Mösting Crater Mystery - The Untold Apollo 12 Story (narrated)

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

LABTECH767
reply to post by JimOberg
... In my opinion brooking's was completely wrong and he merely made up his report due to the fact it was seen even by him as a hypothetical scenario, but government policy not only in the states but around the world has been coloured by it.


Are you somehow under the delusion that a guy named "Brookings" wrote that notorious report? Why did you call the author "he"?




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


MOD SEC SECTION 5.
Just out of curiosity, the shift to arguing symantics and playing on trying to demolish another posters comment's by trying to belittle them is a psychological technique that was first developed by the NAZI's in 1930's germany and is still prevalent as a ploy used by propegandists working for the dis information department's.
NOW WHAT IS YOUR GAME EXACTLY.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

LABTECH767
reply to post by JimOberg
 


MOD SEC SECTION 5.
Just out of curiosity, the shift to arguing symantics and playing on trying to demolish another posters comment's by trying to belittle them is a psychological technique that was first developed by the NAZI's in 1930's germany and is still prevalent as a ploy used by propegandists working for the dis information department's.
NOW WHAT IS YOUR GAME EXACTLY.


You just called someone you disagree with a Nazi. You lose.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Unfortunatly having Jewish ancestry I can not say what I think of your opinion but, I NEVER CALLED HIM A NAZI and actually think most of the time his comment's are bloody good but not this time, I in fact alluded to the method which you are furthering of using psychological based techniques to break down an argument and discredit a comment, sadly there are many with your attitude so go and wet your head will you, please be kind enough to realize we are not all sheep. BAA.
Now stop taking this thread off it's TOPIC, why you people wish to take away from a very valuable piece of video evidence I can only assume you have a fixed agenda, you know the people whom do have a fixed agenda are just like lemming's they work for there own enemy.
edit on 2-2-2014 by LABTECH767 because: BIG FINGERS SMALL KEYBOARD UG



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   

LABTECH767
reply to post by DJW001
 


Unfortunatly having Jewish ancestry I can not say what I think of your opinion but, I NEVER CALLED HIM A NAZI and actually think most of the time his comment's are bloody good but not this time, I in fact alluded to the method which you are furthering of using psychological based techniques to break down an argument and discredit a comment, sadly there are many with your attitude so go and wet your head will you, please be kind enough to realize we are not all sheep. BAA.
Now stop taking this thread off it's TOPIC, why you people wish to take away from a very valuable piece of video evidence I can only assume you have a fixed agenda, you know the people whom do have a fixed agenda are just like lemming's they work for there own enemy.
edit on 2-2-2014 by LABTECH767 because: BIG FINGERS SMALL KEYBOARD UG


You are the one who is taking this thread off topic by making unfounded accusations. All you have to do to confirm the story of NASA airbrushing a satellite photo showing a flying saucer hovering over trees is to find a satellite photo showing trees, airbrushed or otherwise. If you cannot, it does not mean that anyone is using Nazi tactics, it simply means that the story you thought was true is false.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
There's a hazy ground between 'fly-specking' meaningless typos and misspellings [such as typing "there" for "their"] and focussing on key elements of logical chains in arguments, elements on which the entire sequence and ultimate conclusion rest.

The reason I don't believe the Hare stories is that so many of them are hearsay allegedly from anonymous associates with unknown motivations in telling her -- genuine honesty, or teasing her flying-saucer fanaticism, or exciting her for dating purposes, or whatever -- and the general run of stories ["aliens rescued Apollo-13"] are so discordant with established historical reality that you have to be cautious about her overall judgment.

The shadows of trees suggestion was made because it is, almost alone among all her tales, a CHECKABLE assertion. Unavoidable consequences of her claim can be verified, or disproved.

The experience of the last ten years about failed attempts to find a single example of photographs she claims were offered for commercial sale at NASA, and the latest apparent failure, confirm a prudent skepticism as to the validity of her original story. In my view.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

LABTECH767
reply to post by JimOberg
 


MOD SEC SECTION 5.
Just out of curiosity, the shift to arguing symantics and playing on trying to demolish another posters comment's by trying to belittle them is a psychological technique that was first developed by the NAZI's in 1930's germany and is still prevalent as a ploy used by propegandists working for the dis information department's.
NOW WHAT IS YOUR GAME EXACTLY.


Breaking Godwin is an act of desperation that signals the end of rational discourse.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
In order to drag this thread kicking and screaming on topic, I decided to go back to the OP video, and I think there are some fundamental errors in it that call in to question the video maker's ability to interpret what's on the screen. A lot of the error is down to him misreadng where the terminator is and the direction from which the sun is shining.

I would respectfully point people towards my own site, where I have matched the timings of Apollo TV and still images with where the lunar terminator should be. Serendipitously, I also cover images taken during this first TV broadcast.

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

I have also plotted the photographs taken in Google Moon (available elsewhere on my site), which allows you to determine the orbital paths taken during the missions. The plots suggest that the path is one that flew directly over Herschel, rather than bisecting Herschel and Mösting craters.

He identifies 4 camera angles shown in the video, and states that the first one is looking south from a position just north-east of Herschel. In fact it is looking north towards Agrippa from a position 200 miles east of Herschel. You can see the view more clearly on this image taken during the same orbit. The terminator is just off to the west, and the crater shadows show that we must be looking north.

