. That's good stuff! Those footprints in the LRO picture are spot-on relative to the Apollo 17 DAC film frame.

Thanks jra and wmd.

edit on 6/2/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Also they are almost 40 years apart as well, jra beat me to making that as soon as I saw the LRO shot I wanted to do that as someone had posted the Apollo 17 dac film in a video when trying to prove Apollo was a hoax how ironic!!!

Nice Hollywood Movie...Staring Buz Aldrin
And
Real EXOPOLITICS
exopolitics.blogs.com...

reply to post by NorthStargal52


That movie (The Dark Side of the Moon) was made as a satire/"Mockumentary" -- i.e, it is intentionally meant to look real, but in actuality be a joke. It was first shown on April 1, 2002 (April Fools Day).

One of the things that should tip you off are some of the names of the supposed "real" people being interviewed -- Dave Bowman, Dimitri Muffley, and Jack Torrance are names of characters from other Stanley Kubrick movies (2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, and The Shining, respectively). Other people and places named in the film that are supposed to be real are characters and places found in Alfred Hitchcock fiction movies about intrigue/conspiracies.

The are parts of that "Mockumentary" (if you watch the whole thing) the are meant to be absurdly funny -- and they are (such as Kubrick's picture "left on the Moon" as seen in Apolloi photos).

The bottom line is that the people who made The Dark Side of the Moon were not entirely serious.

As far as that guy that had a problem with the moon rover, I wonder if he ever bothered to view a control group of videos, namely the earth test videos of the lunar rover in tests. I found three such videos of tests in the desert, (I shall try to relocate and link). It looked nothing like it did on the moon, it was firmly attached too the ground, never lifting a single wheel, not even bouncing around like it did on the moon.

Noticeably quite different than the moon rover videos, clear to see.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
That movie (The Dark Side of the Moon) was made as a satire/"Mockumentary" -- i.e, it is intentionally meant to look real, but in actuality be a joke. It was first shown on April 1, 2002 (April Fools Day).

Sorry Northstargal...........in soccer we call that "scoring an own goal"..........and you've just scored a biggie!

reply to post by AQuestion


We were not returning to the Moon for no reason, and with no plan. We had a plan, called Constellation. The motto of Constellation was "Moon, Mars and Beyond". The idea was to use the Moon, which is relatively close in case of problems, as a place to develop, test and evaluate technologies that we'll need for Mars and other very long duration deep space missions. This would include advance life support systems incorporating growing plants; protection against cosmic radiation and solar flares; new rocket engines using methane, a fuel which could be manufactured on Mars; space suits and vehicles that can survive heavy usage for months an years, not hours. Those are just a few of Constellation's goals. Unfortunately, Constellation was cancelled by Obama after billions had been spent.

You may have heard NASA announce a "new" spacecraft called the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) that will supposedly take us to Mars. The MPCV is nothing more than the renamed Orion capsule, the only remaining vestige of Constellation, which is reluctantly being developed due to congressional mandate. Anything you've seen in the media about the MPCV taking us to Mars is a bald-faced lie. How do I know? Due to orbital mechanics a typical Mars mission takes about 21 months to complete and MPCV can only operate 21 days. It only has about 1/5th the habitable volume of the Space Shuttle. It's too small for long duration spaceflight.

If I was feeling generous, I'd say that NASA means that one day, far from now, the Ori...I mean MPCV, could transport astronauts to the actual Mars vehicle, then transport them back to Earth when they return. The reason they aren't making this clear is to obfuscate the fact that the Obama administration has killed American manned spaceflight, and they point at a shiny future far enough away that they don't have to worry about actually making it happen.


I

reply to post by astroroach

Under the original Constellation Program plan (before it was scrapped by the President) the Mars cruise vehicle would be built in orbit and be quite large -- built from multiple pieces like the space station was built. In the case of a Mars trip, the Orion/MPCV was ONLY going to shuttle the astronauts to and from this cruise vehicle built in orbit -- it was never meant to go to Mars.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Let me clarify my own post above:

The "manned mission to Mars" portion of the Constellation Program was yet unfunded and decades away, but they were in the early stages of planning such a trip, using a ship built in Earth's orbit, like I said above.

reply to post by consigliere


We have per today been to both moon and mars(Buzz Aldrin were one of the lucky few to actually be apart of that.),we also have stationed another base on a different "rock".

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BTW.....What About The Photos From Lunar Orbit??

OF the Apollo equipment on the Moon? And, the evident disturbance in the ground, from the Astronauts' movements?? It is clearly evident, for all to see.

The goal posts keep getting moved by the hoax believers.

