Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

Turbonium:

This not a court of law.

If it was maybe a judge would be jailing you for contempt for not answering questions put to you, which has happened many times in this and other threads.

You have claimed, repeatedly, that photographs exist showing Apollo like details on the lunar surface taken prior to the missions and that these were used to fool all us stupid people into thinking they were lunar landers, equipment and tracks made by people and vehicles. You have claimed that you had seen these somewhere. I asked you for links. You never did. I am not making that up.

Whether you recall that or not, you have never provided any evidence at any time to show that there was anything capable of taking such a photo - apart from mistaking weather satellites for spy satellites and thinking that satellite cameras using film that were collected by planes could be used in lunar orbit without human intervention. All we have is your badly informed say so.

I have supported my claims about the details on the lunar surface images over and over again. You have done nothing.

Here are the links, again:

onebigmonkey.com...

onebigmonkey.com...

Any time you want to prove any of that wrong you just go right ahead and do that.

Oh, and you still do not understand the difference between the change in surface photometry caused by the descent engine as it landed and that produced by human activity. You denied that effect existed, or that it had been shown on Earth. You denied that it was known about at the time of Apollo. You denied it could be seen in surface images despite being given examples. All of that proven wrong.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You just called it "a glaringly obvious mistake".

What does that tell you?

it tells me that either you have no clue what it should look like, or it isnt a mistake.
you keep forgetting that you are the one calling it a mistake that is repeated over and over and over again.

It's not only me, and even if it was, that doesn't mean it's not true.

But if 'everyone' else sees it, then they'd be able to prove it is there. Which nobody has done, because it is NOT there!

It isn't proven by some so-called majority of people saying so, it is proven with valid evidence, and nothing else matters.

it seems to be only you. and we have been able to prove that it is there:


the only problem is you refuse to acknowledge it.. that is not my problem.

and yes this is a close up HD image of the lunar disturbance caused by the descent engine, which NASA specifically took so that they would know what the disturbance would look like..
and yet you claim they forgot because humans make mistakes...

Because it is NOT in any (supposed) 'surface' images!

I don't know if they "forgot" to match the actual feature, or if they knew, but for whatever reason(s), they didn't do it.

The fact is that no feature is found in any surface images. The reason(s) for that fact are not the least bit relevant.

there is but YOU refuse to acknowledge what it is due to your biased reasoning holding you to say that it is not what it is.
we have also shown you that NASA knew that lunar regolith would be brighter due to being compressed by showing you boot prints.. you refuse to acknowledge it.. it isnt our problem that you ignore everything presented to you.

Again, it doesn't matter if it was total incompetence, or not.

It's the plain reality.

it does matter, and the reality is that you are saying that NASA has made a huge glaringly obvious mistake not once not twice but in every single surface footage available..

that is NOT a mistake that is not even incompetence.. it is very deliberate..

think about thousands of engineers making a race car.. they do everything right to perfection in an attempt to make the fastest car possible.. come race day when they have prepared everything to the best they can.. they forgot to bring wheels.. ruining their race..

ok thats a mistake a huge mistake..

but your claim is that these thousands of engineers didnt just forget to bring the wheels for one race, they "forgot" to bring it to every single race in the entire championship year..

get it?? what you are claiming they have done is NOT A MISTAKE

It SHOULD be easily visible, that's the reality here.

according to you..

It's not about being "special", it is about the truth.

no, for you, its about conforming to your narrative. not about conforming to truth.
the truth and your narrative are not the same, since you have claimed that centrifugal force cannot exist without gravity.

I notice when the moon is rising, just over the horizon. it appears bigger, than when its directly overhead.

I'm thinking this is because, at moon rise, the light shine refracts through more atmosphere, causing the light image to magnify, and when it is directly overhead, it refracts through less atmosphere, causing the light image to magnify less.

The same observation could be made about the sun. With the sun there seems to be an extra confirmation that this observation could be valid. When the sun is directly overhead, it is hotter than at sunrise, suggesting the sun is closer to you, say, at high noon, than it is at sunrise, even though the light image appears larger at sunrise.

Thoughts?

a reply to: InachMarbank

It's called the "Moon Illusion," and there are several theories to explain it:

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: InachMarbank

It's called the "Moon Illusion," and there are several theories to explain it:

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh thanks. Atmospheric magnification not looking correct.

This optical illusion discovery credited to Delboeuf looks like a better explanation.

wbaa.org...

originally posted by: InachMarbank

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: InachMarbank

It's called the "Moon Illusion," and there are several theories to explain it:

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh thanks. Atmospheric magnification not looking correct.

This optical illusion discovery credited to Delboeuf looks like a better explanation.

wbaa.org...

Years ago, I did my own rough experiment to see if the Moon was actually magnified while it was low on the horizon, or if its apparent larger size was just an optical illusion.

I held a ruler out in my hand with my arm fully outstretched in front of me, and I measured the apparent diameter of the moon on the horizon. Then a few hours later, I did the same thing with the Moon higher in the sky. The diameters were the same, even though the one near the horizon looked so much bigger to my eyes.

So based on my little experiment, I'd say "optical illusion" is the explanation, not atmospheric magnification.

I think they we landed on the but also lied about it.
One of my favorite discrepancies are the images taken below the LLM and of its landing pads of undisturbed dust. There are images taken from the same landing of a crater under the LLM made from the descent, with dust covering the landing pads as expected. However, other images show no crater/disturbance, and pristine landing pads.

Another is the infamous footage of the flag moving in a vacuum after an astronaut hops passed it, as if moving from the air created by his movement though he wasn't close enough to have touched it.

And I loved how the Myth Busters ignore that (air currents created from movement) as the issue and instead showed that you can hold a flag and, yes, cause it to move in a vacuum.

a reply to: CajunMetal

I'm not sure where you're getting your information but there are precisely ZERO photographs showing a crater under the LM. Every single picture taken under the LM shows clear signs of disturbance and the pads don't have large amounts of dust in them because that material was blown away by the descent engine. You seem to be expecting two polar opposite things to happen. How exactly would you expect the descent engines to be so powerful as to blast a crater into the solid lunar surface, yet so weak that it wouldn't blow the dust beyond the landing pads? Can you please present your alleged pictures that show a crater under the LM and/or heavy dust in the landing pads?

Your second point is from a video where the astronaut passes between the camera and flag (if it's a different one, please post it) the problem with that video is that you can't conclusively say that he didn't touch the flag as he passed it. Also, a very common problem on the moon was very high static buildup on the suits which could also easily effect the flag in such an environment. There's also the possibility that as he was hopping by he kicked dust into the flag, either way the video is inconclusive at best.

originally posted by: CajunMetal
I think they we landed on the but also lied about it.
One of my favorite discrepancies are the images taken below the LLM and of its landing pads of undisturbed dust. There are images taken from the same landing of a crater under the LLM made from the descent, with dust covering the landing pads as expected. However, other images show no crater/disturbance, and pristine landing pads.

All of the landing videos showed dust. This means there was still dust. That dust can be filmed disappearing off to the horizon in a way not possible on Earth (the video taken by China's landing shows it doing exactly the same), not hanging around to redeposit on to the pads.

Another is the infamous footage of the flag moving in a vacuum after an astronaut hops passed it, as if moving from the air created by his movement though he wasn't close enough to have touched it.

And I loved how the Myth Busters ignore that (air currents created from movement) as the issue and instead showed that you can hold a flag and, yes, cause it to move in a vacuum.

I also love the way Mythbusters show that you can make a flag move in a vacuum. It kind of proves that you can move a flag in a vacuum.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: InachMarbank

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: InachMarbank

It's called the "Moon Illusion," and there are several theories to explain it:

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh thanks. Atmospheric magnification not looking correct.

This optical illusion discovery credited to Delboeuf looks like a better explanation.

wbaa.org...

Years ago, I did my own rough experiment to see if the Moon was actually magnified while it was low on the horizon, or if its apparent larger size was just an optical illusion.

