That might have been true back then, now, they would just overlay it with a commercial.

Blipverts?

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

proof that softearth is jerking everyone around:

emphasis mine. So the goal that YOU set up is for NASA to do something. You're being totally disingenuous of course, because later you say this:

So now the goalpost is moved. Now NASA sending a probe isn't enough.

And what happens if the ESA sends a probe? You'll move the goalpost again. "THE ESA IS IN BED WITH NASA! GEORGE BUSH THREATENED TO PUT THEM ALL IN GUANTANIMO IF THEY DON'T SUPPORT NASA'S LIE!!!"

So what happens if China sends a probe? "OBVIOUSLY CHINA DOESNT WANT TO ANGER THE US BECAUSE WALMART WILL STOP BUYING FROM CHINA. CHINA WAS PRESSURED INTO SUPPORTING NASA'S LIE!!!!"

This will continue basically forever. This, softearth, is why nobody (especially NASA) is going to pay one penny to "verify" apollo. Anything they spend will wasted because you will always claim it's not good enough.

Instead, NASA spends its money on science and so far what they've needed for science with regard to the moon has been wide field of view imagers, so that they can look at large areas of the moon - and I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but those can't see apollo hardware.

It seems that NASA doesn't have the original transmissions on their website, or at least I couldn't find it . Perhaps one of you guys can find it and post the link so everyone here can verify the time delays for themselves. Go ahead, prove me wrong, if you can!

As far as the pictures of Apollo 17 goes, the rovers would have left miles of tracks that should be visible from the pictures provided from the link since you can see the LM and it's shadow (not really) as stated on the website. Heres's the link http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/ls_17_5a.html.

I'm still waiting for proof!

I think you need to read the FAQs and the rules of this board. It is not up to us to prove mainstream science, such as the moon landings, it is up to you to prove an alternative theory.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

uh huh. The great wall of china is 4000 miles long and should be visible in this picture, since you can see the rivers and mountains.



or... maybe I'm just being an idiot who doesn't realize that while the wall is very long, it's also very thin and thus wouldn't show up at this resoluton. hmm.

What proof do we have that the great wall exists? Some pics taken by China? Some "scientists" who tell us they have examined bricks? Why has there been no independent verification in over 2000 years? Come on, do you really think that the Chinese could build a 4000 mile wall 2000 years ago - and yet we can't even build a wall on the southern border of the US today with all our modern technology?? And don't tell me it's about money.

I'm still waiting for proof.

Perhaps if you would zoom this picture in to see a 5 meter wide structure similar to the LM, you would see the wall, but wait, google doesn't let you do that.

Geez, give me a break dude! Try comparing apples to apples once in a while, it's helps to sort things out a bit.

So you're saying you can't find the proof as well? Guess not, or you would be providing the link to end this thread once and for all.

EXACTLY!! So, google has pictures of my house that are so good I can see my car in my driveway. But for China? Oops! Sorry! We don't have those pics!

Can't you understand why? If google put the high resolution pics of china on thier website, then we would see that there is no wall! Google will do ANYTHING to keep the Chinese government happy. Want proof? Take a look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm

The title of that article: "Google censors itself for China." What did they censor? That's easy, they took out any images that didn't show a wall!

And take a look at this:

http://tnl.net/blog/2004/04/30/how-m...ogle-machines/

Google has over 30,000 computers in an underground vault. What do you think they need all that power for?? That's an easy one to figure out too. They are using those computers to digitally enhance millions of images in order to add a great wall of china. mark my words. One day, google is going to announce that it has higher resoluton iimages of china, and sure enough, those images will show a wall. Don't be fooled! Google added the wall to the images. It's all a hoax.

I'm still waiting for proof.

No, I'm saying I'm not going to spend the time looking for the link, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to me that men have landed on the moon. Would a recording of a moon-to-Earth conversation with the right time delay be sufficient proof for you?

And why the wink smiley at the top, is this all a joke?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Please try and stick to the subject at hand. My point was that you could see a 15 meter object (the LM), but no tracks from the rover from the link provided. The moon rover would have left miles of tracks that should have been visible from said pictures within the link.

