Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: cestrup

But you won't admit that the evidence is all basically controlled by the people we believe are lying. And the dust, if it were in 1g and not "moon dust" then you don't know what you're calculating. It could also be special effects as I've stated earlier because those physicists knew that it would have been a smoking gun to the observant.

theres a very simple thing you can do..

just confirm whether or not the maximum height reached exceeds the astronauts height in this clip


why do you say the dust could be special effects since it would be a smoking gun to the observer??? that doesnt make sense coming from you?

originally posted by: cestrup We colonize (remember the plans??) and we exploit for resources. If it were so easy - which you try to make it seem - don't you think China or Russia or private industry would have been there? Could you imagine how hard it was for the first Viking ship to cross the Atlantic? They didn't stop - The Spanish didn't stop.

exploit the moon for resources?? are you suggesting you have a cost analysis of exploiting the resources on the moon?? as far as i know, mining the moon is extremely expensive and dangerous, not to mention will require long term stays in space.

a reply to: cestrup

What do you mean about parallax? I posted a single still image from Earth showing a visible change in texture at a ridge line. A separate issue? Parallax refers to the way the three-dimensional landscape appears to shift when viewed from different angles.

I am just trying to put the scale of this landscape into perspective for you here. Remember the original image?



See the prominent little pile of rocks at the lower left?

Here it is from further away. I have zoomed in to the same rock pile so you can get your bearings:



In the full size image, which is here, you can match up rocks all the way to the horizon with that original image - but, crucially, the angles between them are different because the photo was taken from a very different vantage point. That's parallax. That's proof that we are looking at a three-dimensional landscape and not a flat backdrop.

The big boulder just to the right of that rock pile is called Boulder 2. It was one of the Apollo 17 sample collection points as you can see here:



That is the same boulder that is visible in the foreground in one of the pics I used in my "blinky" GIF above:



Do you see the scale of the landscape, the distance to the horizon? Look at the lunar rover in the foreground to get some idea. Like I said, distances on the moon can be very deceptive. The photos don't exist in isolation like that website you linked to suggests. Landscape features were photographed from lots of different angles and from lots of different distances. How is that possible if they were part of a painted backdrop? Please tell me you can see this, otherwise I have just wasted half an hour of my life pulling together these photos. Ah well, if nothing else it was nice to do a bit of lunar sightseeing...

a reply to: cestrup

Do you not think things through cestrup? Math can only be done two ways. A right way and a wrong way. Now, Rob was posting on this topic long before I was. Why would I post math equations he has already posted? That would be redundant. Besides, Rob reposts anyways. So really it's already redundant.

Violations? Pfffft. Please, disagreeing with one member of ATS and agreeing with another on any given topic is not a violation. Sorry, it's just not. Teaming up and attacking a fellow member IS however. That's not happening here. I have NEVER attacked you, just the theory you're pushing and the logic/evidence you use to back it up. You could be an awesome guy for all I know. So please don't go there.

And I've said myself from the get-go that sand is a key factor here. Plus the parallax photo is hard to dismiss.

Look cestrup, if you want me to post and explain the math equations I will. But they're already on this thread. If you want me to post videos and pics that disprove your theory I will. But those are already on this thread too. Proof appears to be meaningless to you though.

Why isn't China mining resources from the Moon? Wow. I can't believe someone would even wonder that. Please google geology of Earths moon.

originally posted by: Kronzon
a reply to: cestrup

Why isn't China mining resources from the Moon? Wow. I can't believe someone would even wonder that. Please google geology of Earths moon.

I haven't done the maths on this, but I have seen it said that even if the moon was made of solid gold, it wouldn't be cost-effective to go and mine it. Seems plausible to me, given the cost of a sample return mission (and the obvious fact that a sudden influx of lunar gold would mess up the supply-and-demand curve and push prices down).

originally posted by Cestrup
But, I saw this article here and it brought up some excitement. www.themoscowtimes.com...

That would be exciting. I'd love to see a new space race. I'd love to see men back on the moon. Maybe Putin is mad and bad enough to do it.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: cestrup

What do you mean about parallax? I posted a single still image from Earth showing a visible change in texture at a ridge line. A separate issue? Parallax refers to the way the three-dimensional landscape appears to shift when viewed from different angles.