I held a ruler out in my hand with my arm fully outstretched in front of me, and I measured the apparent diameter of the moon on the horizon. Then a few hours later, I did the same thing with the Moon higher in the sky. The diameters were the same, even though the one near the horizon looked so much bigger to my eyes.

So based on my little experiment, I'd say "optical illusion" is the explanation, not atmospheric magnification.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

Imagine it in a court of law...

Yes, imagine it in a court of law. Tens of thousands of engineers and expert witnesses take the stand to explain their contribution to the project, and how it all worked. Hundreds of thousands of witnesses testify to the successful launch of the rockets. Thousands of hours of film documenting every aspect of the missions, hundreds of tons of documents, rocks that match samples brought back by a rival superpower.... And your case is "I don't understand why the ground looks funny in this picture."

The 'experts' can't prove their claim, which is the only problem here.

It all comes down to proof, in the end.

Whether you like it or not.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Turbonium:

This not a court of law.

If it was maybe a judge would be jailing you for contempt for not answering questions put to you, which has happened many times in this and other threads.

You have claimed, repeatedly, that photographs exist showing Apollo like details on the lunar surface taken prior to the missions and that these were used to fool all us stupid people into thinking they were lunar landers, equipment and tracks made by people and vehicles. You have claimed that you had seen these somewhere. I asked you for links. You never did. I am not making that up.

If you aren't "making it up", then why can't you prove it??

Because you can't prove it, obviously, or you would have done so...

Show your proof, or admit you made it up, once and for all...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Turbonium:

This not a court of law.

If it was maybe a judge would be jailing you for contempt for not answering questions put to you, which has happened many times in this and other threads.

You have claimed, repeatedly, that photographs exist showing Apollo like details on the lunar surface taken prior to the missions and that these were used to fool all us stupid people into thinking they were lunar landers, equipment and tracks made by people and vehicles. You have claimed that you had seen these somewhere. I asked you for links. You never did. I am not making that up.

Whether you recall that or not, you have never provided any evidence at any time to show that there was anything capable of taking such a photo - apart from mistaking weather satellites for spy satellites and thinking that satellite cameras using film that were collected by planes could be used in lunar orbit without human intervention. All we have is your badly informed say so.

I have supported my claims about the details on the lunar surface images over and over again. You have done nothing.

Here are the links, again:

onebigmonkey.com...

onebigmonkey.com...

Any time you want to prove any of that wrong you just go right ahead and do that.

Oh, and you still do not understand the difference between the change in surface photometry caused by the descent engine as it landed and that produced by human activity. You denied that effect existed, or that it had been shown on Earth. You denied that it was known about at the time of Apollo. You denied it could be seen in surface images despite being given examples. All of that proven wrong.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Blobs and specks of sand, right?

This is the first time I've ever heard of blobs and specks being "clearly identifiable pieces of
hardware"!!

How do you know the blobs and specks are pieces of equipment? Because they match up to their equipment, which they left on the moon, right?

Is it possible to put blobs and dots in these images, to match up with equipment they say is on the moon?

For sure, they could fake all, or some, of these dots and blobs, as needed.

I think the dots and specks are really there, but the 'footprints' were put in the images later on...

This is what I think they did..

They already had satellite images of the lunar surface, before Apollo 'landed' there, as we know.

There are countless dots and blobs seen in these images, of course.

They simply find the areas of dots and blobs that will fit as 'the equipment', the 'LM', of each landing site.

Iirc, there is an image taken before Apollo landed, showing the exact same dots and blobs attributed to Apollo equipment, and the LM...

It is denied, of course, after being caught. Not a chance.

This trick is used by magicians, who claim they read minds, or can see the future..

It is just an illusion, of course.

The key is to make everyone think he can read minds.

In the Apollo example, it is an illusion of equipment and landers being left by astronauts on the moon.

Although we realize they look like little dots and
blobs, we accept their claim of being equipment they left on the moon.

They all match up to the exact spots where they landed, where the LM's landed, and where equipment was left.

A perfect match, and matches images from other countries, too.

