|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Landings ( Book )
Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA released to the
press? And why were no further photographs released. Did NASA lie about the moon landings? The questions remain. That discrepancies are evident in NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed. The big question is "why?" One by one, this investigation outlines the specific "aberrations" in NASA's well-documented photographs and explains how and why the equations simply don't add up. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In message , lheureuxph
writes Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA released to the press? And why were no further photographs released. Did NASA lie about the moon landings? The questions remain. That discrepancies are evident in NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed. The big question is "why?" One by one, this investigation outlines the specific "aberrations" in NASA's well-documented photographs and explains how and why the equations simply don't add up. Another kook with no idea what he's talking about. Every picture taken by the Apollo astronauts is documented, and most of them are available online at places like http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html But feel free to describe some of the discrepancies so we can dissect them in public. -- Save the Hubble Space Telescope! Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Yay, L'Heureux's book. Another person with zero credentials and zero
experience charging people money to read his ill-conceived attempts at amateur photographic analysis. "lheureuxph" wrote in message ... | | Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA | released to the press? Why do the conspiracy theorists keep harping upon the same unscientific, long-debunked "rules" (e.g., shadows must always be parallel) in order to find "anomalies"? Why is it that professional photographic interpreters and renowned scientists the world over accept the Apollo photographs as genuine, while those who contest their authenticity inevitably turn out to be untrained, inexperienced, scientific illiterates who have books and videos to sell? | And why were no further photographs released. Just because your picture-book editors didn't like some of the photos doesn't mean they weren't "released". Every single Hasselblad image has been available from LPI and from NASA for more than 30 years. But because conspiracy theorists consult only secondary sources, whose editors choose the photos based solely on appeal, they are generally unaware of what's available. It's easy to lie and say they've been "suppressed" when the average reader can be relied upon not to check up on the author's claims. | Did NASA lie about the moon landings? The questions remain. But conspiracy theory books only raise questions. They don't provide answers. They're long on innuendo and very short on providing any sort of defensible explanation, or even a clear, comprehensive picture of the data. It's all about controlling what the reader reads, not about thoroughly examining the data and providing anything more than conjecture. | That discrepancies are evident in | NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed. On the contrary, they are highly disputed. But most of the authors turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to those disputations, dismissing them as "disinformation". Are you willing to submit your work to the examination of experts? | The big question is "why?" No, the big question is "if". Conspiracists habitually put the cart before the horse and establish that NASA had the motive and opportunity to hoax the moon landings, then conclude that they definitely did so. They parade around their "anomalies" which, upon closer examination, turn out to be nothing more than conspiracists not understanding the basics of optics, photometry, and other scientific principles that pertain to photographic interpretation. Not one conspiracy theorist has yet shown any evidence of a hoax. They merely show a handful of misinterpreted "aberrations" and from that speculate about some high-handed, deep-seated conspiracy that "must" have produced them, all the while dodging all requirements to show evidence that any such procedure was, in fact, undertaken. | One by one, this investigation outlines the specific | "aberrations" in NASA's well-documented photographs and | explains how and why the equations simply don't add up. Why would NASA release so many photographs that had so many obvious "aberrations" in them? Are we to believe that NASA is so stupid as to release tens of thousands of photographs that illustrate its own failure? What doesn't add up for me is how authors with little or no training and certainly no demonstrable expertise in the fields that pertain to their findings can justify their perpetration of such obvious frauds upon the world's readership. Have you no shame? -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You have absolutely no authority to make the claims you are making as you
have obviously gained all of your knowledge on these topics from someone marginally less ignorant than yourself. Ignorance requires no effort. If you want to understand why you are mislead by books like this, then you need to learn about the topics that it covers. Until you do this, any proof will just be over your head. Eddie T. "lheureuxph" wrote in message ... Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA released to the press? And why were no further photographs released. Did NASA lie about the moon landings? The questions remain. That discrepancies are evident in NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed. The big question is "why?" One by one, this investigation outlines the specific "aberrations" in NASA's well-documented photographs and explains how and why the equations simply don't add up. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - July 28, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 28th 04 05:18 PM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
significant addition to section 25 of the faq | heat | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 15th 04 01:20 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |