Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Misinformation


do you seriously expect us to believe that your going except photos from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter as proof of anything artificial....

I don't expect you to accept anything that will challenge your intellect too much. Seeing as the LRO has also provided images of Chinese and Russian equipment on the moon I am happy to accept that it is capable of seeing them. It has a camera capable of resolving objects as small as 25cm, how big was the LM?

for the sake of debate,, lets both say that the Apollo program never exsist & there was no record of Man ever being on the Moon...then I show you a photo from LRO and say "heres proof Man has been on the Moon" .....Your most likely response is thats just a rock,,its just a trick of light & shadow ,,it doesnt prove anything....

No. Don't ever assume you can speak for me ot decide how I would respond to some specious nonsensical argument. There is more evidence than you can possibly grasp that man has been to the moon. Your ignorance of that evidence is proof of nothing.

So,,in other words... if LRO photos dont meet the standard of proof that something other than the apollo missions is artificial on the Moon...then it should not be used as a standard of proof for apollo either...

The LRO has taken images of artificial objects on the moon, objects placed there by 3 different countries. The LRO has also resolved craters and rocks that are visible exactly where the Apollo missions photographed them. Your arbitrary standard of proof has let you down badly, because it isn't just hardware we're talking about.

originally posted by: Misinformation
for the sake of debate,, lets both say that the Apollo program never exsist & there was no record of Man ever being on the Moon...then I show you a photo from LRO and say "heres proof Man has been on the Moon" .....Your most likely response is thats just a rock,,its just a trick of light & shadow ,,it doesnt prove anything....

So,,in other words... if LRO photos dont meet the standard of proof that something other than the apollo missions is artificial on the Moon...then it should not be used as a standard of proof for apollo either...

It doesn't make any sense to say that Apollo never exsited "for the sake of debate". If Apollo never existed, then of course there would be no LRO images to debate of the landing sites about which to debate.


No images like this one taken from Apollo 17 as it lifted off from the Moon...



...which when compared to the LRO images taken 40 years later show the same footpaths and equipment left behind.




This LRO image don't look like rocks or tricks of light -- it looks like an image of the same scene of the Taurus-Littrow Valley that was taken 40 years earlier by Apollo 17. It is the very fact that the LRO pictures DO match up with the images taken from Apollo 40 years earlier that lend more credence to the idea that these LRO images ARE in fact images of the Apollo sites.

i've been reviewing your replies, and as far as I can tell you've posted some glittering moonscapes that may or may not be of the actual moon,, and some ramblings about the Russians and the Chinese....

this in no way takes away the validity of my argument...

a reply to: Misinformation
You have an argument? Mind telling us what it is?

Nice GIF by the way. So much more relevant than actual photos of the moon.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Here is your mobot SJ:

I know. That's a big mobot. The prototype early version. It would never fit inside an Apollo Command module like that. But I never claimed it could. Obviously, the Mobot will evolve over a period of 10 years.. it will get smaller. Just like computers evolved over 10 years.... they got smaller. Or are you going to falsely use that 1959 image of Mobot to justify your ongoing ignorance of Hughes involvement with Apollo???

OBM you are interested in satellites, yes? Have you ever seen "Ice Station Zebra (1968)" which depicts the recovery of top secret films dropped from orbit by a top secret satellite... the film is picked up by a top secret submarine mission to the Arctic station.

Richard Nixon screened Ice Station Zebra on May 22, 1970 at Camp David. According to sources, it was one of Howard Hughes' favorite films and he screened it dozens of times. Maybe you should try to find a dvd so you can study the movie... and get the DVD with the special feature titled "The Man Who Makes the Difference" which features the ex-Navy camera man who developed the submersible camera capsule used to film the world's first full focus submarine dive.

Maybe you misunderestimate the ability of Hollywood and Hughes to build a remote control camera arm that could be used inside an unmanned capsule in 1969. There is nothing difficult about it.... remote control TV eyes had been used on Surveyor by the Americans 1966-1967 and on Lunokhod by the Russians in 1970.

It's so easy even the Russians could do it.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Here is your mobot SJ:

I know. That's a big mobot. The prototype early version. It would never fit inside an Apollo Command module like that. But I never claimed it could. Obviously, the Mobot will evolve over a period of 10 years.. it will get smaller. Just like computers evolved over 10 years.... they got smaller. Or are you going to falsely use that 1959 image of Mobot to justify your ongoing ignorance of Hughes involvement with Apollo???

