i was a young engineer at esro-estec since 1966. i followed all mercury, gemini, apollo missions and watched real time. i believe all those missions were real, including the fire. but i did not examine the later fake claims.
Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?
- Thread starter Rhythmik
- Start date
i was a young engineer at esro-estec since 1966. i followed all mercury, gemini, apollo missions and watched real time. i believe all those missions were real, including the fire. but i did not examine the later fake claims.
Russia helped India from Soviet days in high tech related matters in a BIG way. so, I don't have any doubt that Russians will figure out what went wrong and fix it. The way Luna 25 launch news came, it looked like Russians decided to send it in a hurry. Media try to project it Russia as a loser. In my view, it is silly, but it is predictable. Success rates of these landings are not great for any country. As technology improves, success rate will improve.
Brewer
Jedi Council Member
INDIA
Moon landing video from 384000 km
NASA
Mars landing in HD from 225000000 km
I've made some comments on the Mars landing, I'm with India on this one, well done! I'm curious though, of the the three probes sent recently none seem to have one camera dedicated to capturing images of the stars. Artemis had 22 cameras on board but not one appeared capable of taking any images of the stars, strange. NASA's been very tardy with the Artemis radiation readings too but we all know that's not a problem because Apollo 14 punched right through the thickest parts of the belts, (page 158)
Radiation is not a problem, NASA has the problem solved, solar flares, CMEs or cosmic radiation? No problem, build a fort!
Whatever works NASA, whatever works...
Moon landing video from 384000 km
NASA
Mars landing in HD from 225000000 km
I've made some comments on the Mars landing, I'm with India on this one, well done! I'm curious though, of the the three probes sent recently none seem to have one camera dedicated to capturing images of the stars. Artemis had 22 cameras on board but not one appeared capable of taking any images of the stars, strange. NASA's been very tardy with the Artemis radiation readings too but we all know that's not a problem because Apollo 14 punched right through the thickest parts of the belts, (page 158)
Radiation is not a problem, NASA has the problem solved, solar flares, CMEs or cosmic radiation? No problem, build a fort!
Whatever works NASA, whatever works...
Brewer
Jedi Council Member
My brother took his android phone outside last night and snapped a couple of images of the night sky. Here's Alpha and Beta Centauri
It was taken by a XUOMI using the 2 X zoom feature; through 200km of atmosphere; no flash and the trees are illuminated by an outside light on my house. Maybe it's just me but I find it a little strange that no modern space craft captures images of the stars. Surely Artemis could've had one of it's 22 cameras pointed away from the glare of the Sun, Earth and Moon and caught a magnificent view of the stars during it's slow journey to the Moon. None of them do, not even in passing.
Reposting in case you hadn't seen this session. It indicates that the Apollo moon landings were not fake.
I don't mean to say there are no conspiracies, but we also have to remember that "tool is a tool" in most cases. These tools sent into sky are built by some body, with a specific purpose based on specific pre-identified requirements, to work under specific extreme conditions. Every gram that is sent out into sky consumes ridiculous amount of fuel, logistics to coordinate and maintain, has to go through thousands of considerations before even allowed to be the cargo in the flight. The operators of these space probes has NO freedom to turn the cameras whatever direction they want for their curiosities. It can be dangerous to the mission itself, if some body does that. May be seeing these stars is not part of their goals of Artemis?
For example, we know there are all sorts of UAP (including UFO's) in other dimensions/densities gathered around earth (to see or participating in the "Wave" show ), may get caught in camera due to glitches in "veil" technologies originating from Wave effect. So we know that they Filter them well before it ever reaches public. Does seeing a specific stars in the sky can't produce more filterable subjects (than nearer objects) as distance between the star and this tool(Artemis) is too Huge.
Personally, I don't see what's so important about the Apollo missions. It was a long time ago, a lot happened since, and what's happening now is far more important and grave. If they got to the moon, good for them. If they stayed in an earthbound orbit and pretended to go to the moon, wouldn't surprise me and LOL. In other words, I don't need to know whether what was presented to the public about the Apollo missions is fake or not to know for a fact that otherwise they lie about almost everything else under the sun and have been doing so for a while. Anything that's emotionally charged is a trap and a distraction and the conclusion either way doesn't change anything.
