Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

reply to post by wmd_2008


You seem to be missing our points about star image appearance, parallax and the High Precision Collecting Satellite entirely. We suggest you read about the Hipparcos effort and we ourselves will move on for now. Happy to entertain questions or objections of merit.

We assume others recognize what we have discovered. Perhaps we should say we assume others recognize the significance of what we have just revealed.

We both find it interesting that we have not found any commentary by the astronauts to the effect that the sun appeared whiter as of course it would from the moon. The yellowing ot the sun is due to atmospheric loss of blue light. We believe the astronauts tactfully avoided this topic. Of course it would have been easy for them to say the sun looked more white, but then they have opened up a can of worms.

reply to post by HomeyDevincenzi

You seem to be missing our points about star image appearance, parallax and the High Precision Collecting Satellite entirely. We suggest you read about the Hipparcos effort and we ourselves will move on for now. Happy to entertain questions or objections of merit.

Stars appear as points of light. Period. In an atmosphere, they scintillate; in space, they do not. The astronauts never describe the stars as "twinkling," do they? As for parallax, that can be measured adequately from Earth using adaptive optics. Most importantly for the point you and ebastogne are trying to make together, it is irrelevant for navigational purposes. Even the distance from the Earth to the Moon is too short of a baseline for stellar parallaxes to measured, so no precision in missile targeting is to be gained by using stellar parallaxes in targeting or navigation. Stellar astronomy would not help the US "vaporize the Bolshoi." *

We assume others recognize what we have discovered. Perhaps we should say we assume others recognize the significance of what we have just revealed.

If not, you can provide them, as "ebastogne" provided you.

We both find it interesting that we have not found any commentary by the astronauts to the effect that the sun appeared whiter as of course it would from the moon. The yellowing ot the sun is due to atmospheric loss of blue light. We believe the astronauts tactfully avoided this topic. Of course it would have been easy for them to say the sun looked more white, but then they have opened up a can of worms.

When working outside the spacecraft, they wore gold plated visors to reduce their exposure to ultra-violet radiation. What end of the spectrum would a gold filter leave, Patrick?

*Vaporizing The Bolshoi

Originally posted by HomeyDevincenzi
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You seem to be missing our points about star image appearance, parallax and the High Precision Collecting Satellite entirely. We suggest you read about the Hipparcos effort and we ourselves will move on for now. Happy to entertain questions or objections of merit.

We assume others recognize what we have discovered. Perhaps we should say we assume others recognize the significance of what we have just revealed.

We both find it interesting that we have not found any commentary by the astronauts to the effect that the sun appeared whiter as of course it would from the moon. The yellowing ot the sun is due to atmospheric loss of blue light. We believe the astronauts tactfully avoided this topic. Of course it would have been easy for them to say the sun looked more white, but then they have opened up a can of worms.

There has been a lot of new accounts in the last few days/weeks on here on certain threads I wonder how many are the same person ? Do you honestly think it would have been safe for the Astronauts to look at the Sun.

As for what others should do there is a nice 672 page thread on here regarding the Moon hoax and all the excuses you guys claim are debunked so why don't you spend a few days/weeks there reading then come back!

It's easy to find!

This thread spins off in so many directions and highly polarized, the funny thing is both sides debunk themselves and goes on for pages, one person says something and next post the other prooves in wrong and goes on and on. Couldn't it be solved more easily,,, if we went to the moon then we left our "footprints" so to speak, literally and figuratively with junk, ie flags and modules etc.. Also they placed a mirror lazer receptor thing on the moon to recieve lasers from earth to accurately measure the moons distance from earth, correct??? How hard would it be to look into a powerful telescope and see what we left on the earth and send a beam to that mirror on the moon?