OBM you are interested in satellites, yes? Have you ever seen "Ice Station Zebra (1968)" which depicts the recovery of top secret films dropped from orbit by a top secret satellite... the film is picked up by a top secret submarine mission to the Arctic station.

Richard Nixon screened Ice Station Zebra on May 22, 1970 at Camp David. According to sources, it was one of Howard Hughes' favorite films and he screened it dozens of times. Maybe you should try to find a dvd so you can study the movie... and get the DVD with the special feature titled "The Man Who Makes the Difference" which features the ex-Navy camera man who developed the submersible camera capsule used to film the world's first full focus submarine dive.

Maybe you misunderestimate the ability of Hollywood and Hughes to build a remote control camera arm that could be used inside an unmanned capsule in 1969. There is nothing difficult about it.... remote control TV eyes had been used on Surveyor by the Americans 1966-1967 and on Lunokhod by the Russians in 1970.

It's so easy even the Russians could do it.

Unless you have proof it was built its nothing more than a bad sci fi movie. Not to mention the technology didnt exist. And we obviously have mounds of evidence showing astronauts on the moon. Do you haveanything showing a half ton mobot roaming arround with a cord leading all the way back to earth since they used hydraulic servos because the computers and batteries were incapable of powering it. I know maybe Nixon time traveled to the future right?

Ill be waiting for picture or video of a mobot on the moon let me know when you find it.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Here is your mobot SJ:

I know. That's a big mobot. The prototype early version. It would never fit inside an Apollo Command module like that. But I never claimed it could. Obviously, the Mobot will evolve over a period of 10 years.. it will get smaller. Just like computers evolved over 10 years.... they got smaller. Or are you going to falsely use that 1959 image of Mobot to justify your ongoing ignorance of Hughes involvement with Apollo???

I'm not ignorant of the involvement of a large contractor in the 8 year programme leading up to Apollo 11's landing. I just question its relevance to your claim that they were involved in something that didn't happen.

You do, of course, have evidence of a much smaller mobot? It's not the first time pictures of a large mechanical machine has been posted to point out to you how ridiculous your idea is, but you've never managed to produce a picture of one that will fit inside a CM, or an LM, or that was than transferred to the lunar surface to install experimental equipment, take photographs and video of objects that wouldn't be imaged again for 40 years or collect samples that could be returned to Earth.

OBM you are interested in satellites, yes? Have you ever seen "Ice Station Zebra (1968)" which depicts the recovery of top secret films dropped from orbit by a top secret satellite... the film is picked up by a top secret submarine mission to the Arctic station.

Dropping film canisters was the standard way of getting spy satellite films back to base, although it was usually done mid-air not underwater. Ice Station Zebra is a great work of fiction. Of course I've seen it.

Richard Nixon

Oh Christ here we go - are you like this at dinner parties?

screened Ice Station Zebra on May 22, 1970 at Camp David. According to sources, it was one of Howard Hughes' favorite films and he screened it dozens of times. Maybe you should try to find a dvd so you can study the movie... and get the DVD with the special feature titled "The Man Who Makes the Difference" which features the ex-Navy camera man who developed the submersible camera capsule used to film the world's first full focus submarine dive.

Seen it, so what...

Maybe you misunderestimate the ability of Hollywood and Hughes to build a remote control camera arm that could be used inside an unmanned capsule in 1969. There is nothing difficult about it.... remote control TV eyes had been used on Surveyor by the Americans 1966-1967 and on Lunokhod by the Russians in 1970.

It's so easy even the Russians could do it.

Maybe you over-estimate the ability of Hollywood to render views of Earth from space and the lunar surface with any degree of accuracy. Right up until relatively recently if you wanted a convincing view of Earth from space you used an actual view of Earth from space. They were certainly useless at it in the 1960s. See my website for more.

Despite all your bluster no-one has any evidence that this was done. No-one. Not one. If you bothered to read my analysis of weather photographs and Apollo you would know from the discussion that I am well aware that it's possible to send a remote TV signal from the Moon to Earth. The problem you and every one else trying to re-write history to bolster up their own agenda is that just because it could be done, doesn't mean that it was.

