Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
It was not possible to reach that depth before 2012, and only shows how Trieste was a sham.

and going by your argument we should be using manned crafts to explore the ocean floor, not unmanned drones..

but i would dearly like to see the technological limitation for why the trieste was impossible also..

We ARE planning to send manned craft to the ocean floor, in fact...

Several other manned expeditions are planned. These include:[34]

Triton Submarines, a Florida based company that designs and manufactures private submarines, whose vehicle, Triton 36000/3, will carry a crew of three to the seabed in 120 minutes;

Virgin Oceanic, sponsored by Richard Branson's Virgin Group, is developing a submersible designed by Graham Hawkes, DeepFlight Challenger,[36] with which the solo pilot will take 140 minutes to reach the seabed;

DOER Marine, a San Francisco Bay Area based marine technology company established in 1992, that is developing a vehicle, Deepsearch (and Ocean Explorer HOV Unlimited), with some support from Google's Eric Schmidt with which a crew of two or three will take 90 minutes to reach the seabed, as the program Deep Search.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hmm...so Trieste did it in 1960, and never sent an unmanned craft first. They sent humans right away, just like Apollo sent humans to the moon right away, no other life forms needed, to test it first.

Anyway, after the Trieste, they never even ATTEMPTED to send a manned craft for the next 52 years.

Hey, guess what though? We sent UNmanned craft there, in 1995, 1996, 1998, and in 2009. Why would they not send humans out? Think really hard...

A MANNED craft did it (for the, ahem, SECOND time..) in 2012.

And guess what? Since the, er, SECOND manned descent, they've been planning MORE manned descents! What a remarkable coincidence, since we've OBVIOUSLY been able to do it since 1960, right!


If you still don't have a clue about the Trieste being a fraud, I can't help you. It can't get more bloody obvious, even a moron would grasp it by now.

But, since you have another agenda, I'm sure we'll get your latest, lamest excuses ...

a reply to: turbonium1

Anyway, after the Trieste, they never even ATTEMPTED to send a manned craft for the next 52 years.

There have been continual deep ocean expeditions since Trieste. None to the Challenger Deep, but so what? There's not a lot of reason to go down there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Anyway, after the Trieste, they never even ATTEMPTED to send a manned craft for the next 52 years.

There have been continual deep ocean expeditions since Trieste. None to the Challenger Deep, but so what? There's not a lot of reason to go down there.

Sure, just like we all know there's not a lot of reason to 'return' to the moon again!!

As I said, they ARE planning to go again. Why would they plan to do other descents NOW, right after the 2012 mission, while they never tried a single descent over the previous 52 years? Any idea? Not a hard one, really.

The ALSJ section on Apollo 12 has the mission report, which discusses ground disturbance by the LM engine, footpads and contact probes during landing, and also several photographs showing how the ground was 'plume swept' and disturbed by the LM feet. So much for 'no evidence'. Google is your friend.

Crass knee-jerk denialism of deep sea exploration belongs in another thread.

a reply to: turbonium1

Any idea? Not a hard one, really.

Not hard at all.

The entrepreneurs now at the forefront of manned deep-ocean exploration don’t justify their projects in terms of benefits to science. Some, like Welsh, say they’d like to investigate the bizarre life-forms in the dark deeps and the geological forces that undergird the Earth’s mantle. But the motivations also have to do with thrills, ego, bragging rights, and the possibility of a financial return in the future. If all goes well with Virgin Oceanic’s solo sub, the company plans to build a two-seater to hold a tourist in addition to a pilot.

spectrum.ieee.org...

Speaking of bragging rights, was Steve Fosset a fake too?
Here, I'll help:
en.wikipedia.org...

How about this guy?
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
It was not possible to reach that depth before 2012, and only shows how Trieste was a sham.

and going by your argument we should be using manned crafts to explore the ocean floor, not unmanned drones..

but i would dearly like to see the technological limitation for why the trieste was impossible also..

We ARE planning to send manned craft to the ocean floor, in fact...

double standards...

we ARE planning to send manned craft to lunar orbit/asteroid/mars, in fact...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
India saw 'footpaths', right!

These footpaths were made by two guys who walked back and forth, over and over and over again, for no reason. But it created a path of footprints so incredibly massive in scale that it's even visible from lunar orbit!

The Great Wall of China can't be seen from Earth orbit....so that's quite an amazing footpath!!

ah yes the footprints are visible purely due to size and NOT from the differences from disturbed and undisturbed ground..

GENIUS.. just an absolute genius in the making here

If you think it takes a genius to realize that two guys walking back and forth a few times do not leave 'footpaths', that look like massive trenches from orbit, that's fine. But it is just common sense.

Here's one of the 'footpath' images, with their description...

do you know how shadows work by any chance?? like say if i compare the shadows of a uniform surface with the shadows of a recently disturbed surface on the same uniform surface which do you think would have more obvious shadows??

