Buzz Aldrin says we didn't go to the moon

[zorgon]

Could you point why it could not?

If you look back at my posts you will see I have already detailed all the warped plates and dented areas.. so no I don't need to point out anything anymore..

What I NEED is someone to give an explanation of why this piece of junk looks like it does. Was it attacked by Aliens?  Did it collide with something?

It supposedly simply landed on the Moon, sat there, and took off.  There is supposedly no air to provide drag.

So WHY is this a total wreck? And WHY is there no answer?

So don't brush it off get some answers

[astr0144]

I see your logic about it probably being a Left side window...

but I am not sure I can agree that it was a traingular window.... it does not sem to appear triangular..

also the Rectangular window that I indicated was on the Left hand side..

In ref to the Landing Point Designator (L P D ) shown in the other photo...and comparing it to the other photo in question of the C.M from the L.M..

The unclear part in the Right side of that Photo does not seem to match  the L.P.D as I would have expected... I can see possible slight scaling in the faded questionable area of that photo... but its not seeming to be on tha actual window.. and if it is... its blanking some of the light out... where as when you look on the clear  photo that shows the L.P.D.. it appears to not blank out all the windows transparancy clarity of that area..

Could the small rectangular window also have a L.P D on it ?

on a quick search it seems to only refer to the triangle window !



The scale between the two photos probably vary.. and maybe we just see part of triangular window !

Can I ask where you got the info on the LPD from ? is there a link ?

would it be this ?



http://www.geocities.jp/rabiddogs_p64/panelmaniacs_apollo_lm.html



What part is this




and is there some monitor within the craft as shown in this middle photo ?

from: astr0144 on August 03, 2018, 03:51:39 PM

    So which Window do you think that photo would have been taken from ?

    The triangular ones or Rectangular one ? or some other that I have not noticed ?

ArMaP
I said on the previous page, on this post, the triangular left (when looking from inside the LM) window. Also, it looks like that was the one that had the Landing Point Designator.

Those faint lines (that I first thought were part of the window shade) are the lines from the Landing Point Designator.

[astr0144]

There were some explantions suggested !

More so  in ref to the initial Acent stage L.M photo as to what some parts of it maybe and why certain parts of that may seem distorted...or appear buckled..

That it may have been due to the explosives used on Take of from the Moon...and we are seeing the underbelly of it..

I am not  sure what the materials are on those parts on its underside...or if they are disigned to absorb impact and may not be metalic material...so the photos may seem like crushed cardboard 

The photos of it being on the Moon with buckled side panels as a complete L.M.. are still questionable !

If you look back at my posts you will see I have already detailed all the warped plates and dented areas.. so no I don't need to point out anything anymore..

What I NEED is someone to give an explanation of why this piece of junk looks like it does. Was it attacked by Aliens?  Did it collide with something?

It supposedly simply landed on the Moon, sat there, and took off.  There is supposedly no air to provide drag.

So WHY is this a total wreck? And WHY is there no answer?

So don't brush it off get some answers

[zorgon]

and is there some monitor within the craft as shown in this middle photo ?

The Middle Photo is from the Apollo Moon movie set at Langley

All that is on the Apollo Reality page both on the website and the forum

The Model  3D moon and the surface tracking screen  before painting The globe is 20 feet tall...  the curved 'surface' has a rail system for the landing camera



Then they painted it... in fine detail...



Remember back then there was no photoshop... it was all done by hand with air brush and regular paint brush... They spent a LONG TIME getting details correct. They used Lunar Orbiter photos as the model...



Here we see the Moon and the landing track almost complete, just checking accuracy.   IF this was just a training device as some suggest, there would be no need for such intricate and precise detail



Turn out the lights and VOILA you have the moon in space (but NO STARS )



OH!!! Don't forget... you need a space craft WINDOW... don't worry  no one will figure out your window is just wrong  LOL



Oh WAIT!  We did   



Still need to add that shade of Green Cheese NASA likes so much



Now sit down  we are ready to fly this contraption 

[zorgon]

And how soon we all forget that we already proved that NASA deliberately makes the moon GREY SCALE in publicity photos..

WHY?  Why do they need to hide the true color?  Is it because it is easier to fake a landing in Black and White?    Back then we didn't have technicolor 

THIS Photo...  Enhanced Earth and deliberately grey scaled moon  In fact it was this image we discovered it on because if you zoom in bottom right the old color is still underneath





THIS was the original



So again  WHY the need to make the moon GREY SCALE?  USGS did the same thing with an over enhanced Clementine Earth shot and added in the grey scale moon

This is the original Clementine Full Earth shot (proving the did have real color cameras on board )

[astr0144]

Thanks for posting those last two posts..