I can't verify these because I don't have access at work, but these appear to be what you're asking for:

Apollo 11 audio

Some Apollo 12 audio on this page (and others)

Some Apollo 17 audio on this page

There's a lot more, but I'll leave that as an exercise. Note that it only took me about a minute to find these, so I wonder just how hard you were looking.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

1. Tonnes of moon rocks. Scientists - people with actual degrees from actual universities - look at the rocks and say, "yep, they are from the moon"

But softearth is smarter than a few (thousand) people with PhDs, so he rejects that proof.

2. Telemetry. It wasn't encrypted or encoded or anything. The russians followed the missions all the way to the moon and back. Other countries, like Australia, helped NASA collect the telemetry.

But softearth is too smart to be fooled by this. He knows that russia and australia are also hoaxes.

3. mountains of technical drawings of apollo hardware, and surviving hardware in museams. Engineers - people with actual engineering education and actual experience - look at it and say, "yep, these designs are sound, they would work."

But softearth is smarter than a few thousand silly engineers who were probably paid off by NASA anyway.

4. Thousands and thousands of photographs. (if you were really going to fake something, wouldn't you limit the number of photographs??)

But softearth sees right through this. He knows that real photographs always show stars - and if someone who has actually taken a photograph tells him otherwise - well, he's smarter than they are.


etc. etc. etc.

You can see a 15 meter object because it's 15 meters square.

You can't see tire tracks because the tires are only about 1/4th of a meter across.

Don't you get the point of the great wall of china example? You can see a town in the north-west corner of that image because the town is a few miles square. But you can't see the great wall of china even though it's thousands of miles long - becuase it's a thin wall.

duh.

Your point is wrong. The rover tracks are centimeters wide. Why would you expect them to be visible in an image that shows a 15-meter object as only a few pixels?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Eyewitnesses to the live broadcasts?
Since they are getting older and dying off, there's only a few MILLION left.

Hey! I resemble that comment.
But since softearth probably hasn't seen me, I'm probably a hoax too.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Maybe N.E. Ohio as a whole is... Glenn Research Center created it all. Cleveland's just a scale model in the old tank plant.

It seems that NASA doesn't have the original transmissions on their website, or at least I couldn't find it.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Fine. Show us how it is done.Here are science reports, mission reports, transcripts, hours of videos and thousands of photographs. Here is a small sample of the documentation concerning the development and implementation of Apollo hardware. Please provide solid proof that any of it has been faked (saying "it could have been" is conjecture, and not solid proof).

For example, you said:
Here are all of the photographs taken on Apollo missions. Here are more than a thousand hi-res scans (more are available). Provide solid proof that they have been faked. Bleating about missing stars, c-rocks, footprints, ridge lines, shadow angles, lens flares and reflections have all been previously debunked ad nauseum on this and many other boards. No conjecture, please.

You elaborated on this when you said
As gwiz asked,
Solid proof, please.

The same questions apply: Who built the relay? Where was it launched from? How has it been kept secret?

For that matter, if we could send automated radio relays to the Moon and land unbelievably sophisticated robots (that don't even exist today) to land, collect hundreds of pounds of specific surface samples (as opposed to the 8 ounces of random samples from the Soviet missions) and return - all in total secrecy despite the KGB watching our every move - then why couldn't we send men to the Moon?

You said,
All evidence is consistent with manned missions. No evidence has been put forward for an unmanned relay. What solid proof do you have that makes the latter more plausible?

I will remind you of Phantom Wolf's questions:
Solid proof, please. Show us how it should be done.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Heh. Perhaps that's what he means by "underminded"...

A subtle slip, perhaps, exposing that his opposition to reality is based solely on his less than average knowledge of the technology, rather than anything substantial?

I think he is doing this just to wind you all up. plus no one picked up his or his what was that all about?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

More popcorn, Cap? I saw it but decided to not bother. 5m is closer to the real size anyway. Be it 5 or 15, there's no scope in the world that can resolve the LMs.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

I'm still waiting for proof!

NASA has already provided a ton of proof.

See here's how science works.

NASA makes a claim. We went to the Moon.

We say. Prove it.