You also massively over-simplify the activity of Apollo astronauts. To say that it was just photographs and film is a gross misrepresentation of what was returned from the lunar surface. Thousands of photographs and hours and hours of film featuring astronauts against a backdrop of boulders and craters that are exactly where the LRO photographed them 40 years later. Experimental equipment, with live TV broadcasts of that equipment being installed, sending data back to Earth for years after the astronauts left. Images of Earth shown on live TV that are an exact match for what weather satellites say should have been visible, over 800 lbs of samples that are verified as being of lunar origin, TV and film of astronauts in zero and 1/6 g. The list of evidence supporting Apollo is very very long. Your list of evidence opposing it doesn't even start.

Designing, building and sending a machine to the lunar surface to do all that would have been much more complicated and expensive than sending a person. There is evidence that people were sent. Where is your evidence for a robot, other than your knee-jerk response to a photograph from Apollo 12 that proves a person was taking a photograph in cislunar space when you insisted that there wasn't one?

Where is your proof?

originally posted by: dragonridr

Ill be waiting for picture or video of a mobot on the moon let me know when you find it.

Let us know when you can tell who took this picture? It will be never a straight answer!

Linking the daily mail in a post about the moon landing being a hoax doesn't look very good.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Where is your proof?

December 19, 1972. All the proof you need.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: dragonridr

Ill be waiting for picture or video of a mobot on the moon let me know when you find it.

Let us know when you can tell who took this picture? It will be never a straight answer!

Sure I can give you a straight answer. It was one of these three guys:



Never shared a camera with a friend or family member on holiday? Can you say with absolute certainty who took every single one of your holiday snaps? What about baby photos? Did your mum take the photo or was it your dad? If you can't tell - perhaps you don't really exist!

Yes, that's how ridiculous your argument is.

As for a "robot arm"... well.




Anyway, if a choice of three people is too nebulous for you, I can tell you without a doubt who took this one (AS12-51-7501)



That would be Dick Gordon, because Conrad and Bean were over there in the LM, as seen above the Albategnius region of the moon.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: dragonridr

Ill be waiting for picture or video of a mobot on the moon let me know when you find it.

Let us know when you can tell who took this picture? It will be never a straight answer!

Strawman. This is your repeated attempt to divert attention away from Apollo 12's pictures of Earth being an exact match for the weather satellite data. You pretty much made up the whole mobot nonsense to divert people away from your failure to explain that.

Fact: that Apollo image occurs between images of Earth that can be dated precisely. Some of those Earth images are an exact match for ones featured on live TV broadcasts after TLI. Those images of Earth are not taken from Earth orbit. The arm in that reflection belongs to an astronaut. You have presented no proof that is anything different other than conjecture and bogus strawbots.

For free:

DIck Gordon.

Why? because he was the only one who wore a watch on his right hand.

Enhance the image above by adjusting levels and sharpening and what do you get:



If you can claim you can identify a strawbot in the picture, I'm claiming that's Gordon's watch.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Where is your proof?

December 19, 1972. All the proof you need.

is that really the best you have?? you dont even know is the soviets were in on the hoax so the best evidence you got is a date?? i guess you are running out of ideas?

ooohh ooohhh let me try let me try..

proof that WW2 was one giant hoax: September 2, 1945. All the proof anyone needs.

ingenious method.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
For free:

DIck Gordon.

Why? because he was the only one who wore a watch on his right hand.

Enhance the image above by adjusting levels and sharpening and what do you get:

[image snipped]

If you can claim you can identify a strawbot in the picture, I'm claiming that's Gordon's watch.

Good spot.

No doubt SJ will claim that the robot arm was fitted with a wristwatch as well as a spacesuit sleeve, for added verisimilitude...

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
For free:

DIck Gordon.

Why? because he was the only one who wore a watch on his right hand.

Enhance the image above by adjusting levels and sharpening and what do you get:

[image snipped]

If you can claim you can identify a strawbot in the picture, I'm claiming that's Gordon's watch.

Good spot.

No doubt SJ will claim that the robot arm was fitted with a wristwatch as well as a spacesuit sleeve, for added verisimilitude...

Probably a timeulator

www.timetrafficker.com...

