AS14-66-9306....

[ArMaP]

Stars are clearly visible by satellites in orbit.  Here is a common picture taken daily of the North Pole.



more pictures at:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

That's not a photo.

[ArMaP]

Z is right.  Watch this video members and then tell me the Apollo story is credible!

What part(s)?

[zorgon]

My belief is that If those guy's went to the Moon... they sure as hell didn't go via a big gas bag chemical rocket and were more taken there as guest's... which would explain their rather odd behavior from the time the event occurred to now.   

Remember back when we got Jack(RIP) on board?  Remember the McMoon Missing LO Tapes?  Well the fellow from JPL who had them (Dr X from the ATS threads) also was at Kwajalien at the time of the Aquila launch to the moon, 3 months before Apollo 11  He told me there was a glowing craft watching them for EVERY launch

The first days of the Apollo story  the ham radio operators picked up the transmission speaking of having company on the moon... I heard those live at the time... but I didn't record it  At that time no one had and idea that NASA and the government was covering things up

In fact the very term "Conspiracy Theorist" was only coined by the CIA in 1967 We TRUSTED NASA back then  We TRUSTED the government back then and we thought the Cop on the street was our friend in time of need

Boy were we ever wrong

[ArMaP]

After talking to my sister who is a professional photographer (and showing her the photo), things are more complicated than I was expecting, as she doesn't understand what may have happened to create those distorted "shadows".

PS: I wrote "shadows" because although I think those are shadows I'm not sure about any thing at the moment.

[Pimander]

You guys are great.  And I saved the question I'm too tired to answer tonight this time ArMaP.

[Aemilius]

Interesting some of the stuff you guys are bringing up, I'm glad I started the thread. Sorry if I came on a bit strong ArMaP, but that's the wonderful world of debate.... Isn't it?

Anyway, I'm convinced now (and really have been for some time) that the Apollo photographic record can not be considered as any kind of reliable proof of man having landed on the Moon based not just on the issue I raised here, but also the myriad issues I've seen raised by so many others (here and elsewhere).

My take is that if NASA wanted to make some of the images more appealing for public relations/publication purposes that would have been fine, but those altered photographs should have been clearly marked as such in order to preserve the integrity of the historic record. They didn't do that so now the whole archive is suspect to one degree or another.

So there's no reason for us to keep debating it ArMaP, we can just agree to disagree. I don't think there's any more chance of you coming around to my perspective than there is of me coming around to yours so it wouldn't be productive. If you do manage to come up with a replication that illustrates the effect as you described it earlier though I'd like to see it, but I'm not going to hound you about it.... it's not that important.

I know the reticle issue has been discussed (Clavius, Aulis, etc.), but I don't recall anyone specifically pointing this out before, except for Jack White, who made a passing reference to it somewhere (I forget where I saw it).

Again thanks for all the comments guys.... great stuff.

[RUSSO]

I'm glad I started the thread

Not only you, Im glad aswell you did.

Thanks for it. Gold for you 

[ArMaP]

Interesting some of the stuff you guys are bringing up, I'm glad I started the thread. Sorry if I came on a bit strong ArMaP, but that's the wonderful world of debate.... Isn't it?

No problem, I'm used to it.

Anyway, I'm convinced now (and really have been for some time) that the Apollo photographic record can not be considered as any kind of reliable proof of man having landed on the Moon based not just on the issue I raised here, but also the myriad issues I've seen raised by so many others (here and elsewhere).

Any photographic record can be the result of manipulation, one of the reasons I think the photos we have access to are not fake is that it's easy for professionals to fake photos in a way nobody would notice.

My take is that if NASA wanted to make some of the images more appealing for public relations/publication purposes that would have been fine, but those altered photographs should have been clearly marked as such in order to preserve the integrity of the historic record. They didn't do that so now the whole archive is suspect to one degree or another.

I limit that to the sites where I found those altered photos, as I said before, I never saw any problem in the science-oriented sites.

So there's no reason for us to keep debating it ArMaP, we can just agree to disagree.

For some reason that happens a lot to me.

I don't think there's any more chance of you coming around to my perspective than there is of me coming around to yours so it wouldn't be productive.

I don't have any problems in accepting your perspective, it would help if you answered my question.

If you do manage to come up with a replication that illustrates the effect as you described it earlier though I'd like to see it, but I'm not going to hound you about it.... it's not that important.

I will try.

[Pimander]

Any photographic record can be the result of manipulation, one of the reasons I think the photos we have access to are not fake is that it's easy for professionals to fake photos in a way nobody would notice.

That is not logical.  I have seen the opposite (that it can be faked therefore it is) applied to UFO evidence.  Both points of view are irrelevant IMO.  The pictures are a genuine account of what happened or they are not.

[ArMaP]

That is not logical.  I have seen the opposite (that it can be faked therefore it is) applied to UFO evidence.  Both points of view are irrelevant IMO.  The pictures are a genuine account of what happened or they are not.

Sure, the photos are either genuine or not, what I meant to say is that there's no way of someone that was not there to really know if they are or not. 

[Pimander]

what I meant to say is that there's no way of someone that was not there to really know if they are or not. 

I certainly agree with that.  It was definitely possible to fake the suspect Apollo pictures but that does not mean they are all fakes.

The parts of the video that in my opinion damages the credibility of the Apollo 11 mission is the visible signs of guilt/stress (yes, in human intelligence it is considered less stressful to tell the truth) and of course the confusion about whether they could see the stars.  You would remember the stars.  Astronauts today say you will never forget the incredible striking beauty of space.  The "astronauts in the video do not have the demeanour of people who have just achieved their lifelong dream and one of the biggest moments in the history of humankind.

I am torn by the evidence.  I have seen shots from the Moon that appear to show the landing sites, yet the pictures taken there are not entirely credible, the lander does not look like it could support the mission and they had no radiation protection.

Fascinating.

[ArMaP]

The parts of the video that in my opinion damages the credibility of the Apollo 11 mission is the visible signs of guilt/stress (yes, in human intelligence it is considered less stressful to tell the truth) and of course the confusion about whether they could see the stars.  You would remember the stars.  Astronauts today say you will never forget the incredible striking beauty of space.  The "astronauts in the video do not have the demeanour of people who have just achieved their lifelong dream and one of the biggest moments in the history of humankind.

I didn't watch the video this time, but I remember watching it some years ago, and I agree, their reaction is strange.

Now, if they show signs of stress when answering, does that mean that they were lying or does it mean only that they were under some stress, probably related to the question? If they lied when they said that they don't remember seeing the stars does that mean that they remembered? And why would they lie about it, they just had to say "yes, we saw them".

To me, that video appears to show the astronauts as expecting some kind of question for which they would have to lie and that they would have to refuse to answer.

I have to take a look at the whole video.

I am torn by the evidence.  I have seen shots from the Moon that appear to show the landing sites, yet the pictures taken there are not entirely credible, the lander does not look like it could support the mission and they had no radiation protection.

The way it looks is not really important, the only important thing is that it worked as it should.

Have you seen the replicas of the ships used during the 15th and 16th century by the Portuguese and Spanish navigators? They look too small and primitive to be able to navigate from Europe along the African coast, to India and to the Americas, but they did.

[Pimander]

Have you seen the replicas of the ships used during the 15th and 16th century by the Portuguese and Spanish navigators? They look too small and primitive to be able to navigate from Europe along the African coast, to India and to the Americas, but they did.

Have you seen the replicas of the ships used during the 15th and 16th century by the Portuguese and Spanish navigators? They look too small and primitive to be able to navigate from Europe along the African coast, to India and to the Americas, but they did.

Thor Hayerdahl made it to the Americas on an Egyptian style reed boat.

I still think there is something that the public do not know about the Apollo missions.  Perhaps there is a secret that explains the strange behaviour of the astronauts and the suspicious looking Apollo images?  I just wish I knew what that secret is. 

[ArMaP]

Thor Hayerdahl made it to the Americas on an Egyptian style reed boat.

I still think there is something that the public do not know about the Apollo missions.  Perhaps there is a secret that explains the strange behaviour of the astronauts and the suspicious looking Apollo images?  I just wish I knew what that secret is. 

I think it's highly likely that there was some kind of secret.

About those "suspicious looking images", if you haven't (I don't remember) why not start a thread about them?

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

The 'Secret' was NASA HAD TO GET TO THE MOON before the end of the decade. Come hell or high water, they were going to fullfil Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade.
They were a little short, so they faked the first landing and then subsequently went to the moon. Just my opinion but hey...