What you don't realize is that the same exact dots and blobs were already identified as features of the moon, well before Apollo came along.

This explains why they will never show close-up, high resolution images of any equipment, since it is not there. In fact, it would show there are actual features of the surface, which would truly confirm they did not land on the moon.

The images do not even match up, with the surface images.

The Apollo 15 LM is a great example of this..

Images show a large blob where the lander came down, disturbed soil on the lunar surface, which is shown in the images, taken from lunar orbit.

The problem is that the images supposedly taken on the lunar surface show no disturbed soil around the lander, which is simply impossible.

A real disturbance seen from orbit is obviously going to be seen in many images taken from the
lunar surface.

The area beyond this disturbance is seen in surface images, but there is nothing different about it.

I think they assumed the blobs should be large enough to portray a lander, with the engine disturbing the soil around the craft during its
descent.

But they forgot to make the same disturbance for their surface images, and they've shown that it was all just a hoax.

I wanted you to see my entire post, first.

And now, this is what I said, in the above post...

"Iirc, there is an image taken before Apollo landed, showing the exact same dots and blobs attributed to Apollo equipment, and the LM..."

"Iirc" means "If I recall correctly".

An image shows the very same features, before Apollo.....if I recalled correctly.

That was my off-hand recollection, whether it is correct, or not, then....


Get real...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: CajunMetal
I think they we landed on the but also lied about it.
One of my favorite discrepancies are the images taken below the LLM and of its landing pads of undisturbed dust. There are images taken from the same landing of a crater under the LLM made from the descent, with dust covering the landing pads as expected. However, other images show no crater/disturbance, and pristine landing pads.

All of the landing videos showed dust. This means there was still dust. That dust can be filmed disappearing off to the horizon in a way not possible on Earth (the video taken by China's landing shows it doing exactly the same), not hanging around to redeposit on to the pads.

Another is the infamous footage of the flag moving in a vacuum after an astronaut hops passed it, as if moving from the air created by his movement though he wasn't close enough to have touched it.

And I loved how the Myth Busters ignore that (air currents created from movement) as the issue and instead showed that you can hold a flag and, yes, cause it to move in a vacuum.

I also love the way Mythbusters show that you can make a flag move in a vacuum. It kind of proves that you can move a flag in a vacuum.

Not a flag that is never even touched, like we saw with the 'amazing' Apollo flag!!

This flag waves without being touched, at all.

Apollo-ites always claimed the flags were moving because the astronauts moved them around, just beforehand.

But they didn't know about a flag waving without being touched, sadly.

For your argument, waving was always due to being touched. Mythbusters worked from the very same premise, as well.

All flags were touched before waving, that's your whole argument...


You support your argument until it is shown to be absolute crap, yet you just keep making up even more crap, and pile it all on top of the original crap!

a reply to: turbonium1

What I'm going to say can be seen as being "mean" or "nasty". So here goes.

No one cares what you think. You've been proven wrong each and every time. Then, once you get proven wrong, you have a little hissy fit. You then go back to previously explained "arguments", like they're something new.

Your demanding of proof is laughable. Where's your proof? (I believe you mean evidence) That's right. You don't have any. You just have an uninformed opinion.

Every weekend I see this thread getting bumped, I know it's you. And I read it. Why? I enjoy the laugh you make me have at your insane rants and circular logic.

So, like I said, no one cares about your opinion.

Prove something or stop whining.

originally posted by: captainpudding
Your second point is from a video where the astronaut passes between the camera and flag (if it's a different one, please post it) the problem with that video is that you can't conclusively say that he didn't touch the flag as he passed it. Also, a very common problem on the moon was very high static buildup on the suits which could also easily effect the flag in such an environment. There's also the possibility that as he was hopping by he kicked dust into the flag, either way the video is inconclusive at best.

Do you actually believe it possible for him to have touched the flag from there?

What would make you claim it is not 'conclusive'?

Have you seen them planting the flag, earlier on, within the same footage?

It will give you a clue about where the flag is, in relation to the astronauts, who are nearby the flag.