To be fair it's speculative - that circle could equally be the lens from a Hasselblad, or it could be pareidolia.

The suit is also not likely to be the full suit as you've shown, more likely to be like the one modelled by Conrad here



as featured in the 16mm footage, in space archive.org...

Notice that the US Flag patch is on the left shoulder. There is nothing on the right arm, as shown in the window reflection photo.

Here's an interesting one:



Conrad shielding the Gordon's Hasselblad. Note Gordon's watch on his right wrist. You can see it in several clips, he obviously wore his Omega Speedmaster all the time.

Notice also that two identifiable Apollo 12 astronauts are seen floating around in zero G conditions in cislunar space.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The suit is also not likely to be the full suit as you've shown, more likely to be like the one modelled by Conrad here

as featured in the 16mm footage, in space archive.org...

Yes I was wondering about that - at what times did the astronauts wear the suits and when were they in "shirt sleeves"? From the photos, they wore the full suits for take-off, but would they have worn them at all after reaching orbit, e.g during the translunar coast when that photo would have been taken?

The reflection does look like it shows quite a bulky suit, but that may just be the foreshortening effect.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
For free:

DIck Gordon.

Why? because he was the only one who wore a watch on his right hand.

Enhance the image above by adjusting levels and sharpening and what do you get:

[image snipped]

Wow you mean there were actual astronauts on board and not a giant robot who would have thought? So im sure they had the giant robot merely look like people they were actually advanced androids from the year 2199 that Nixon time traveled to steal the technology. Because hes trying to hide some big secret on the moon and cant have people actually go there. Or i guess the alternative is we sent three astronauts to the moon hmm which is easier to pull of i wonder.

If you can claim you can identify a strawbot in the picture, I'm claiming that's Gordon's watch.

Good spot.

No doubt SJ will claim that the robot arm was fitted with a wristwatch as well as a spacesuit sleeve, for added verisimilitude...

Probably a timeulator

www.timetrafficker.com...

To be fair it's speculative - that circle could equally be the lens from a Hasselblad, or it could be pareidolia.

The suit is also not likely to be the full suit as you've shown, more likely to be like the one modelled by Conrad here

as featured in the 16mm footage, in space archive.org...

Notice that the US Flag patch is on the left shoulder. There is nothing on the right arm, as shown in the window reflection photo.

Here's an interesting one:

Conrad shielding the Gordon's Hasselblad. Note Gordon's watch on his right wrist. You can see it in several clips, he obviously wore his Omega Speedmaster all the time.

Notice also that two identifiable Apollo 12 astronauts are seen floating around in zero G conditions in cislunar space.

originally posted by: Rob48

Yes I was wondering about that - at what times did the astronauts wear the suits and when were they in "shirt sleeves"? From the photos, they wore the full suits for take-off, but would they have worn them at all after reaching orbit, e.g during the translunar coast when that photo would have been taken?

The ALSJ transcript has this for Apollo 12:

004:37:40 Conrad: No, no, we'll just stay put. We're getting hungry, and I think we're going to start getting out of these suits and eat in a little bit here.

That time would be just after the LM had been taken out of the S-IVB. Earlier in the transcript he talks about getting out of the suits in the LM (where there would have been more room), but obviously was happy enough to do it slightly before the LM inspection. By that time all the really dangerous stuff was done.

The window photographs were done around 34:30 hours into the mission (Capcom discusses it first with Gordon, then Conrad), which ties in perfectly with the pictures of Earth either side of them in terms of where the terminator lines are and the weather patterns on view. SJ's strawbot is just a distraction from those weather patterns that prove they were in cislunar space when they said they were.

a reply to: Rob48

No doubt SJ will claim that the robot arm was fitted with a wristwatch as well as a spacesuit sleeve, for added verisimilitude...

Exactly! Молодец!

That's an interesting word you used... verisimilitude. It's not word that gets used very much in these times. It reminds me of this story about the production of Howard Hughes' epic "The Conqueror (1956)".

The cast and crew spent many difficult weeks on location, and in addition Hughes later shipped 60 tons of dirt back to Hollywood in order to match the Utah terrain and lend verisimilitude to studio re-shoots. Source Wiki [5] Adams, Cecil (October 26, 1984). "Did John Wayne die of cancer caused by a radioactive movie set?". Retrieved on September 13, 2010.