The Official JKB Conspiracy Theory Thread

[Space Mackerel]

Don't change the subject.

 

You said in an earlier post, and I quote ...

 

"I don?t think they had the technology back then", when referring to Apollo.

 

The technology is there in Florida in plain sight, as I have pointed out. Millions of tourists have seen it. Launch vehicles, assembly buildings, transport vehicles, launch pads, moon landers, everything, Do you deny that it exists?

Don?t think any of them were going to the moon though?

 

Could you confirm their missions from the logs please?

[Space Mackerel]

So you're a Halton brat? ????

Appo aye?

[Space Mackerel]

haha you've lost it mate

I've not googled anything

I leave that to you and your fellow zoomers

Do you not know what Jodrell Bank is then?

Maybe you should google it

If you honestly don't believe man landed on the moon then your engineering knowledge aint so hot

Photo from Earth that Jodrell took please of moon landings.

[deesidejambo]

Photo from Earth that Jodrell took please of moon landings.

You are showing your stupidity again.

 

Jodrell Bank is a radio telescope. You clearly don't know what that is.

 

The photos of the landing sites posted above were taken from the LRO orbiter about 5 years ago.

 

Are they faked?

[SUTOL]

The photos of the landing sites posted above were taken from the LRO orbiter about 5 years ago.

 

Are they faked?

 

 

In reality those pics could be of anything anywhere. There is no evidence they are of the surface of the moon and that the things highlighted are anything more relevant than the other things not labelled. 

 

Is there a clearer picture of the Lunar Roving Vehicle? 

 

In reality those pics could be of anything anywhere. There is no evidence they are of the surface of the moon and that the things highlighted are anything more relevant than the other things not labelled. 

 

Is there a clearer picture of the Lunar Rover? 

[The White Cockade]

Photo from Earth that Jodrell took please of moon landings.

photos?

you really are out of your depth aren't you

and for the fourth time can you explain why the Russians et al colluded with the USA to "pretend"

they landed on the moon?

[deesidejambo]

In reality those pics could be of anything anywhere. There is no evidence they are of the surface of the moon and that the things highlighted are anything more relevant than the other things not labelled. 

 

Is there a clearer picture of the Lunar Roving Vehicle? 

 

In reality those pics could be of anything anywhere. There is no evidence they are of the surface of the moon and that the things highlighted are anything more relevant than the other things not labelled. 

 

Is there a clearer picture of the Lunar Rover? 

So you suspect the photos of all six sites are are faked.   Then no point discussing as you will just cry fake.

 

So moving on - h ow do you explain the laser reflectors that were left at each landing site and are in daily use to this day by observatories all over the world.

[Sten Guns]

Unreal levels of trolling from a space cadet.

[deesidejambo]

Unreal levels of trolling from a space cadet.

But he is exposing his lack of knowledge and lack of ability to do research.

 

Jodrell Bank photos!!!!!!!

[SUTOL]

So you suspect the photos of all six sites are are faked.   Then no point discussing as you will just cry fake.

 

No I'm not. I'm asking if there are any better ones, or a way of proving they are what they say they are.

Edited September 24, 2017 by SUTOL

[deesidejambo]

No I'm not. I'm asking if there are any better ones, or a way of proving they are what they say they are.

There are no better ones. The LRO orbiter at about 20-60 miles above the surface so that's as close as it gets.

 

The landing sites were corroborated by a Japanese orbiter which mapped the terrain in 3D and were able to show the terrain matched exactly the photos taken on the surface by the astros. This was also done about 5 years ago so google if you want to check. But of course those naughty Japanese could also be at it.

[Dawnrazor]

Could the reflectors and tracks not have been put there and made by unmanned missions? Just asking.

[SUTOL]

There are no better ones. 

 

 

 

That's a shame, because better images would shut-up most doubters. 

(Not that I'm one, but I'm sure a few google earth images of the Sahara could produce similar results, as the pics) 

Edited September 24, 2017 by SUTOL

[deesidejambo]

Could the reflectors and tracks not have been put there and made by unmanned missions? Just asking.

Yes they could. The Russians also put reflectors on by unmanned missions.

 

But that would mean that NASA would have to have sent six unmanned missions to the moon at exactly the same time as the Apollo missions.

 

Then you would need to explain why Jodrell Bank and many other radio telescopes, including the Russians were able to track in real time the radio voice signals from every mission. CTs will say that the missions were manned, but the astros just orbited the moon and sent robotic craft down to plant the reflectors and make the tracks.

[deesidejambo]

That's a shame, because better images would shut-up most doubters.