It used to be "show me pictures of the equipment on the Moon", but now that those pictures have been presented, it's "those pictures aren't enough -- I need more proof"

I assume no matter what information is presented, hoax believers will continue to move the goal posts, and will continue to disbelieve. Some will NEVER believe information provided by others, even if that information is logically and scientifically sound. I think the only way some will believe that the Apollo Program took humans to the Moon is if they themselves were taken to the Moon and personally shown the equipment.

Even then they may claim it was planted there recently -- well after 1969-1972. We do seem to be headed for that. Considering all the goal post moving exhibited by hoax believers, we hypothetically seem to be heading for a time that a hoax believer who is taken to the Moon and personally sees the Apollo equipment on the Moon would probably say "That's nice -- now prove to me it wasn't just put there recently".

edit on 5/31/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

The thing about goalpost-movers is that if you ask them for what they would consider unquestionable proof, they don't answer. Because they've never thought about it, and/or don't want to. Alternately, they come up with some absurd standard that is extremely unlikely, like 9/11 Truthers wanting to be allowed to conduct an independent investigation with gov't funding.

reply to post by Logical one


I love it when the self-proclaimed skeptics can't do even basic fact-checking. In another thread, one promptly tried to claim it was an actual documentary. Even the other HBs told him he was making an idiot of himself as he desperately tried to prop up his use of the thing as proof.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Thanks for making explicit what I was trying to get at, which is that NASA is trumpeting the MPCV as a spacecraft that can take us to Mars, when in fact it will just transport the astronauts between Earth and the real Mars spacecraft. Oh wait, there is no real Mars spacecraft. And no plans for one. And certainly no budget for one.

reply to post by Archirvion

While reading this article on NASA's new deep space exploration spacecraft.
Article
A pretty cool article in itself

One quote jumped right out at me,,,

"We are committed to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and look forward to developing the next generation of systems to take us there," NASA adminstrator Charlie Bolden said in a statement.



If I'm not mistaken this implies we have never been beyond low Earth orbit! Which to me speaks volumes regarding our "moon missions". I personally don't believe we have.

Now don't get me wrong I'm a conspiracy theorist to the heart, and maybe I'm reading too much into this,,,,or am I? What do you think?

What happend to this topic? we went from this to mars to everything and forgot the topic....Back in line....
lol
["We are committed to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and look forward to developing the next generation of systems to take us there," NASA adminstrator Charlie Bolden said in a statement.)

reply to post by awcgs

The "first generation" was 6 short trips to the surface of the Moon (and two lunar orbital missions).

The goal of the "next generation" is the establishment of a long term presence. Something which presents a great range of additional and difficult challenges.

I'm sure this has been posted 467 times in this thread already, but there is a mirror on the moon which was put up there during one of the missions there. Astronomers can shine lasers onto that mirror, and by measuring the time it takes for the laser beam to leave the spot, bounce off the mirror, and return, they can measure the moon's distance from the Earth. We definitely traveled to the moon, and many of the arguments used by the people who believe the moon landing was faked (me being one of them at one point) are completely flawed, such as the "flag blowing in the wind" or "no stars in the background" argument, just to name a few. Sorry if I've repeated anything that's been said in this thread, I'm just too lazy to read through the whole thing.

reply to post by TupacShakur


You have not repeated anything that is not worth part of the proof that the hoax believers brush off as being placed by robots, while at the same time site that Russia was 2 decades ahead of NASA in remote robotics, but fail to site that Russia was a decade behind the US in 'landing', or bringing back safely to Earth, or powered/soft landing on the moon. It gets really circular and it all comes down to misinterpretations of publicly released photos and videos as their real basis of argument, and/or saying they were faked, and they are hiding things, even though Russia being so far ahead of NASA never disputes the missions, also tracked by thousands of private astronomers I'm sure NASA hasn't reached to 'pay off'.

BTW, where are all of the Russian moon photos at? Are they any good? Are they real?

The real crux of their arguments come from not believing anything that doesn't support their views, it all can be casually explained away. Just ask them to scientifically explain anything, and the subject changes. They feed off of the casual reader and lazy researchers, and basically people with zero knowledge in the fields of study.

I always get 'It Looks Like', or 'Explain This', as the basis of their evidence they have nothing but questions about, and zero evidence to counter with, or even to understand an explanation so why bother? If it keeps them off the streets from actually physically harming people then its a win/win, because they most certainly aren't spending their time in a laboratory.

NASA is the only space agency that ever took men beyond LEO, and that is another reason the hoax believers say it never happened, as well as their misunderstanding of big words like Van Allen belts, which they totally don't understand, let alone understanding radiation in general. They continue arguments asking you to do research for them and simply tell you you can't believe MSM as their signature counter.

When one can make stuff up as one goes along, one is guaranteed to never lose a debate, huh?

What I want explained, is how Eddie survives those Van Halen belts!

Originally posted by Illustronic
BTW, where are all of the Russian moon photos at? Are they any good? Are they real?

Here you go.

Excellent post, btw!