Compare this scene to the scene in question, now...

When the astronauts are several feet away from the flag, nowhere close enough to touch it, they are still seen at a distance...



If that isn't conclusive enough for you, it is purely denial.



You are left with one last excuse - an electrostatic charge...

Static electricity does, indeed, exist, as we know. Unlike your other 'phenomenon', which is purely make-belief...

It still doesn't wash, whatsoever.

There would be many other examples of it - but none exist. Not then, or today.

It never happened during any other Apollo missions, and it wasn't ever mentioned, afaik.

And it has never been duplicated, at any time.

It is not proven, and it cannot ever be proven.


It's just a lot of nonsense, posing as if it were actually science....as usual.

Apollo is all about making up these ridiculous excuses, time and time again...


A disturbance can't be seen, from the surface, which cannot be explained away, but there are several hypotheses for it, good enough, now move along, folks!

Do you not understand it is such a farce?

Assume the feature is exactly at the spot a lunar lander came down, over 40 years ago...

What makes them so sure that this feature must solely be due to the lunar lander, from this point, onward?

What would support that claim, anyway?


The surface images certainly don't support any of it...that's quite obvious...


They don't even consider that it might change in over 40 years - that alone shows it is an utterly absurd farce!


And I suppose the lunar surface has always had all those craters, too!!

a reply to: turbonium1

Boring.

debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk...

www.clavius.org...

You and everyone else who latches on to this nonsense as some sort of proof can never manage to reconcile reality with your ravings. As with your other ramblings you deny something has been replicated on Earth despite replying to a post about it being replicated on Earth. You will deny any proof you are given because you are in denial.

The fact is that this was something broadcast on live TV, and those live TV broadcasts show features not seen prior to them landing at Hadley. It's typical that tiny fragments of something are picked out and picked over and not put in their proper context: the flag deployment was part of an event broadcast live to Earth, that carried out science that can't be disputed, that recorded and even created features confirmed by later probes from many countries.

You have nothing. It's about time you realised this.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo



Boring.

debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk...

www.clavius.org...

Neither one of your sources explains the flag waving without anyone near it.

Your first source claims Jarrah White's experiment failed to repeat the Apollo flag scene. I've never seen White's test, but let's assume it doesn't work, as claimed.

The source assumes that White's flag moves differently, and for a shorter period, than the Apollo flag. Assuming that is true, then it only means White's flag did not have same result. Even so, it proves that a flag can wave, solely from someone running by it.

White assumes the flag was waving due to the astronaut running by it. Secondary sources are not considered, which could be in play, such as air conditioners, fans, etc.

The assumption is that it is caused by the astronaut, because he runs past it during the time the flag waves. But it could be due to a fan, off-camera, etc.

It can be replicated, whether by running by it, or a fan, or air conditioner, or in some combination. That's the main point here. Your source thinks if it's not repeatable by a man running by it, then it is refuted. Which is not the case, obviously.

Your second source doesn't even mention this scene, so I don't know why you bothered to post it.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
You and everyone else who latches on to this nonsense as some sort of proof can never manage to reconcile reality with your ravings. As with your other ramblings you deny something has been replicated on Earth despite replying to a post about it being replicated on Earth. You will deny any proof you are given because you are in denial.

Accusing me of ravings, during a raving, is rather ironic!

Nothing has been replicated, either. Show me a feature on Earth, of similar size to the feature on the moon, which is only identifiable from orbit, and not visible anywhere on the ground.

You claimed that aerial photos showed an area which was not seen from the ground, in Egypt, right?

It means that the entire area cannot be seen from the ground, so it couldn't be identified until seeing it from high above, as an area.

So when you are near it, on the ground, you will see where the area is, and beyond the area, yet you cannot see the entire area..

It doesn't replicate the Apollo case, as I've already explained before.

a reply to: turbonium1

Instead of babbling words that you keep saying "explain" it all, could you instead present some evidence, or even some graphics with some arrows and how it's done and etc.

Also doesn't the life support system on the suits do some type of venting...?