Thats a better cleaer image of the Monitor !




Until I came on the forum.. I had no idea about the model Moon set up that you have shown..

I rather surprised that they have released those photos under the possible circumstances of them being questioned later about such things.. if its definately been a hoax all the time..

I can understand them having a Model for certain things that they make the public aware of...as some people will consider them creating some sort of model during their planning stages..

But seeing pictures of them painting or altering images on the model...

that can make you question it ... No doubt along what you indicate...

I Now  see your point about using a Grey Colour being used to show  for the Moon !


and its good detective work that you have done to note the real colour of it ... if what is seem is the true colour behind the Grey Colour !

The thing that I am still questioning about the doing that... is when we look up at the Moon... we dont always see it as Grey Like Colour...

sometimes it does appear more greyish... more so in daylight... but at night on a full moon... it Does NOT appear full grey.... only parts of it are like craters and the sea areas..

when the sun light hits the moon... that we see from Earth... is surely the same colour that  would  be seen say by any astronaut up there... to be seen on the moon at the same time...

Once the Sun had moved out of line to shining its light on the moon... the colour would then look more grey like... as it does even from Earth.... when say the moon is 3/4s or half full for eg.. we may see some sort of shadowing effects on edges that appear more grey like..

so are they really fooling the public...thou !

Yes that image that shows the Earth... does prove they had or used Colour cameras..

The Other big question that I hope we get to discuss further... is was their any chance of having enough fuel in the 3rd stage of Apollo to have travelled to the moon...

and my answer would be YES... IF they had been able to send up other Unmanned space Crafts that took photos on the back of the moon prior to man or astronauts being suggested as travelling to the Moon ...


Would the van allen  Radiation  belt  issue prevent an unmanned flight ? even if did effect humans...

did it effect the electronics ?

[Pimander]

This is the original Clementine Full Earth shot (proving the did have real color cameras on board )

You mean they had colour cameras on the un-manned Apollo orbiter/lander?

[Pimander]

You won't get any argument from me about how NASA's (public, at least) craft are rubbish, Zorgon.

This quote sums it up for me.

In the final picture shown below we take a closer look at this supposedly high quality work from Grumman Engineering, and can see just what a botch job that made of it. NASA inform us that this piece of junk cost $350,000,000, (over $25 billion at todays prices). Look at the angle strip on corner edges, they cannot even get the beading strip angle correct, and have left it jutting out. I don't think NASA is taking the p**s, I know they are. It's a joke, because I have seen better quality work from kindergarten kids building a stage prop for pantomime. Lets face it the whole Apollo project was a pantomime and the Apollo astronauts were nothing more than clowns, but it beggars belief that there are still millions of people around the globe who actually believe the garbage put out by NASA. I find it somewhat scary to think that there are so many people in the world who are completely out of touch with reality.

See above for source...

ETA: And you could send any old tin can for an unmanned landing.  Why?  Because you would not need life support or a return journey and it would not have to be equipped for re-entry to the atmosphere.

[ArMaP]

If you look back at my posts you will see I have already detailed all the warped plates and dented areas.. so no I don't need to point out anything anymore..

Detailing all the warped plates and dented areas doesn't explain why you think it couldn't be in space, and that's what your "is supposed to have been in space" sounds like to me.

What I NEED is someone to give an explanation of why this piece of junk looks like it does. Was it attacked by Aliens?  Did it collide with something?

It supposedly simply landed on the Moon, sat there, and took off.  There is supposedly no air to provide drag.

So WHY is this a total wreck? And WHY is there no answer?

It's not a total wreck, the important parts look normal.

So don't brush it off get some answers

I'm not brushing it of, I only look for answers to specific questions, that's why I was (and am) questioning your "is supposed to have been in space" statement, as the way it looks made it impossible for it to be in space.

[Pimander]

I only look for answers to specific questions, that's why I was (and am) questioning your "is supposed to have been in space" statement, as the way it looks made it impossible for it to be in space.

Perhaps it was in space without any humans on board.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

Here we see the Moon and the landing track almost complete, just checking accuracy.   IF this was just a training device as some suggest, there would be no need for such intricate and precise detail

No need? I think just the opposite. Going on this flight as proposed, I think you'd want to train on the most detailed map possible. Of course not disputing your statement about the window. But I would want to train, train, train.