I am just trying to put the scale of this landscape into perspective for you here. Remember the original image?

See the prominent little pile of rocks at the lower left?

Here it is from further away. I have zoomed in to the same rock pile so you can get your bearings:

In the full size image, which is here, you can match up rocks all the way to the horizon with that original image - but, crucially, the angles between them are different because the photo was taken from a very different vantage point. That's parallax. That's proof that we are looking at a three-dimensional landscape and not a flat backdrop.

The big boulder just to the right of that rock pile is called Boulder 2. It was one of the Apollo 17 sample collection points as you can see here:



That is the same boulder that is visible in the foreground in one of the pics I used in my "blinky" GIF above:

Do you see the scale of the landscape, the distance to the horizon? Look at the lunar rover in the foreground to get some idea. Like I said, distances on the moon can be very deceptive. The photos don't exist in isolation like that website you linked to suggests. Landscape features were photographed from lots of different angles and from lots of different distances. How is that possible if they were part of a painted backdrop? Please tell me you can see this, otherwise I have just wasted half an hour of my life pulling together these photos. Ah well, if nothing else it was nice to do a bit of lunar sightseeing...

Rob, I appreciate you trying and I understand the point you're trying to drive home. There is an obvious line - that is the same in both of your photos, that differ greatly in detail. As I illustrated in my zoomed in photo, it's nearly impossible to have a parallax at that short of a distance. To lose that much detail in a few feet (yes, I know what you're talking about in distances) doesn't sit right. One layer is real and the other is a back drop of some sort. This is just my opinion and your photos are sort of adding credence to what I linked.

a reply to: choos

Exploration isn't about cost, silly - it's more about curiousity. Something we're certainly not lacking as a species. To be honest, we aren't lacking funding either. Money seems to sprout up for various other projects and bailouts or really anything. I've never bought the "we can't afford it" meme. That's absurd IMO.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Kronzon
a reply to: cestrup

Why isn't China mining resources from the Moon? Wow. I can't believe someone would even wonder that. Please google geology of Earths moon.

I haven't done the maths on this, but I have seen it said that even if the moon was made of solid gold, it wouldn't be cost-effective to go and mine it. Seems plausible to me, given the cost of a sample return mission (and the obvious fact that a sudden influx of lunar gold would mess up the supply-and-demand curve and push prices down).

originally posted by Cestrup
But, I saw this article here and it brought up some excitement. www.themoscowtimes.com...

That would be exciting. I'd love to see a new space race. I'd love to see men back on the moon. Maybe Putin is mad and bad enough to do it.

I think he's bluffing. I believe he likes to screw with the US and act like he's all powerful. Puffery IMO

originally posted by: cestrup

Rob, I appreciate you trying and I understand the point you're trying to drive home. There is an obvious line - that is the same in both of your photos, that differ greatly in detail. As I illustrated in my zoomed in photo, it's nearly impossible to have a parallax at that short of a distance. To lose that much detail in a few feet (yes, I know what you're talking about in distances) doesn't sit right. One layer is real and the other is a back drop of some sort. This is just my opinion and your photos are sort of adding credence to what I linked.

Here is a hopefully screen-width full-size slice of this image from top to bottom. Could you point out where this sudden drop-off of detail occurs?

There is a small ridgeline that passes just above the reseau crosses (through the top of the right-hand one) but you can clearly see surface texture both above and below it. As the distance increases, smaller features become imperceptible and only larger rocks are visible. How is this in any way different from what you would expect?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: cestrup

Rob, I appreciate you trying and I understand the point you're trying to drive home. There is an obvious line - that is the same in both of your photos, that differ greatly in detail. As I illustrated in my zoomed in photo, it's nearly impossible to have a parallax at that short of a distance. To lose that much detail in a few feet (yes, I know what you're talking about in distances) doesn't sit right. One layer is real and the other is a back drop of some sort. This is just my opinion and your photos are sort of adding credence to what I linked.