Today's lies (covid, global warming etc.) have immediate impact. Apollo, maybe it had some impact during the cold war but not today or next week, and not at the same extent.
Now for pictures taken where the stars do not appear, if one wants to photograph an object that's illuminated by the Sun, it's so bright one has to lower the shutter speed so much that starlight doesn't excite the film or the chip. There are places on Earth where the night sky is as good as if there were no atmosphere (for apertures with diameters less than about 30cm) so taking a picture of the stars in space doesn't make sense because in the visible it would be practically the same (unless you need a big telescope like Hubble to overcome the blurring of images due to the atmosphere or the JSWT to do the same in addition to observing in the IR, which is difficult on earth, without entering in details). In other words, if one takes a picture with a regular camera from orbit of the starry sky with no intermediary object to reflect the sun, the result wouldn't be fundamentally distinguishable from taking the same image from let's say the Kilimanjaro. Maybe more blues but that can be faked in Windows Paint or something. Does it prove the Apollo mission took place as advertised? No. Does it prove the Apollo mission didn't take place as advertised? Neither. Wondering about it and asking questions is interesting, but focusing too much on it is distracting. OSIT.
Today's lies (covid, global warming etc.) have immediate impact. Apollo, maybe it had some impact during the cold war but not today or next week, and not at the same extent.
Now for pictures taken where the stars do not appear, if one wants to photograph an object that's illuminated by the Sun, it's so bright one has to lower the shutter speed so much that starlight doesn't excite the film or the chip. There are places on Earth where the night sky is as good as if there were no atmosphere (for apertures with diameters less than about 30cm) so taking a picture of the stars in space doesn't make sense because in the visible it would be practically the same (unless you need a big telescope like Hubble to overcome the blurring of images due to the atmosphere or the JSWT to do the same in addition to observing in the IR, which is difficult on earth, without entering in details). In other words, if one takes a picture with a regular camera from orbit of the starry sky with no intermediary object to reflect the sun, the result wouldn't be fundamentally distinguishable from taking the same image from let's say the Kilimanjaro. Maybe more blues but that can be faked in Windows Paint or something. Does it prove the Apollo mission took place as advertised? No. Does it prove the Apollo mission didn't take place as advertised? Neither. Wondering about it and asking questions is interesting, but focusing too much on it is distracting. OSIT.
omara
The Force is Strong With This One
Hi mkrnhr
Personally, I don't see many things more important than the truth about the Moon missions. 9-11, Covid and global warming are of course much more relevant now, but it's such a big part of the myth of the US being the best and the greatest!
Personally, I don't see many things more important than the truth about the Moon missions. 9-11, Covid and global warming are of course much more relevant now, but it's such a big part of the myth of the US being the best and the greatest!
So taking a picture of a starry sky through a window in a space module should not be any different from taking a picture of a starry sky on top of the Kilimanjaro?
The US is not the best and the greatest, mystery solved :)
When someone says "We landed on the Moon", did they? I surely didn't land on the Moon, so who is "We"?
More seriously, the Moon missions are important, but I doubt it's the most important thing ever. It's interesting within its historical context but obsessing about could lead to... obsession.
As for pictures of the starry sky from a space module (providing the "glass" doesn't introduce additional filtering in the visible or some polarization), I don't see what fundamental difference one would expect relatively to a quiet dark night on Earth with no light pollution (maybe more cosmic rays on the detector perhaps). The Earth's atmosphere is pretty transparent throughout most of the visible band.
When someone says "We landed on the Moon", did they? I surely didn't land on the Moon, so who is "We"?
More seriously, the Moon missions are important, but I doubt it's the most important thing ever. It's interesting within its historical context but obsessing about could lead to... obsession.
As for pictures of the starry sky from a space module (providing the "glass" doesn't introduce additional filtering in the visible or some polarization), I don't see what fundamental difference one would expect relatively to a quiet dark night on Earth with no light pollution (maybe more cosmic rays on the detector perhaps). The Earth's atmosphere is pretty transparent throughout most of the visible band.
it is true that apollo is 50 years in the past. but this does not make it less relevant. and the "we" is justified because it really was the acomplishment of the usa society at that time, and we admired the usa for this exploit...