(Not that I'm one, but I'm sure a few google earth images of the Sahara could produce similar results, as the pics)

The Google earth photos are higher definition as they are larger optical cameras. The LRO is a small camera which was all that was needed for the purposes of the LRO project.

 

If people doubt that the photos are real then they need to be aware that there are six seperate landing sites, and the photos of all six show the equipment exactly as it was left by Apollo. Yes the definition isn't clear but sufficient over six sites to satisfy general acceptance.

[Dawnrazor]

Yes they could. The Russians also put reflectors on by unmanned missions.

But that would mean that NASA would have to have sent six unmanned missions to the moon at exactly the same time as the Apollo missions.

Then you would need to explain why Jodrell Bank and many other radio telescopes, including the Russians were able to track in real time the radio voice signals from every mission. CTs will say that the missions were manned, but the astros just orbited the moon and sent robotic craft down to plant the reflectors and make the tracks.

Ok, ta.

[deesidejambo]

This thread gives me the opportunity to post my favourite link.

 

CTs - ignore it its all faked.

 

Others, feel free to take a look if interested.    18 minutes of pure drama.

[SUTOL]

The Google earth photos are higher definition as they are larger optical cameras. The LRO is a small camera which was all that was needed for the purposes of the LRO project.

 

If people doubt that the photos are real then they need to be aware that there are six seperate landing sites, and the photos of all six show the equipment exactly as it was left by Apollo. Yes the definition isn't clear but sufficient over six sites to satisfy general acceptance.

 

All interesting and valid stuff. 

 

It's something I've never taken much interest in or done research on, so my comment about the pictures and quality of them was from a 'devils advocate' point of view. 

 

 

So again, it's a shame there isn't clearer images that would easier refute the sceptics. But saying that a clearer picture of the LRV would just mean they would say it was of one in the Mojave desert or similar. 

[deesidejambo]

All interesting and valid stuff. 

 

It's something I've never taken much interest in or done research on, so my comment about the pictures and quality of them was from a 'devils advocate' point of view. 

 

 

So again, it's a shame there isn't clearer images that would easier refute the sceptics. But saying that a clearer picture of the LRV would just mean they would say it was of one in the Mojave desert or similar. 

No problem.

 

Always happy to help anyone with genuine queries, as many may know I am an Apollo geek and was a kid at the time but was allowed to stay up late to watch live TV transmission of the first step on the moon.  I'll never forget it.

 

I interested google mirrors on the moon for info on the reflectors.

[Space Mackerel]

There are no better ones. The LRO orbiter at about 20-60 miles above the surface so that's as close as it gets.

 

The landing sites were corroborated by a Japanese orbiter which mapped the terrain in 3D and were able to show the terrain matched exactly the photos taken on the surface by the astros. This was also done about 5 years ago so google if you want to check. But of course those naughty Japanese could also be at it.

3D Photo please.

 

Or shut yer pus [emoji4]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Edited September 24, 2017 by Space Mackerel

[Space Mackerel]

Anyone got a photie of Neil Armstrong on the moon from Earth?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[deesidejambo]

3D Photo please.

 

Or shut yer pus [emoji4]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

You still not figured out that Jodrell Bank is a radio telescope. And you in the RAF as well.

 

And how's it going with your missile packed with executed bodies and aircraft parts hitting the Pentagon? That's a cracker.

[maroonlegions]

There is yet another strand of conspiracy theory  that says that the details in the Apollo images of the lunar surface were obtained by earlier lunar probes in the Lunar Orbiter series, or some other unnamed and mysterious source, in order to construct studio sets.

 

Obviously this does create some problems for the landing deniers, because they have to concede that rocket technology capable of sending things to the Moon and returning a signal did exist long before the the first human orbit of it.

 

Even the Russians had been at it, beating the Americans in a number of areas of lunar exploration, as well as getting a probe to land on Venus.

 

What will be attempted below is to try and examine details revealed about the landing sites as they are today, and comparing them with what we know was available at the time of the missions.

 

For more background information on the Lunar Orbiter probes, see here.

 

 This site also contains useful information, and is the source of new scans of the orbiter photographs.

 

 This document gives a detailed history of the Orbiter programme, while much higher resolution images can be obtained from this USGS site. More detailed information on the imaging and printing processes can be found here and here.

 

 

In brief, one of the main aims of the probes was to provide photographic data on the Apollo zone of interest - the area identified as likely to provide both safe landing areas and scientifically valuable sites.

 

They carried cameras capable of high resolution images, and eventually coverage of the lunar surface was almost complete.