Here is a hopefully screen-width full-size slice of this image from top to bottom. Could you point out where this sudden drop-off of detail occurs?


absolutely, fine sir. I believe the line is right where the rocks are sitting. At the base of the rocks. There the detail differs greatly IMO

Well if we're going to discuss that particular image of Earth from Apollo 17, here it is compared with the NOAA visible spectrum (left) and Infra-red (right) satellite images.



About 40 minutes after that image was taken, the rover's camera zoomed in on it as well:



Broadcast live on TV.

The yellow arrow points to Tropical storm Violet, which is exactly where it is supposed to be on the pictures. The view of Earth is exactly what it should be for the times concerned.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos

Exploration isn't about cost, silly - it's more about curiousity. Something we're certainly not lacking as a species. To be honest, we aren't lacking funding either. Money seems to sprout up for various other projects and bailouts or really anything. I've never bought the "we can't afford it" meme. That's absurd IMO.

I assume you'll be going to the Maldives this year then? It doesn't matter that you have bills to pay or anything, there's a chance to explore something there. I hear it's very nice. If you don't take the opportunity just because you claim you have no money, despite making regular trips to the supermarket, then I'd find that deeply suspicious.

absolutely, fine sir. I believe the line is right where the rocks are sitting. At the base of the rocks. There the detail differs greatly IMO

You mean where the ridge line is obscuring part of the rocks, indicating that there is a hidden downslope and therefore a discontinuity in the surface that is visible?

Cestrup, I cannot spend any more time on this now, but here is one final attempt to illustrate what I mean by PARALLAX.

I have labelled eight rocks which are visible between the two views, stretching all the way to the horizon. You can see several others that are clearly identifiable in both views, notably two little rock clusters just to the right of numbers 3 and 4.



For a slightly larger version go to i.imgur.com...

I have used the version with the same rockpile that is in the left foreground of the close-up shot highlighted in the more distant version. The close-up shot was taken from fairly close to Boulder 2, which I highlighted before: that is the large rock (approximately 2 metres tall) at bottom centre of the frame with the boxed zoom. (Incidentally, several pieces of Boulder 2 were returned to Earth: you can read all about them including very detailed analysis in this catalogue, from page 91 onwards, ie p101 in the PDF version.)

Do you see how the spatial relationship between those rocks varies hugely between the two shots, as you would expect given the greatly differing camera position? That means we are looking at a three-dimensional landscape covering a great distance. Can you not see that this means it CANNOT be an artificial backdrop inside a studio, as you suggest? For context, remember that the distant shot is a crop from the background of a photograph that includes the lunar rover and many other lunar features in the foreground. It is one continuous landscape both above and below the little rock-lined ridge that you seem to think is some magic seam.

If you cannot grasp from this that you are looking at a three-dimensional landscape, then I can only (politely) suggest that you get outdoors more often and observe what happens in a real undulating landscape.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'm not even trying to be rude but, to me, those dots don't exactly match up and sometimes it looks like you're reaching. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert on this field. But the formations on the earth shot with the terminator line don't seem to match up with your other satellite images.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos

Exploration isn't about cost, silly - it's more about curiousity. Something we're certainly not lacking as a species. To be honest, we aren't lacking funding either. Money seems to sprout up for various other projects and bailouts or really anything. I've never bought the "we can't afford it" meme. That's absurd IMO.

I assume you'll be going to the Maldives this year then? It doesn't matter that you have bills to pay or anything, there's a chance to explore something there. I hear it's very nice. If you don't take the opportunity just because you claim you have no money, despite making regular trips to the supermarket, then I'd find that deeply suspicious.

You're comparing me to an entity that collects taxes from every working and paying American? :::facepalm::::

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos

Exploration isn't about cost, silly - it's more about curiousity. Something we're certainly not lacking as a species. To be honest, we aren't lacking funding either. Money seems to sprout up for various other projects and bailouts or really anything. I've never bought the "we can't afford it" meme. That's absurd IMO.