AS12-50-7403

He puts the next angle as looking north from a position north west of Herschel, but he's wrong again.

The second camera view shows that the crater shadows have changed direction, and we must therefore by looking the opposite way. Conrad discusses looking at a large crater wall but the small crater visible is Birt crater. The view finally settles on Thebit and Arzachel craters. This eventually pans over to Lassell crater and a smaller one to the east of it. It's worth mentioning that Conrad isn't sure of the identity of some of the craters because he doesn't have his chart with him.

The third camera angle claims to be looking towards Mösting crater from a position above Flammarion, but is actually looking almost vertically down towards the south of Guericke crater. This evenutally looks over towards Catena Davy before we switch to the final view, the one claimed to be Mösting.

it's claimed to be Mösting mostly because that's what Conrad says it is, but we already know he's unsure of what he's looking at so can we be sure he has identified it correctly?

We have established that the CSM is now somewhere over Guericke crater, which means it is now considerably further west than the camera angle the OP claims. We do have the benefit of this view east from somewhere near that position.

AS12-50-7435

and you can make out Mösting crater on the left, just above halfway up the image.

Now let's compare the two, after first rotating the still image to get the shadows to match better:



Well, for my money there seem to be several features missing from this view of Mösting compared with the crater the OP is claiming is Mösting. So where is it?

Well, the angle of the light is consistent with a view towards the northern hemisphere rather than the south, and just before it cuts back to the nice Army newsreader we can see the lunar horizon, so it's a fairly oblique view looking at a large feature. How does this one match up?

AS12-50-7433



It's Eratosthenes, and not only is it 300 miles away from Mösting, it is 3 times as big, which would make any artificial objects easily visible from Earth.

OK, so what?

There is still this alleged feature present right?

Erm, well clearly not, seeing as we have an Apollo image that is taken on the same orbit that doesn't show it.

The basic errors in the OP video suggest someone who doesn't actually check facts much, and this combines with other evidence to show that the alleged artefact just isn't there.
edit on 2-2-2014 by onebigmonkey because: links and stuff



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Extremely well spoken and I appologize to all if my stand has upset anyone, I did not mean to draw such an analogy and regret it whole heartedly but as I later pointed out I was not comparing the poster merely MY perception of the tactic, and onebigmonkey has placed some truly decent work here and with that quality of work perhap's I could conceivable be convinced.

Just one question to onebigmonekey if you do not mind have you ever seen anything that you considered anomolous in the manner we believers often happen to (And I am painfully aware of how that colours my opinion's).

I got a little annoyed at being accused of calling someone a NAZI but it was mainly my fault for bringing them into the subject even as an analogy.

If I have offended on those ground's I appologize but with the notable exception of onebigmonkey's latest post above I see nothing to change my opinion but I must bow to the expert level of knowlege he is showing as it makes me feel like the technician telling the engineer.

SOGN



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


It's a brave and honest man that is prepared to admit a mistake and it does you credit. I'd like also to thank you for the nice things you said in an earlier post.

You ask me this:



Just one question to onebigmonekey if you do not mind have you ever seen anything that you considered anomolous in the manner we believers often happen to (And I am painfully aware of how that colours my opinion's).


My honest answer is no. I should qualify that by saying that many times I have seen things people call 'anomalies' that I have been as puzzled about as others, but it has never been persuasive enough for me to bet my house on. The difference I think is what we are prepared to assume something is until there is more evidence to support a definitive conclusion.

The latest one from Mars, for example, where an object has appeared from nowhere (the so called 'jelly donut'). I have absolutely no idea what that is, and it looks for all the world like the top half of a crab shell. My initial reaction to it was it must have been something kicked up by the rover wheels, but that still doesn't explain what it is. Until more evidence comes in, however, I am not prepared to suggest someone is off camera tossing the remains of their seafood lunch around.

There are many other examples from Mars where I have to say "I don't know what that is", but because I don't know what it is I am not prepared to jump up and say "I know what it is"! I am sure life existed there once. It may exist there now, but it will take more than "it kinda looks funny" to convince me - smarter brains than mine have been made to look dumb by jumping the gun too early.

As far as the lunar stuff goes I have never seen anything that hasn't had a much more logical and clearer explanation, be it poor image resolution or reproduction, combinations of shadows and angles, misinterpretation of someone's words or simple pareidolia. More often than not claims for the extraordinary have a much more mundane explanation when the data are explored more thoroughly.

Boring I know



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   
No offense taken. Onwards!



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

LABTECH767
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Extremely well spoken and I appologize to all if my stand has upset anyone, I did not mean to draw such an analogy and regret it whole heartedly but as I later pointed out I was not comparing the poster merely MY perception of the tactic, and onebigmonkey has placed some truly decent work here and with that quality of work perhap's I could conceivable be convinced.

Just one question to onebigmonekey if you do not mind have you ever seen anything that you considered anomolous in the manner we believers often happen to (And I am painfully aware of how that colours my opinion's).

I got a little annoyed at being accused of calling someone a NAZI but it was mainly my fault for bringing them into the subject even as an analogy.

If I have offended on those ground's I appologize but with the notable exception of onebigmonkey's latest post above I see nothing to change my opinion but I must bow to the expert level of knowlege he is showing as it makes me feel like the technician telling the engineer.

SOGN


Commendable humility and sincerity.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join