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The ALSJ section on Apollo 12 has the mission report, which discusses ground disturbance by the LM engine, footpads and contact probes during landing, and also several photographs showing how the ground was 'plume swept' and disturbed by the LM feet. So much for 'no evidence'. Google is your friend.

Saying the ground was 'plume swept' is your idea of 'evidence'? That's utterly ridiculous!

I've asked you to show me ANY images, supposedly taken by the astronauts on the lunar surface, SPECIFICALLY of the disturbed soil around the LM, which match the LRO images of that same region.

A darker area is said to be under the LM, which extends outward beyond the LM for a few yards. I'd like you to show me this darker area in ANY of the Apollo 12 images, within the ALSJ. (Another region, adjacent to the darker one, is also mentioned. But let's just consider the darker region, for now...)

The darker region supposedly extends a few yards beyond the LM. We have many Apollo images of this area, but NONE of them show a darker region.

No way, no how.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
It was not possible to reach that depth before 2012, and only shows how Trieste was a sham.

and going by your argument we should be using manned crafts to explore the ocean floor, not unmanned drones..

but i would dearly like to see the technological limitation for why the trieste was impossible also..

We ARE planning to send manned craft to the ocean floor, in fact...

double standards...

we ARE planning to send manned craft to lunar orbit/asteroid/mars, in fact...

Tell me about this plan, that we have....

Suppose you wanted to create a physical disturbance on Earth, which could be identified from 50km altitude.

It has to be distinguished from the surrounding terrain, of course. Otherwise, it cannot be identified from 50km.

A circular area of 10 yards diameter, for example, would be identified from ground, a few feet away, if we could see it from 50km above.

Get the idea?

a reply to: turbonium1

Look harder, read this page for an image of discoloration under an LM.

www.clavius.org...

The ground is undeniably darker around the LM where the astronauts disturbed it.

Like here from Apollo 17

It seems the scientists believed that the Apollo moon landings were real.

They identified certain points on the lunar surface as physical disturbances, exactly where (they also assumed) the LM's landed.

So they think this confirms the landings.

But it actually destroys the landing claim, which is very ironic.

Apollo images do not show any such disturbances, which it would. Thus, we know the Apollo images are fake.

Oops!

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Look harder, read this page for an image of discoloration under an LM.

www.clavius.org...

The ground is undeniably darker around the LM where the astronauts disturbed it.

Like here from Apollo 17

And I've asked you for Apollo 12 images, and you give me something from Apollo 17?

Is that a problem or something?

a reply to: turbonium1

Aaah this old tactic:

Denier: "I demand evidence"
Sane person: "Here it is"
Denier: "No, not that evidence, different evidence that I'm pretty sure you don't have otherwise I wouldn't ask for it. How dare you supply me with evidence that proves me wrong."

Your original post may have been about Apollo 12, but the post to which I responded was more general.

The soil disturbance around the Apollo 12 site has been discussed since the landing, eg

books.google.co.uk... pqo8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jD0dVMLcJ4e07QaggYHACw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=apollo%2012%20plume%20disturbance&f=false

Here's some discolouration under Apollo 12's engine bell



You can also make out this discolouration in this image, along with lots of disturbance by astronaut feet:



If you want to see how craters, rocks and trails from Apollo 12 match exactly with LRO views of the site, I suggest you look here

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

originally posted by: turbonium1
It seems the scientists believed that the Apollo moon landings were real.

They identified certain points on the lunar surface as physical disturbances, exactly where (they also assumed) the LM's landed.

So they think this confirms the landings.

But it actually destroys the landing claim, which is very ironic.

Apollo images do not show any such disturbances, which it would. Thus, we know the Apollo images are fake.

Oops!

Yes. they do. They show rocks craters and trails exactly as the LRO shows them. Prove they don't.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Suppose you wanted to create a physical disturbance on Earth, which could be identified from 50km altitude.

It has to be distinguished from the surrounding terrain, of course. Otherwise, it cannot be identified from 50km.

A circular area of 10 yards diameter, for example, would be identified from ground, a few feet away, if we could see it from 50km above.

Get the idea?

Has it not occurred to you that the ground looks very different from above than it does from the surface? I suggest you look at some Google Earth satellite, or even aerial, photography.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
It was not possible to reach that depth before 2012, and only shows how Trieste was a sham.

and going by your argument we should be using manned crafts to explore the ocean floor, not unmanned drones..

but i would dearly like to see the technological limitation for why the trieste was impossible also..

We ARE planning to send manned craft to the ocean floor, in fact...

double standards...

we ARE planning to send manned craft to lunar orbit/asteroid/mars, in fact...

Tell me about this plan, that we have....

SLS..

EFT...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Aaah this old tactic:

Denier: "I demand evidence"
Sane person: "Here it is"
Denier: "No, not that evidence, different evidence that I'm pretty sure you don't have otherwise I wouldn't ask for it. How dare you supply me with evidence that proves me wrong."