Ummm well, ok, let's see the best way to approach this without going off topic. I guess the best way is to do it quickly. So here we go. Money does not 'sprout up" it's either there or not. And creating money that's not there causes inflation. That's one of the reasons prices are rising around the globe. I'm sure you remember economics 101. I sure do. Bottom line, people don't work for free. And if you're great at what you do you don't come cheap. To mine resources from the moon would cause any company or country to go into debt ( at least at this point in our history) when it came time to pay the bills. Why would we spend 10b to mine iron we could only sell for 3.5b? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Moving on, you can believe or not believe it, but I worked in the movie industry for years. Nothing major, but I was on sets all day everyday. As a production assistant and eventual production coordinator. I see nothing that looks like a film set in any way. I see no separation lines. And yes, I've helped with SFX. Still see nothing. I see no wires, nothing of what you speak. And I want to believe! I do! Seriously. I do. Nothing would be more wild than to find out the moon landing was a hoax. Unfortunately I see no real evidence at all. Just skepticism, hearsay and utter denial in the shadow of indisputable facts.

You are passionate cestrup, and that's commendable. But I also believe you are wrong. And the denial of truth is a very dangerous thing.

Also, for someone who's "not an expert" and not "100%" you seem to be very sure of yourself... a lot.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'm not even trying to be rude but, to me, those dots don't exactly match up and sometimes it looks like you're reaching. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert on this field. But the formations on the earth shot with the terminator line don't seem to match up with your other satellite images.

I am an expert in it, I've spent a lot of time researching it and gathering actual evidence together. Please feel free to demonstrate that they are wrong. My website is in my sig, you can read all about where the evidence came from and how it all ties together there. Or you can ignore it and just say that you don't believe it and that will somehow be enough for you.

The Earth's orientation, and terminator line, on both the photograph and TV broadcast match exactly what they should be showing. The cloud patterns on the infra red and visible spectrum images match what is visible on the Earth. It's right there in front of your eyes.

originally posted by: Rob48

absolutely, fine sir. I believe the line is right where the rocks are sitting. At the base of the rocks. There the detail differs greatly IMO

You mean where the ridge line is obscuring part of the rocks, indicating that there is a hidden downslope and therefore a discontinuity in the surface that is visible?

Cestrup, I cannot spend any more time on this now, but here is one final attempt to illustrate what I mean by PARALLAX.

I have labelled eight rocks which are visible between the two views, stretching all the way to the horizon. You can see several others that are clearly identifiable in both views, notably two little rock clusters just to the right of numbers 3 and 4.

For a slightly larger version go to i.imgur.com...

I have used the version with the same rockpile that is in the left foreground of the close-up shot highlighted in the more distant version. The close-up shot was taken from fairly close to Boulder 2, which I highlighted before: that is the large rock at bottom centre of the frame with the boxed zoom.

Do you see how the spatial relationship between those rocks varies hugely between the two shots, as you would expect given the greatly differing camera position? That means we are looking at a three-dimensional landscape covering a great distance. Can you not see that this means it CANNOT be an artificial backdrop inside a studio, as you suggest? For context, remember that the distant shot is a crop from the background of a photograph that includes the lunar rover and many other lunar features in the foreground. It is one continuous landscape both above and below the little rock-lined ridge that you seem to think is some magic seam.

If you cannot grasp from this that you are looking at a three-dimensional landscape, then I can only (politely) suggest that you get outdoors more often and observe what happens in a real undulating landscape.

Rob, I've been staring at this for a while. I don't have an answer for this. I'm not afraid to admit that. You may have got me on this one...I can't explain it. That doesn't mean that it can't be done. And gosh darn it - that gif moved too fast. Do you have a side by side of the same two images? I have fun with this and it would be better for me to compare. Yes, I could tell the spatial difference but I want to wrap my head around this.

a reply to: Kronzon



We have weather experts, film experts and a scientist in this thread. Oh, then me

Buddy, I'm offering what I have that I find inconclusive. That combined with verifiable evidence (yes, we differ on this term) lead me to believe that it could be hoaxed. So much so, that I believe it was. You guys are smart but when it comes to the hard facts (nobody been close to moon or even in VAB since) you guys are merely left with your opinions as to why...