I dont know if its possible but if we can see at a galaxy scale couldnt we zoom in on where we landed and have that as proof? It seems the simplest way to end these debates?

reply to post by Mystic Vibes

This thread spins off in so many directions and highly polarized, the funny thing is both sides debunk themselves and goes on for pages, one person says something and next post the other prooves in wrong and goes on and on. Couldn't it be solved more easily,,, if we went to the moon then we left our "footprints" so to speak, literally and figuratively with junk, ie flags and modules etc.. Also they placed a mirror lazer receptor thing on the moon to recieve lasers from earth to accurately measure the moons distance from earth, correct??? How hard would it be to look into a powerful telescope and see what we left on the earth and send a beam to that mirror on the moon?

I dont know if its possible but if we can see at a galaxy scale couldnt we zoom in on where we landed and have that as proof? It seems the simplest way to end these debates?

The laser retro-reflectors are in constant use. They are certainly there, but hoax believers discard this fact for any number of arbitrary reasons. The landing sites have been photographed by a number of lunar orbiters, but the believers reject these images as well. For technical reasons, an Earth based optical telescope could not resolve the landing sites adequately. In theory, a long baseline optical interferometer might be able to do so, but if such an attempt were made, there is no reason to believe that the hoax proponents would alter their pattern of behavior by accepting the results.

That video could likely be one of the most damning pieces of footage ever leaked.

I didnt have time to read the entire thread or research further into this subject, but what is your or the general consensus concerning the van hallen radiation belts? thats the next most intriguing issue im pondering.. with that in mind on behalf of the hoaxer proponents the fact that we can't even make such a simple verification Im afraid adds to their case, expecially after all this time if we cant see where weve beenafter all these decades how could we have gotten there in the first place? Hopefully oneday home telescopes can validate such!! Surely that would lay to rest any debate.

About the satelites zooming in a zero point bypassin atmospheric distortion? I would like to see some images if you know of them.

For whats its worth I believe we did land, however I am open minded enough to view contrary evidence in an objective manner, if signficant enough

Originally posted by r2d246
That video could likely be one of the most damning pieces of footage ever leaked.

The "leaked" footage was debunked in the first few pages of this thread.

reply to post by Mystic Vibes

Djwoo1~ thanks for your quick response, i didnt have time to read the entire thread or research further into this subject, but what is your or the general consensus concerning the van hallen radiation belts?

The Van Halen Belt, though nasty, does not seem to pose a threat to astronauts:



The Van Allen Belts do pose health problems if an astronaut is exposed to them for a length of time. Radiation exposure is a function of the intensity of the radiation over the time exposed. The astronauts did not spend much time traveling through them.

thats the next most intriguing issue im pondering.. with that in mind on behalf of the hoaxer proponents the fact that we can't even make such a simple verification Im afraid adds to their case, expecially after all this time if we cant see where weve beenafter all these decades how could we have gotten there in the first place? How about a satelite zooming in a zero point to bypass atmospheric distortion?

But such verification exists:



Hoax believers reject it on the grounds that it is impossible to send things to the Moon, therefore such verification must be impossible.

For whats its worth I believe we did land, however I am open mindedenough to view contrary evidence in an objective manner, if signficant enough..

The hoax believers have yet to present any actual evidence. They dismiss the documentation as fabricated, then speculate. They have yet to find any evidence that supports their speculation.

Originally posted by azbowhunter
I love all of the astronauts that we have here. How nice of them to come here and post their expert knowledge on every conceivable topic known to man that has to do with space.

Has anyone here really been in outer space and are speaking of 'experienced knowledge' or are you only reciting from books that you like a lot?

Seriously, so many experts on space, history, politics, religion, etc. Yet so much time spent on a forum.

Almost can't stand to read the posts on most of these threads anymore.

No, no real astronauts on these forums. But you may have noticed that there are a lot of PC chair astronauts and physicists here. some of these guys would of proved the world to be flat back in the day.