Brewer
Jedi Council Member
Indeed it is expensive so what does NASA do? It sends a stuffed toy around moon! Probably cost at least five figures and there's also a HD camera on hand to catch Snoopy floating around capsule.
Brewer
Jedi Council Member
If NASA lied about it then it's extremely important. Are they still lying today? Did they kill people to achieve their aims? Some did die, Grissom, White and Chaffee in Apollo 1, an easily avoidable 'accident'; the Challenger and Columbia disasters could've easily been avoided too. Shoddy safety and workmanship abounded and even today they rely on others to get them into space.
I know, it opens a can of worms. Are the Russians, Chinese, India and others faking it too? Looking at these videos from the Chinese space station seems like we were wrong about the Earth being a globe! Check out the clouds on this flat Earth!
Hi Brewer,
No, the Earth is no flat.
On the other hand, whether they lied about the moon landing or not doesn't imply on what they are lying about now. Of course they are lying today, but one cannot lie about absolutely everything. Lying requires telling the truth about what is verifiable and lying about what is unverifiable. Also, in any big engineering project, whether there are parts that are faked or not, unfortunately some lives are lost. Sometimes it's due to error, incompetence, arrogance, sabotage, or simply stupidity. Whether the landings as presented on TV were genuine or not is of no consequence on the failures that happened on the ground.
How many people did the Apollo program kill? How many people has the fake nutritional recommendations killed (and continue to do so)? How many people has the 911 operation killed? How many people has the fake science and corruption in Big-Pharma killed (and continues to so)?
The Apollo missions are interesting for their historical context and since it was a political project primarily, there were surely some shenanigans and conspiracies behind the scenes (whether the landings as presented were real or not) but I doubt it is the most important thing ever.
No, the Earth is no flat.
On the other hand, whether they lied about the moon landing or not doesn't imply on what they are lying about now. Of course they are lying today, but one cannot lie about absolutely everything. Lying requires telling the truth about what is verifiable and lying about what is unverifiable. Also, in any big engineering project, whether there are parts that are faked or not, unfortunately some lives are lost. Sometimes it's due to error, incompetence, arrogance, sabotage, or simply stupidity. Whether the landings as presented on TV were genuine or not is of no consequence on the failures that happened on the ground.
How many people did the Apollo program kill? How many people has the fake nutritional recommendations killed (and continue to do so)? How many people has the 911 operation killed? How many people has the fake science and corruption in Big-Pharma killed (and continues to so)?
The Apollo missions are interesting for their historical context and since it was a political project primarily, there were surely some shenanigans and conspiracies behind the scenes (whether the landings as presented were real or not) but I doubt it is the most important thing ever.
Brewer
Jedi Council Member
Thanks, that transcript is from September 2000, might be worth revisiting, maybe they did go but I very much doubt the film and photos were taken there. They truly are a mess, especially when you look the 'original scans', there are bizarre artifacts everywhere that simply shouldn't be there from Apollo 4 to 17. I used to make my own photos, my HBOT bloke has Apollo era Hasselblads and used to be a pro photographer. Out of the blue, one of my handyman customers gifted me an entire 80s era darkroom! Perhaps the universe is dropping a hint here? If we can acquire the materials we may make a few photos but it's not necessary, he has plenty of 70mm transparencies for comparison on the darkroom projector. He concurs, the photos are crap! NASA photoshopped all these images around 2009-15 to clean them up.
The other things I like to look at is the official records, here and there NASA will change the narrative, never publish or remove things altogether. They removed the video I included in this post because of awkward questions.
Some say its an obsession, I disagree, studying the record is a hobby for me, one I leave for weeks at a time. It's a hobby, a life affirming activity, just like my interest in fishing, hunting, and bullet making. Just taken up sheep raising now, doing well, here's one of my future lamb roasts and his sister who'll be mothering her own next year, they're dreaming! They dream a lot!
