finaly proof of moon landing's 'debunk this'

nasa

this will show the landing spots for three missions

reply to post by starfighter1978


Wow!!
Awesome thread!
Positive Proof!
Undebunkable!

And here is some great proof they found ufos on the moon.

Originally posted by starfighter1978
nasa

this will show the landing spots for three missions

Wow a photo of a mouldy petrie dish with arrows.That will do it! The proof in the pudding so to speak .
Now would you like to see some photo's of where I once parked my car?

reply to post by starfighter1978


hmm well i suppose it's not like NASA would doctor images would they?

Nasa have been caught with their pants down on many occasions with numerous doctored images so until we get 3rd party verification i think the jury is still out on the hoax

reply to post by zerozero00


How about this one then...



Top Image was taken as the crew of Apollo 17 left the moon.

Bottom Image is taken by the LRO.

Credit to JRA.

*Posted elsewhere here as well in a pertainent thread.

Apparently, photos are finally available. Posted today:
news.yahoo.com...

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: 1.usa.gov...
Arizona State University Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter camera page:
www.lroc.asu.edu...


Astronauts' tracks, trash seen in new moon photos

By SETH BORENSTEIN - AP Science Writer | AP – 11 hrs agotweet29Share2EmailPrintRelated ContentThis


August 2011 image made available by NASA shows paths left by walking astronauts, …
WASHINGTON (AP) — A spacecraft circling the moon has snapped the sharpest photos ever of the tracks and trash left behind by Apollo astronauts in their visits from 1969 to 1972.

Images taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from 13 to 15 miles up show the astronauts' paths when they walked on the moon, as well as ruts left by a moon buggy. Experts could even identify the backpacks astronauts pitched out of their lunar landers before they returned to Earth.

"What we're seeing is a trail," said Arizona State University geology professor Mark Robinson, the orbiter's chief scientist. "It's totally awesome."

However, the photos were not close enough to see individual bootprints, Robinson said.

The pictures were taken two weeks ago and show the landing sites for Apollo 12, 14 and 17. The closest images are of the 1972 Apollo 17 site, the last moon mission.

Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan wrote in an email to The Associated Press that the photo gives him a chance to revisit those days, "this time with a little nostalgia and disappointment. Nostalgia because those special days are fondly etched in my memory and disappointment because it looks like now we will not be going back within the days I have left on this planet."

Two years ago, images from the same spacecraft from 30 and 60 miles out showed fuzzier images. But this year the orbiter dipped down to take about 300,000 more close-ups. The trails left by the astronauts are clear, but the places where backpacks were discarded, Apollo 17's moon buggy, and the bottom parts of the three lunar landers are blurry.

"You have to really look at it for a long time to figure out what you're looking at," Robinson said. For example, when it comes to the moon buggy he said, "if you squint really hard you can resolve the wheels and that the wheels are slightly turned to the left."

At first, scientists thought they had a bit of a mystery: They saw more stuff than they expected. It turned out to be packing material and an insulation blanket, Robinson said.

After 40 years there does not seem to be much moon dust covering the manmade trails. It probably will take about 10 million to 100 million years for dust to cover them, Robinson said.

The photos were released a few days after the debut of the new fictional movie "Apollo 18" and before Thursday's planned launch of NASA's twin robotic spaceships to explore the moon's gravity.
___

Online:

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: 1.usa.gov...

Arizona State University Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter camera page:

www.lroc.asu.edu...

well who's no's if there real. I mean if it's real or not you are gonna say it's fake anyway?

reply to post by starfighter1978


If they would go to the trouble of faking the Moon Missions then why is it hard to believe they'd fake a picture?

Not that I'm saying that we didn't go necessarily.....just suggesting that these new photos can not be logically said to be more reliable proof that we went than any of the hours of footage already given. Why does new evidence that they went hold more credibility in your mind than all of the old evidence?

only because i havent seen pics before of the landing spots that look like
this. so i believe in my mind that we probly did go there....hmmm

reply to post by starfighter1978


i can tell you from bitter experience - that hoax believers will not accept this

they simply cry foul and ask for something else

its thier classic MO

" where is XXXXXXXXXX , or show me YYYYYYYYY "

when xxxxxxxxx and yyyyyyyyy are produced as demanded

the usual tactic is :

" but thats from nasa .... they faked it .......i want to see ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ "

and so it goes on

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac

Originally posted by starfighter1978
nasa

this will show the landing spots for three missions

Wow a photo of a mouldy petrie dish with arrows.That will do it! The proof in the pudding so to speak

.
Now would you like to see some photo's of where I once parked my car?

If you claim to have photo's of where you once parked your car, then to go along with the crowd, obviously you dont't even have a working car, let alone ever been on the road with it, to have parked it in the first place.

Your parking photo's are fake!!

Where are the Soviet pictures of the landers?

In order for them to 'blow the whistle' they'd have to be able to show pictures of empty landing sites.

The only pictures wherein the Apollo lander artifacts are visible all come from glorious USA.

To the skeptic, this is insufficient. We need third-party proof.

reply to post by starfighter1978


Point 1 - In the enlarged photo, Challenger Descent Stage - seen here;

www.nasa.gov...

is clearly a super-imposed image - the blackness of the shadow does not match the light and shadows of its surroundings.

Point 2 - In the video on the same site above, please explain why the camera cross hair goes behind the gold coloured box to its left.

Point 3 - In the same video depicting the equipment (including the gold coloured box), the hills in the background are the same shape as the ones in the following image....

www.hq.nasa.gov...

...yet in the foreground of this image is a whopping great crater, which does not show up on the aerial view shown in the same page as the supposed Challenger Descent Stage image on your link?

The tracks and other 'visibles' are not evidence of man landing on the moon.

And finally, why the heck haven't these been shown before??

This is not proof, just more trickery to hide the truth about the fact we ain't walked on the moon!

Debunked!

reply to post by ckitch


We've all seen the images of Apollo 11's landing site, the flag etc etc and how there appears to be no dust on the feet of the craft, or blast below from it's engine.

We are now told, via the following link, that the engines DO cause enormous amounts of debris and dust! So where is that effect in the numerous images we've seen?

Equally, as seen in those images, the astronauts place the flag and equipment pretty close to the craft, www.space.com... so surely on blast off, such debris, dust and high velocity acceleration would have destroyed these sites anyway? (if they existed).

www.nasaspaceflight.com...

Quote from the link above;

(Quote) 'Fears include the proximity of landing, liftoff and flyover from a future landing/robotic vehicle, where rocket thrust may erase footprints and treads, sandblast nearby hardware and cause deposition of chemicals/dust.

There are also concerns relating to robotic rovers accidentally running over the footprints created by Apollo astronauts, or contaminate a site via physical contact with heritage hardware.

One of the worst case scenarios listed relates to the potential of Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) errors, resulting in a “crash or off-nominal landing near a heritage site which may produce enormous amounts of debris, dust, chemical contamination, and possible biological contamination.” (unquote)

It doesn't make sense to me, that on the one hand they defend the 'no dust' on the craft feet, or 'blast crater' with suitable scientific reasoning, yet now state they need to protect these sites because of the very risks they deny?

Like all of the Apollo 11 mission information available, supposedly proving it happened, none of it adds up.

They never got there - it was easier to fake it.

The photos were faked.

[/sarcasm]

The only thing that will ever satisfy those who claim the moon landing was a hoax is if they see it with there own eyes via their own telescope. Maybe that wouldn't work because then they would then claim it was a hologram or aliens planted it there.

reply to post by ckitch


Check the scale of the craters in the following link, which supposedly depicts the Challenger Descent Stage (Apollo 17)

www.nasa.gov...

Then check the scale of the craters in relation to the above image, on the following link, which also shows the supposed Challenger Descent Stage (Apollo 17).

en.wikipedia.org...

Clearly the image in the first link has been added in. Also the tracks in this image are suspicious. They show up only slightly in the second link because of the distance the shot was taken, but in that image they are looking more like 'rivers' whereas in the 1st link they seem far to plentiful.

I could go on, but I'd be here all day debunking this.

reply to post by ckitch


And finally.... check out Google moon and type in Apollo 17, then check out the crater formations in this shot;

www.nasa.gov...

Hmm?

In order of what i think is more likely . . .

1. The pictures are photo-shopped (by far the most likely)

2. They used "secret" technology to get people up there to set up the scene. (possible)

3. They didn't send people and put that stuff up there remotely using robots/machines. (unlikely)

4. Apollo missions were real. (snowballs chance in hell)

Originally posted by C0bzz

The only thing that will ever satisfy those who claim the moon landing was a hoax is if they see it with there own eyes via their own telescope.

More likely any third-party evidence would do.

There are no Russian or Japanese images of the artifacts left by the Apollo landings.

*But then the skeptics could argue that they descent stages and rovers were unmanned and the wee robot that simulated the boot tracks self-destructed. And how this would free up several Saturn rockets for something useful, so it would be a horrible waste of resources not to fake the moon missions.