Your original post may have been about Apollo 12, but the post to which I responded was more general.

What post are you talking about? This was my last post on the subject, on Sept. 14....

If you think it takes a genius to realize that two guys walking back and forth a few times do not leave 'footpaths', that look like massive trenches from orbit, that's fine. But it is just common sense.

Here's one of the 'footpath' images, with their description...

www.nasa.gov...

'"The LROC image, however, reveals some new features: The Apollo 12 lunar module (Intrepid), Surveyor 3, and astronaut tracks are all visible. Perhaps most evident is that Surveyor crater and the area around the lunar module are noticeably brighter than in the Lunar Orbiter 3 image. This increase in reflectivity resulted from effects of rocket exhaust blasting the lunar surface during Intrepid's descent. Directly beneath and adjacent to Intrepid, the surface appears darker because the exhaust gas disrupted and roughed up the surface. However, a few yards away from the lander and extending outward for several hundred yards, the surface was altered in such a way as to make it more reflective."

What..?!?

They say the LM blasted the lunar surface, during the descent. Below and adjacent to the LM, the exhaust gas "disrupted and roughed up the surface" (disrupted and roughed up mean the same thing, but I digress).

This darker area extends outward for just a few yards beyond the LM. The region adjacent to it is much lighter, and goes out for several hundred yards. They say the LM "altered" the surface "in such a way as to make it more reflective". Proof of that claim is not needed, if you already have a faithful flock of Apollo believers.

Anyway, the main point here is the very distinct, darker area, which extends from the LM for a few yards.

It cannot be seen in ANY of the Apollo images, which are supposedly taken from the lunar surface. Look at the close-up images of the surface, near to the LM. Look at the surface a few yards from the LM. And beyond it.

THERE IS NO DARKER AREA WHICH THEY SAY EXISTS SEEN IN ANY OF THE APOLLO CLOSE-UP SURFACE IMAGES!

However, we DO see footprints all over the place!

You don't have to be a genius to figure this one out - the Apollo 12 surface images totally conflict with the LRO images!

But of course, you'll try any ridiculous excuse before you'd ever be honest with yourself, and admit to the truth.

It is a very distinct area, which is important to note.


I specifically discussed the Apollo 12 images. That's why I refused to discuss your other images, which are from a totally different mission.

It's completely ridiculous that I have to explain this to you. Nobody could be that dense...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The soil disturbance around the Apollo 12 site has been discussed since the landing, eg

books.google.co.uk... pqo8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jD0dVMLcJ4e07QaggYHACw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=apollo%2012%20plume%20disturbance&f=false

Here's some discolouration under Apollo 12's engine bell



You can also make out this discolouration in this image, along with lots of disturbance by astronaut feet:

If those are the best examples of the darker region, then we must conclude that the Apollo images are fake.

The darker region is said to extend outward from the LM for a few yards. Therefore, even we accept your claim of discoloration under the bell, it does NOT match up with the LRO images.

The other image you've cited does not match up, either.


Any other Apollo 12 images you'd like to show me, or is that it?

originally posted by: turbonium1
If those are the best examples of the darker region, then we must conclude that the Apollo images are fake.

The darker region is said to extend outward from the LM for a few yards. Therefore, even we accept your claim of discoloration under the bell, it does NOT match up with the LRO images.

By "We" you mean "you".

There is a darker region around the LM - you can see it on the LRO images. The only dispute here is whether that is directly caused by the effect of the the engine bell. My personal opinion is that there is too much disturbance from astronaut feet to distinguish between them.

You denied that there were photographs showing disturbed ground around the LM, you denied that there were photographs of discoloured ground from the engine bell. I showed you both. The only dispute is the cause of the disturbed area. For you to deny that the landings because the images of the ground have been disturbed by astronauts and not engine exhaust is dumb.

The other image you've cited does not match up, either.

Prove it.

Any other Apollo 12 images you'd like to show me, or is that it?

There are more. every one that shows the engine bell for a start. Look for them yourself and stop being so lazy.

originally posted by: choos

SLS..

EFT...

SLS is essentially a continuation of the Constellation program, which supposedly died a few years ago, due to a lack of money.

They changed the name of the project, and added an asteroid mission, but they still plan on manned lunar missions, and a moon base, and Mars missions.


They had no further plans to go to the moon, or to land men on the moon, at that point.

This is complete bs, of course. They didn't stop it, they just changed the name of their project.

Constellation had planned a manned moon landing by 2018. They soon revised it to 2020. They supposedly dropped the whole project due to a lack of money.

Their efforts towards a manned moon landing have NEVER stopped, in fact. They said it was dropped, to buy more time. The new plan is - by the 'late 2020's'.


It will fail, again.

Your excuse will be 'lack of money', again.