 

While one camera lens took a large scale view, a separate lens zoomed in on much smaller areas. The highest resolutions are claimed to show features just a few feet across.

 

Obviously, argue the conspiracy lovers, this means they must have been capable of providing the detail of the lunar surface needed to generate the photographs taken by Apollo.

 

The lenses and film it used were frompreviously classified spy cameras developed in the late 1950s.

 

 

In order to get the photographs to Earth, they were developed inside the Orbiter using an automatic process much like the one that used to be used to print DIY passport photographs from booths in shops.

 

The developed image was then scanned, and this scanned information was transmitted back to Earth essentially as a video signal, with modulations in the signal proportionate to the light signal received from the developed negative

 

 

At the Earth end of things, the received images were scanned again on a kinescope and printed out, line by line, on long rolls of paper using different sized square blocks to represent the light level in a specific part of the image.

 

 

These prints could be quite large, and individual strips up to 25 feet long were used to compile the complete photograph, shot from above in a large building.

 

 

This long convoluted process, where an original photograph was transmitted to Earth, re-scanned and then finally photographed again is essentially a lossy process, and the theoretical image resolutions possible in the camera are not necessarily those available to NASA back on Earth.

 

 

The high resolution photographs were 1.58m by 0.4m, making them unwieldy (hence their division in to 3 more manageable pieces).

 

 

It?s difficult to tell from the scanned images available now, some of them re-processed by the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project what the photographs would have looked like in reality to those using them.

 

The image below shows a small section of the type of print-out photographed for NASA (Source

 

 

 

 

The first photograph below shows a NASA technician with a ream of photo printouts used in assembling the lunar orbit simulator, and gives some idea of the size and quality of the printed images, as does the second image below showing orbiter 3 images laid out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bottom one is the so-called ?Image of the Century?, Lunar Orbiter II?s high resolution oblique shot of Copernicus crater, and the top one a vertical medium resolution view of Tycho crater from Orbiter V. Photographs of these glossies are shown below, with a 10? tablet showing the same photograph for size comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The photograph below shows a comparison of a section of the 17Gb RAW TIFF scan of the Tycho image.left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

it?s fairly obvious from this comparison that the scanned images are a good representation of the glossy originals available to NASA, although the scan is noticeably sharper. A magnifying glass would have been required to view the same level of detail visible above.

 

The image shown below is a close up view of the original glossy image (bottom) compared with a ?digitally remastered? view from the same image done by the LOIRP (top).

 

 

 

 

 

More detail from the original can be recovered with some digital processing in Photoshop, but obviously this wasn?t available to the Orbiter teams at the time (see below).

 

 

 

 

There are also images from contemporary publications that show the kind of detail available at the time. One such is the use of Lunar Orbiter 3 images to locate the Surveyor probes on the moon, particularly Surveyor 1 and Surveyor 3, later visited by Apollo 12. This publication contains a number of references to that process, and the image below shows the Surveyor 1 probe as revealed by the 3rd Lunar Orbiter probe (left) and the modern LRO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could the Lunar Orbiter images have been used to create sound stages or other models to fake the Apollo landing sites?

In a word no.

 

There?s also a new section looking at Apollo images, the LRO and the USSR?s Lunokhod-2 probe.

here;   http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/lunokhod/luna.html

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by maroonlegions

[deesidejambo]

So we have a ton of evidence that the moon landings did happen and only a hunch that they didn?t have the technology at the time to do it against them happening.

 

Surely we can all agree on this one now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I admire your faith but the reality is the CTs just ignore the evidence, as Jake demonstrated.

[jake]

I admire your faith but the reality is the CTs just ignore the evidence, as Jake demonstrated.

 

Lol.

Houston we have a stalker

[Maple Leaf]

Don?t think any of them were going to the moon though?

 

Could you confirm their missions from the logs please?

For the second time on this thread, you've worn me out.  As someone earlier posted, 'You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational thinker."  This is how a discussion with you sounds:

 

Space Mackerel:  The Forth Bridge doesn't exist.

 

Rational person: I've seen it, lots of times.

 

SM: Prove it.

 

RP: There are countless pictures of it.

 

SM: They're fakes.

 

RP: Millions of people have gone over the bridge in trains.

 

SM: Show me the passenger lists

 

RP: Go to South Queensferry and you'll see it for yourself.

 

SM:  I don't have to.  I know it's not there

 

RP:  Who would fake this, and why?

 

SM:  I don't know and I don't care.  But the bridge is definitely not there.

 

So, you win.  I'm out.  You throw reason out the window and stand logic on its head, and I have better things to do with my time.