Thanks again for replying, very informative and balanced with a bit of humor, well deserved on my part of mispelling. I can see why your post and flag ratio is so high, highest ive seen as of yet, so ill add you a friend too if you dont mind. But from the top of your head can you elaborate on the van halen belt at all? I dont understand why people would make it such an issue if it can be discarded so easily, ie an example from john lear says its impossible to go past such an artificial barrier, but how can it be natural... im not lazy so ill research after this post but im curious on your take nonetheless..

also it seems you grabbed my post before i edited it, any chance you could re-read my post and see if you would answer differently... in any case i appreciate it and am as of yet a believer we landed.

reply to post by Mystic Vibes

Thanks again for replying

You're welcome.

But from the top of your head can you elaborate on the van halen belt at all? I dont understand why people would make it such an issue if it can be discarded so easily, ie an example from john lear says its impossible to go past such an artificial barrier, but how can it be natural... im not lazy so ill research after this post but im curious on your take nonetheless..

People make much of the Van Allen Belts for a number of reasons. Most people do not understand the nature of radiation or the way it affects living organisms. Compounding this, much disinformation, both positive and negative, has been disseminated for purely political reasons. Between a nuclear power industry that wishes to minimize the very real risks of nuclear power plants and Neo-Luddites who are opposed to any technology developed in the 20th Century (other than the Internet) it is difficult to find simple, objective and relatively non-technical information. Because of the terrible effects of the bombing of Japanese cities during WWII, most people associate radiation exposure with the lethal consequences of uncontrolled nuclear fission: gamma radiation, intense heat, and radioactive particles that can be inhaled and ingested over many years.

People fear radiation, not without reason, and some people consciously exploit this fear. That is why it is such a popular talking point. As I have explained, as simply as possible, the type of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts is not gamma radiation, but much milder particle radiation. The spacecraft's aluminum construction blocked all of the alpha and most of the beta radiation. Because radiation exposure is cumulative, if they had spent several days passing through it, they might have absorbed enough beta radiation to damage their cells. As it was, they passed through quickly enough for their cells to repair the damage.

also it seems you grabbed my post before i edited it, any chance you could re-read my post and see if you would answer differently... in any case i appreciate it and am as of yet a believer we landed.

My answer remains the same, although I want to emphasize the difference between evidence and speculation. In order for speculation to be anything more than pure imagination, it requires evidence. Simply rejecting evidence that does not support one's speculation is not, in itself, evidence.

reply to post by HomeyDevincenzi


Not sure I fully understand the parallax point. But the general topic you broached of course is most important. For example atmospheric refraction alters star position by as much as half a degree. And then there would be aberration to contend with. Including that problem with the ship traveling at roughly 25,000 mph away from the earth. So the star charts and images generally would need to be so adjusted. You have good points could you go on. What do you think of my ideas about refraction and aberration. Perhaps we can finally crack this open Homey.

reply to post by DJW001


Great, so the VH belt really isnt an issue in space travel so any barriers to entry I thought existed is a mere fallacy. What i was refering to about rereading my post was about what would convince the most avid disbelievers, namely a home telescope capable of verifying without a shadow of the doubt proof of our "footprints" on the moon verifiable by anyone, when technology advances to such a stage wouldnt any contrary notions fall along the wayside. Just how far are we from that date, if you would happen to know - or any others. How close can we zoom in to the moon from regular scopes and outer atmospheric presently and if not sufficient, how much further does the tech need to go to erase any doubt.

the photo you showed me was very intersting but still blurry and that was taken outside our atmosphere? Can't you see that shining golden apple of proof just isnt there for non believers - by definition i mean self validfication- to verify by oneselves means via home telescope.. by in and by all, the photos the beam scans, cant they be falisfied in light of the effort original consumed by first, supposively faking moon landings, what is that compared to some photos and data recieved?
I guess Im beings selfish and want all my questions answered at once.. again I think we landed, but can objectively reason why others would question it... peace

reply to post by Mystic Vibes

Great, so the VH belt really isnt an issue in space travel so any barriers to entry I thought existed is a mere fallacy. What i was refering to about rereading my post was about what would convince the most avid disbelievers, namely a home telescope capable of verifying without a shadow of the doubt proof of our "footprints" on the moon verifiable by anyone, when technology advances to such a stage wouldnt any contrary notions fall along the wayside. Just how far are we from that date, if you would happen to know - or any others. How close can we zoom in to the moon presently and if not sufficient, how much further does the tech need to go to erase any doubt.