[ArMaP]

I see your logic about it probably being a Left side window...

but I am not sure I can agree that it was a traingular window.... it does not sem to appear triangular..

Perspective does that.

also the Rectangular window that I indicated was on the Left hand side..

That's irrelevant, as I think it was the triangular window on the left, not the docking window.

The unclear part in the Right side of that Photo does not seem to match  the L.P.D as I would have expected... I can see possible slight scaling in the faded questionable area of that photo... but its not seeming to be on tha actual window.. and if it is... its blanking some of the light out... where as when you look on the clear  photo that shows the L.P.D.. it appears to not blank out all the windows transparancy clarity of that area..

Something etched on a window glass will always change the way the light passes through that window, but it also changes the way the light reflects on the window pane. The photos that show the LPD well have light shining from inside the module, so the light reflects on the LPD. The photo showing the CM has the light coming from the outside, so etching on the window pane (on both the outside and inside glasses) blocks the light a little.

Could the small rectangular window also have a L.P D on it ?

I doubt it had an LPD, as the idea of the LPD was to aid the landing. It's possible that it had a similar thing to help the docking.

Can I ask where you got the info on the LPD from ? is there a link ?

would it be this ?

It's possible, I don't remember, I have to check my browser's history.

What part is this

I don't know.

and is there some monitor within the craft as shown in this middle photo ?

I have no idea, but I doubt it.

[ArMaP]

I think your biggest problem is that sometimes you think your opinions are facts. The fact that you think the window is wrong doesn't mean that it really is, and if you don't see how perspective and framing of the photo can make an acute angle of a triangular window look like a square angle from a rectangular window then I think you need to study a little geometry, specially projections.[/quote]

All the pictures of the inside of the windows show window frames and rivets/bolts  This picture shows NOTHING of the interior of the craft.  Please explain to me how any amount of 'perspective' removes all traces of the interior of the craft like window frames.

And no... no acute angle can make that triangular window with the markings on it look like a rectangle with no part of the interior of the craft showing

[ArMaP]

And how soon we all forget that we already proved that NASA deliberately makes the moon GREY SCALE in publicity photos..

I didn't forget it, I have seen other cases like that, and that's one of the reasons I prefer that site I mention a few pages back, as their photos always look the same.

WHY?  Why do they need to hide the true color?  Is it because it is easier to fake a landing in Black and White?    Back then we didn't have technicolor 

We did, technicolor is a much older movie process.

This is the original Clementine Full Earth shot (proving the did have real color cameras on board )

It doesn't prove they did had real colour cameras (whatever that may mean), as they did not, they had five different filters (415nm, 750nm, 900nm, 950nm, and 1000nm) for one of the cameras (the UV/Vis camera, if I'm not mistaken), and with those filters we can get colour images, but not real colours, in the same way we don't get real colours from HiRISE or other missions, we only get approximate colours after adjusting the values from some of the filters.

[ArMaP]

Thanks for posting those last two posts..

Thats a better cleaer image of the Monitor !




Until I came on the forum.. I had no idea about the model Moon set up that you have shown..

Now that I looked better at that photo I could see it's a Rover simulator, so it was not (as zorgon's comment appears to imply) an CM or LM simulator.

I rather surprised that they have released those photos under the possible circumstances of them being questioned later about such things.. if its definately been a hoax all the time..

If they had nothing to hide they had no problem in publishing those photos. Any photos that showed things they didn't want to show could be left unknown of the public, as it probably happened.

But seeing pictures of them painting or altering images on the model...

that can make you question it ... No doubt along what you indicate...

I Now  see your point about using a Grey Colour being used to show  for the Moon !

Seriously, I don't think anyone with two (or even just one) good eyes and a functioning brain can think that that model was able to provide the photos we have, the detail on the model was only good for locating features, it was not enough to provide the images we have.

Yes that image that shows the Earth... does prove they had or used Colour cameras..

Clementine is a 1994 mission, the first (as far as I know) to use a digital camera with a CCD sensor.

Would the van allen  Radiation  belt  issue prevent an unmanned flight ? even if did effect humans...

did it effect the electronics ?

Today's electronics are much more affected than older electronics, as their smaller size makes them easier to be affected by charged particles. A charged particle on an old style transistor would hit just part of it, on today's transistors it could as big as the transistor itself.