[The White Cockade]

For the second time on this thread, you've worn me out.  As someone earlier posted, 'You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational thinker."  This is how a discussion with you sounds:

 

Space Mackerel:  The Forth Bridge doesn't exist.

 

Rational person: I've seen it, lots of times.

 

SM: Prove it.

 

RP: There are countless pictures of it.

 

SM: They're fakes.

 

RP: Millions of people have gone over the bridge in trains.

 

SM: Show me the passenger lists

 

RP: Go to South Queensferry and you'll see it for yourself.

 

SM:  I don't have to.  I know it's not there

 

RP:  Who would fake this, and why?

 

SM:  I don't know and I don't care.  But the bridge is definitely not there.

 

So, you win.  I'm out.  You throw reason out the window and stand logic on its head, and I have better things to do with my time.

nail on the head

no point reasoning with them

[Sten Guns]

For the second time on this thread, you've worn me out. As someone earlier posted, 'You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational thinker." This is how a discussion with you sounds:

 

Space Mackerel: The Forth Bridge doesn't exist.

 

Rational person: I've seen it, lots of times.

 

SM: Prove it.

 

RP: There are countless pictures of it.

 

SM: They're fakes.

 

RP: Millions of people have gone over the bridge in trains.

 

SM: Show me the passenger lists

 

RP: Go to South Queensferry and you'll see it for yourself.

 

SM: I don't have to. I know it's not there

 

RP: Who would fake this, and why?

 

SM: I don't know and I don't care. But the bridge is definitely not there.

 

So, you win. I'm out. You throw reason out the window and stand logic on its head, and I have better things to do with my time.

[Sidelight]

For the second time on this thread, you've worn me out.  As someone earlier posted, 'You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational thinker."  This is how a discussion with you sounds:

 

Space Mackerel:  The Forth Bridge doesn't exist.

 

Rational person: I've seen it, lots of times.

 

SM: Prove it.

 

RP: There are countless pictures of it.

 

SM: They're fakes.

 

RP: Millions of people have gone over the bridge in trains.

 

SM: Show me the passenger lists

 

RP: Go to South Queensferry and you'll see it for yourself.

 

SM:  I don't have to.  I know it's not there

 

RP:  Who would fake this, and why?

 

SM:  I don't know and I don't care.  But the bridge is definitely not there.

 

So, you win.  I'm out.  You throw reason out the window and stand logic on its head, and I have better things to do with my time.

 

 

This Bridge?

[Bridge of Djoum]

But he is exposing his lack of knowledge and lack of ability to do research.

 

Jodrell Bank photos!!!!!!!

Mate, do you have photos taken from your car steering wheel?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Bridge of Djoum]

For the second time on this thread, you've worn me out.  As someone earlier posted, 'You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational thinker."  This is how a discussion with you sounds:

 

Space Mackerel:  The Forth Bridge doesn't exist.

 

Rational person: I've seen it, lots of times.

 

SM: Prove it.

 

RP: There are countless pictures of it.

 

SM: They're fakes.

 

RP: Millions of people have gone over the bridge in trains.

 

SM: Show me the passenger lists

 

RP: Go to South Queensferry and you'll see it for yourself.

 

SM:  I don't have to.  I know it's not there

 

RP:  Who would fake this, and why?

 

SM:  I don't know and I don't care.  But the bridge is definitely not there.

 

So, you win.  I'm out.  You throw reason out the window and stand logic on its head, and I have better things to do with my time.

Post of the week.

[Space Mackerel]

You still not figured out that Jodrell Bank is a radio telescope. And you in the RAF as well.

 

And how's it going with your missile packed with executed bodies and aircraft parts hitting the Pentagon? That's a cracker.

No photos of a wee wave from the three of them from the surface then?

[Bridge of Djoum]

Anyone else sick of all the fake pics on the Main Stand thread?

 

It's obvious the old stand is still there cos some **** told me, although I cannot be arsed looking for myself.

[jake]

Anyone else sick of all the fake pics on the Main Stand thread?

 

It's obvious the old stand is still there cos some **** told me, although I cannot be arsed looking for myself.

 

Links to this some #$/@ please.

[Bridge of Djoum]

Links to this some #$/@ please.

 

Was this guy.

[jake]

I

Was this guy.

 

Better than mainstream buddy

[deesidejambo]

No photos of a wee wave from the three of them from the surface then?

Silly boy. Radio telescopes don't take photos. No wonder the RAF didn't want you.

 

Also there were two on the surface, not three.

 

But apart from that your post is fine.

[Bridge of Djoum]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jake]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Funny that i thought it was the ones he was arguing with that were doing all the blubbin.