They say. Fine, Here are 380 pounds of rocks, soil samples and deep cores, all documented, photographed and in many cases filmed. Here are the results of independant geologists who have confirmed them as not of Earth origin. Here are the results of comparisons with the Soviet return samples. Here are 10,000 photos taken on and near the moon. Here is the hours of DAC 16mm flim. Here is all the hours of TV footage shown live at the time. Here are the hours of recordings of the transmissions, here are the hundreds of pages of transcripts of the transmissions. Here are the tracking reports from the Goldstone, Madrid, Parkes, and Honeysuckle Creek tracking stations. Here are the independant tracking stories from the Soviets, and from amatuer Ham radio operators. here are the pictures of the spacecraft in transit taken by amatuer astronomers. Here are the returned spacecraft, and the spacecraft we didn't use. Here are the pages of documentation on the design and building of those spacecraft. here are the hundreds of thousands of pages of preperation and reports on the program. here are the hundreds of photos and the film of the training of those that went. Here is the testimony of those that went. Here is the testmony of those that were in the control room, in the back rooms, who built the equipment, who recovered the capsules, of the 100,000's of people involved in the program. Here's the proof.

Now whether you like it or not, that is proof, it's overwhelming in it's amount. It isn't enough to say, but it could be faked, or I don't believe it. If you are going to claim that it's fake, then you need to show why it's fake. Saying it looks fake is a poor reason, all it show is that you don't want it to have been real so you refuse to believe the tons of evidence.

Remember, you have to prove that 10,000 photos are ALL fake. If even one was taken on the moon, it proves they went! You have to prove that ALL of the TV footage, ALL of the 16mm film is faked, because even if 1 minute is filmed on the moon, they went! You have to prove that ALL of the moon samples are fake, because if even one rock is legitimate, they went! The burden of proof is squarely in the "it was all a Hoax" side of the court, and waving your hands, and repeating the tripe spread by Sibrel, Rene, and Kaysing isn't going to get you any crediblitly. You demand proof, but you have just closed your eyes to all the proof that exists. Why should we bother to provide more when you are so closed minded that you wont even scientifically look at the what's already on the table instead of just refusing it as proof?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

very well said.

Hear! Hear!

Softearth said the above in post No. 5. But didn't Nasa do exactly that back around 1969-72? In fact, in some cases, people collected their own data without it going through Nasa.

Take, for instance, the list of geologists who put forward their names to research lunar samples before Apollo 11 left Earth:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....858#post344858

I wouldn't mind betting there were more names submitted later. Notice too, the thread tells where you can see a contemporary report in an old National Geographic on the research done by one of the scientists in that list.

Doesn't that meet the criteria in post No. 5?

Softearth, do you even understand what posters are talking about in this thread when they mention core samples? These are drilled into the surface and cannot be done robotically. Dave Scott, Apollo 15, damaged his hands because he worked so hard on one of his core samples, and he and Jim Irwin both had to work on pulling it out of the ground. This was filmed by the TV camera.

If you get hold of the Spacecraft Films DVDs of Apollo 17, you can watch Gene Cernan drilling into the Moon's surface. After he extracts the core, he walks right up to the TV camera on the rover, holding the sample in both hands, and shows it to the viewers on Earth. But the most interesting part of this sampling is the incredible trouble he also had extracting it after doing the drilling. Jack Schmitt went over to help Gene to manipulate a jack-type apparatus to pull the core sample up, and in the process he took a wonderful fall and kicked over the drill stand which gracefully sailed into the "air" in the one-sixth g.

See the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal / Apollo 17 / Deep Core and ALSEP Completion:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...lsj/frame.html


121:01:05 Cernan: No, go ahead. (Laughter)

[Jack looses his balance and spins to the ground; he kicks the rack again on the way down.]

121:01:11 Cernan: (Both laughing) Okay, okay, okay.

[Cernan - "This part - where Jack spins around and falls a**-over teakettle - was the funniest thing in the world."]

There is no robotic instrument even nowadays that could drill a lunar core sample, extract it, package it up and return it to Earth like humans can.

Ahh, proof! Anyone on the moon, especially someone who had trained so long to be there, wouldn't use the phrase "in the world"... unless they were still on Earth when it happened!

(Not that I feel the HBs' claims need to be dignified with a response, but we can humour then...)

What about the laser reflectors? Aren't there devices on the Moon that will reflect laser light? Anyone with the motivation could fire a laser and get a return pulse. That wouldn't be subject to ANY intermediate tampering.

It would prove that there are man-made artifacts placed carefully on the Moon (though it would not prove humans had landed there.)

The standard HB (hoax-believer) answer is that the LRRRs were placed by robot landers. The fact that they are placed with more precision than a 60s-era robot lander could manage is handwaved away.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684