Moon landing replica strangeness

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Those moon set pictures could have passed for a official NASA picture had it not been for Von Braun in them.

Not really. See all the bright spots of light on the ground? Those are multiple spotlights over head. Kind of gives the stage away.

On the real moon there is but one source of light.

Image

Yes, multiple lightsources; exactly like in the Apollo Program moon pictures.

-MM

originally posted by: and14263
What is worrying about this thread are the 6 stars and 9 flags it has received so far. As a new member I judged threads by their gathering of stars and flags. So who the hell gave this thread points?

Past tense. (Sorry, don't want to sound like a pr*ck but for my own integrity's sake).

I'm more shocked about how people are believing what this guy is saying or more likely are blind to the truth with a yearning to believe anything!

OP as you are clearly disabled - or a delusional liar - i will make this short sand simple

you claim that both scenes are " identical " - your claim - ergo to falsifiy your nonesense - i only nreed one difference , thus :



QED

You know, the next excuse will be, 'They moved stuff around so people wouldnt get suspicious'
sorry moon hoax believers, you are struck down....AGAIN.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
OP as you are clearly disabled - or a delusional liar - i will make this short sand simple

you claim that both scenes are " identical " - your claim - ergo to falsifiy your nonesense - i only nreed one difference , thus :

QED

Dear sir, a single rock don't make a mountain; there are more identical features than differences in those two pictures.

-MM

originally posted by: HomerinNC
You know, the next excuse will be, 'They moved stuff around so people wouldnt get suspicious'
sorry moon hoax believers, you are struck down....AGAIN.

The Apollo Program moon pictures are full of moving rocks, so you might be onto something there.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

are you really that stupid - or just taking the piss ??????????????????

do you know what " identical " means

one difference falsifies the notion of identical

FFS - its not rocket science - pun intended

i am now un-subing this thrread - as to continue would llead to T&C violations that will leave mods traumatised

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yes, multiple lightsources; exactly like in the Apollo Program moon pictures.

You know where that road leads, Neo. You have been down it many times before. --Trinity

a reply to: theantediluvian

The lander may have been placed slightly different after being moved for the new exhibition in Atlanta.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation


Dear sir, a single rock don't make a mountain; there are more identical features than differences in those two pictures.

-MM

I guess the angle of respose of that instrument is exactly the same too?

Nice try, but really, no banana this time.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yes, multiple lightsources; exactly like in the Apollo Program moon pictures.

You know where that road leads, Neo. You have been down it many times before. --Trinity

I have downloaded and cropped all the images I need already, I'm just waiting for an excuse now

-MM

They are two different reflectors. Look at the landers legs and the ladder in each picture. In the Moon picture both legs are seen in profile in the studio picture you see just one leg.

This real Moon scene is the correct picture for Von Braun..a different angle altogether. Not a slight change in perspective. Note too the astronaut with the modular compartment open, and the flap with US logo raised.




This is the real Moon scene as used by the OP, it's another angle.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

So what you really mean is that aside from all the things that are NOT identical, the two pictures are identical?

I mean yea, aside from their differences the Sahara desert and Mt. Everest are identical too.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation


Dear sir, a single rock don't make a mountain; there are more identical features than differences in those two pictures.

-MM

I guess the angle of respose of that instrument is exactly the same too?

The equipment have been moved slightly when moved to the exhibition, which is to be expected. The identical features far outnumber the differences though and cannot be ignored.

originally posted by: aorAki

Nice try, but really, no banana this time.

Give the banana to ignorent_ape

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

The equipment have been moved slightly when moved to the exhibition, which is to be expected. The identical features far outnumber the differences though and cannot be ignored.

That makes no sense, the retroreflector array is out of place in the exhibition, that means the 'exact boot marks' are out of place too.

The pictures are so different it's not even funny.

I'd just like to point out to anybody interested in debating with the OP about these pictures that you are absolutely beyond any doubt wasting your time with this person.

You might as well be debating with a Born Again Christian about whether Jesus was able to walk on water or not.

OP you should change your username to 'Brick Wall'.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yes, multiple lightsources; exactly like in the Apollo Program moon pictures.

You know where that road leads, Neo. You have been down it many times before. --Trinity

Uh Oh, get you now.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yes, multiple lightsources; exactly like in the Apollo Program moon pictures.

You know where that road leads, Neo. You have been down it many times before. --Trinity

Uh Oh, get you now.

Couldn't resist. OP is either plugged in the Matrix…

…or an agent.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You know, for an ignorant ape, you're rather quick to determine wrong, right, and self knowledge of the issue.

Were you there for the landing as it happened on the moon? How about for the Werver Van Braun PR shoot?

And please, save me the rhetoric about such and such scientists, gov't, and various experts saying that the "official" history is correct as it is given.

The victors write their own history. If you weren't there, sorry, I wouldn't put much credence in your assertions.


-NF