 

Whatever you think of spaces views he has served his country in combat.

And he is cynical about that.

So for that i think hes sound.

 

Sorry Space that on here is probably the worst kind of back up you could hope for.

 

But in other places its no

[deesidejambo]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The RAF are fine. They did the right thing to boot Spacey before he broke their radios trying to take photos with them.

[Space Mackerel]

Silly boy. Radio telescopes don't take photos. No wonder the RAF didn't want you.

 

Also there were two on the surface, not three.

 

But apart from that your post is fine.

Radio telescopes? Have you an image taken by one?

 

Why couldn?t they use a normal one? Didn?t the technology exist back then? Wasn?t the telescope invented in the 1600?s or something?

 

You should watch Cosmos sometime. I?m on episode 8. Its on Kodi.

[Iamborg]

Radio telescopes? Have you an image taken by one?

 

Why couldn?t they use a normal one? Didn?t the technology exist back then? Wasn?t the telescope invented in the 1600?s or something?

 

You should watch Cosmos sometime. I?m on episode 8. Its on Kodi.

[Unknown user]

What's the deal with all the Moon Rock samples? Where did they come from?

 

Why did they fake not going to the moon on Apollo 13?

 

And what happened on Apollo 1? Did they fake kill or actually kill the Astronauts?

You're asking the puppet master to make you dance.

[Space Mackerel]

What's the deal with all the Moon Rock samples? Where did they come from?

 

Why did they fake not going to the moon on Apollo 13?

 

And what happened on Apollo 1? Did they fake kill or actually kill the Astronauts?

The moon was part of the earth billions of years ago if you know how the solar system formed. You can pick up rocks the same age here.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[deesidejambo]

Loving you Spacey.      Yer trolling is cheering me up as my job got cancelled today.

 

For normal people - The reason optical telescopes can't take detailed pictures of the moons surface is simple.    The moon is a quarter of a million miles away.     The LM lander is 16 feet square.

 

Anyone with a simple knowledge of optics (not Spacey obviously) can show that resolving 16 feet from a quarter million miles away is unachievable unless the optical telescope lens is the size of Tynecastle.      Even Hubble which is a large optical telescope in orbit round the earth can't do it.

 

That is why NASA sent the LRO (optical telescope) to the moon a few years ago - to take photos from a distante of 20-60 miles, as they did, to identify distinct flunar eatures, which it did.      ML has posted just a few of the thousands of photos, of which all are available on the Web, Google NASA LRO.

 

For Spacey - every single photo, of over thousands, has been faked by Arizona State University.    Why they would want to fake thousands of photos of the moons surface is known only to you.  Bloody students eh?

[deesidejambo]

And to answer another daft question - the onboard computer in Apollo was indeed very basic, but it had the capability to do simple guidance calculations.

 

But all the big calculations were done in Houston, where there were massive computer rooms, which calculated everything then sent the results to the Astros to implement.  The link I posted on the 11 landing gave an example of that in practice.     Simple really, but this concept will elude CTs who dont have ability to think..

 

As a backup, every day the Astros used optical sextants as they had a perfect view of any stars they wanted, so they could quickly pinpoint their position relative to their target trajectory.  They were all trained in navigation by sextant and they used this to continually check the computer data.

[Space Mackerel]

And to answer another daft question - the onboard computer in Apollo was indeed very basic, but it had the capability to do simple guidance calculations.

 

But all the big calculations were done in Houston, where there were massive computer rooms, which calculated everything then sent the results to the Astros to implement. The link I posted on the 11 landing gave an example of that in practice. Simple really, but this concept will elude CTs who dont have ability to think..

 

As a backup, every day the Astros used optical sextants as they had a perfect view of any stars they wanted, so they could quickly pinpoint their position relative to their target trajectory. They were all trained in navigation by sextant and they used this to continually check the computer data.

Using the same technology as Marco Polo now.

[deesidejambo]

Using the same technology as Marco Polo now.

I didn't know Marco Polo had such large computers.  His boat would sink.

[Space Mackerel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Lovell the only man to fly to the Fake Moon twice but not get to walk on set.....................

I watched Apollo 13 in a US Naval base in Sicily. FAF watching all the Yanks jump up and down in the cinema, hooping and a hollering when Tom Hanks made it back.

 

Guess it was just a movie though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[deesidejambo]

I watched Apollo 13 in a US Naval base in Sicily. FAF watching all the Yanks jump up and down in the cinema, hooping and a hollering when Tom Hanks made it back.

 

Guess it was just a movie though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Did you remember to tell them Apollo 13 never happened?