I did not say that radiation is no barrier; I said that the Van Allen Belts are not as hazardous as some make them out to be. The length of exposure to the general cosmic background radiation during a trip to Mars that could last for years is potentially very hazardous. A number of factors limit the resolution of telescopes on the Earth's surface. I won't speculate whether or not they can be overcome. In any event, no matter how advanced the tech may get, some people will reject any evidence that does confirm their beliefs.

the photo you showed me was very intersting but still blurry and that was taken outside our atmosphere? Can't you see that shining golden apple of proof just isnt there for non believers - by definition i mean self validfication- to verify by oneselves means via home telescope.. by in and by all, the photos the beam scans, cant they be falisfied in light of the effort original consumed by first, supposively faking moon landings, what is that compared to some photos and data recieved?

The image I posted is from a probe in low lunar orbit, well above the Earth's atmosphere.

I guess Im beings selfish and want all my questions answered at once.. again I think we landed, but can objectively reason why others would question it... peace

Anything can and should be questioned, even the "evidence" of one's own sight.

reply to post by ebastogne

Not sure I fully understand the parallax point. But the general topic you broached of course is most important. For example atmospheric refraction alters star position by as much as half a degree. And then there would be aberration to contend with. Including that problem with the ship traveling at roughly 25,000 mph away from the earth. So the star charts and images generally would need to be so adjusted. You have good points could you go on. What do you think of my ideas about refraction and aberration. Perhaps we can finally crack this open Homey.

Glad to see your English has improved. Atmospheric refraction is slightly more than one half degree on the horizon. That is why navigators will not shoot a star that is lower than 20 degrees elevation, as that expert navigator "decisively" could attest... were he not banned. The parallax of the distant stars between the Earth and Moon is so slight as to be irrelevant, and as the velocity of the spacecraft is far from relativistic, aberration does not enter into the equation. Unfortunately, your homey "Homey" will not be able to continue this discussion. Check your other mailbox. Your sock puppet has been banned.

reply to post by DJW001


Sorry, my fault. What i was refering to as a barrier to entry was an absolutely impassalbe realms up to 24k miles outside of earths atmosphere known as the van halen belt( according to some theorists), if this isnt the case then the barrier to entry is in fact passalbe thereby isnt a barrier to entry, as i would define it, though harmful. If a 1960's tin can trespass cross this then it isnt a barrier rather a guidepost to caution, pardom any laxity>> so that aside, concerning my previous post in this thread, come the tech to disproove doubt. peace

Of course aberration is important consideration. Bradleys first important star charts took aberration into account and he didnt even know about relativity. I would defer to the others regarding quantification but of course aberration and refraction would need to be considered when making a star chart for astronauts. The previous poster I do not believe was refering to star parallax but the movement of the earths and the moons images against a background of stars not to mention the atmospheric consideration. Outstanding points all. See Alan Hirsshfields book Parallax.

Just checked the numbers. Aberration might account for a 20 arcsecond difference. This would be detectable by an observant astronomer amateaur. IT looks as though the Homey guy is busting this thing open. Complimenti Homey you are what we call a hustler!

reply to post by Mystic Vibes

What i was refering to as a barrier to entry was an absolutely impassalbe realms up to 24k miles outside of earths atmosphere known as the van halen belt( according to some theorists)

Eddie doesn't usually wear a belt and I don't think he leaves the atmosphere though according to some he may.