Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

The Moon Landing through Soviet Eyes: A Q&A with Sergei Khrushchev, son of former premier Nikita Khrushchev

www.scientificamerican.com...

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
He got caught posting a reversed image without saying that he reversed it or for what reason.

It makes perfect sense that he should be crucified for it. He's a blasphemer and a heretic.

Reversing images of Apollo is a SIN!!!

And posting fake "CIA red flags" over images without telling anybody is 100% A-OK, is it?



Link

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
The Russians never sent humans or primates beyond 475km into space. Fact

yes and your point?

Gemini 12 splashed down on Landing date November 15, 1966. Fact

yes and your point?

Ten days later Howard Hughes checks into the top floor of the Desert Inn hotel in Las Vegas. He doesn't check out for 4 years. Fact

yes and your point?

Surveyor 7 lands on the moon it is Richard Nixon's birthday January 9, 1967. Fact

yes and your point?

man first put foot on the moon on July 21, 1969. Fact.

p.s. have you actually figured out yet why it was absolutely impossible for man to land on the moon yet?

a reply to: Rob48

Motion

I wanna make a motion to quash your side-issue of defending of OBM monkey in this thread on the basis that it is disruptive to the community to focus on attacking other ATS members. Stop attacking OBM's credibility. He doesn't have much left after he posted that reversed Apollo image.

Why didn't you call him out on it???

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Your pathetic treaty didn't last long did it?

Stop trying to dictate the thread.

Is that Earth in the visor or not? Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Your pathetic treaty didn't last long did it?

Stop trying to dictate the thread.

Is that Earth in the visor or not? Prove me wrong.

Why don't you post that same image again for us so we can look at your dirty work. You tried to trick us.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Rob48

Why didn't you call him out on it???

Because reversing a photograph of a reflection in order to show the correct orientation is a perfectly reasonable step to take. Especially when you include the link to the original photograph in the same post.

Unlike, say, pasting fake quotations from Wernher von Braun onto a Life magazine cover, or adding "CIA red flags" to government documents.

Now, back to the important part, the photograph. Here is the (reversed) image:



This was taken at the start of EVA 3, which according to the mission timeline would have been approximately 22:30 GMT on December 13 1972.

The location of the landing site is at about 20.19N, 30.77E.

Let's enter that time and place into Stellarium and see what we find.



The Earth should appear just to the west of southwest from the position of the LM at that time.


If you had bothered to read OBM's website you would see that he has already done the analysis, here: onebigmonkey.comoj.com... . I have borrowed his picture here, showing the bearing from the LM to the South Massif. It is roughly southwest.



The Earth appears slightly to the right of the summit of the massif, i.e. closer to the west than the south. Well how about that?

Now look at it again.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Now look at it again.

Yes, that's right, thanks for demonstrating that the image OBM posted is definitely an authentic mirror image, and that his image analysis is valid.

Could you perhaps demonstrate why it is not valid, or are you still struggling with the concept of a reflection, which my two-year-old daughter seems to have grasped?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


"Us"???

The only person who seems to have any difficulty is you. Accusing me of trying to trick people is a violation of your treaty. I attempted nothing of the kind, it's obvious to anyone who cares to engage their brain.

Prove it isn't Earth - I'd check the link Rob48 providef as there is other information in there to help you.

Or you could carry on tilting at windmills.

a reply to: Rob48

Could you perhaps demonstrate why it is not valid, or are you still struggling with the concept of a reflection, which my two-year-old daughter seems to have grasped?

It's a shame that you feel the need to insert your petty remarks all the time, Rob48. Nobody cares about your family. Congratulations on using the propaganda that we rarely see on ATS.... Plain Folks propaganda.

Plain Folks propaganda: Rob's family has a two-year-old daughter who can grasp the concept of reflection! WOW!!!!

A reply to: SayonaraJupiter
OK, SJ, seeing as flipping Apollo images is apparently such a mortal sin, how about I flip the Stellarium image instead? Don't worry, I'll warn you in advance.

Ready?

Flipping in progress....

Flipping complete....



Now, the Earth should appear just to the left of the summit of the South Massif, in the unflipped reflection in the visor.



It works! And without touching the sacred Apollo imagery! What witchcraft is this?


Edit:

Congratulations on using the propaganda that we rarely see on ATS.... Plain Folks propaganda.

Congratulations on totally ignoring the proof that a photograph was taken on the moon, exactly where and when it was claimed, and instead veering off on a tangent about how terrible it is to reverse a mirror image in order to match the actual scene.

I don't have a handy pointy-finger graphic describing the name of this technique. "Transfer" could do it, but I prefer "Feigning total stupidity". At least I hope you are feigning.

a reply to: Rob48

how about I flip the Stellarium image instead?

No, how about you stop flipping images which is abhorrent to the ethics of photojournalism?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Your pathetic treaty didn't last long did it?

Stop trying to dictate the thread.

Is that Earth in the visor or not? Prove me wrong.

Why don't you post that same image again for us so we can look at your dirty work. You tried to trick us.

he did.. he posted the link to the original one..

which is alot more than you would for your "illustrations" mr hypocrite.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Rob48

how about I flip the Stellarium image instead?

No, how about you stop flipping images which is abhorrent to the ethics of photojournalism?

photojournalism??

he flipped it for illustration purposes.. because evidently, some people find it difficult to deal with..

have you got a problem with illustrations to demonstrate a point?

- Operation Sputnik -..... Nixon was said too be at an undisclosed location,,,but was he really in the command bunker the whole time ,,,then later on he is spotted at the whitehouse....

coincidence...I think not....

originally posted by: Misinformation
- Operation Sputnik -..... Nixon was said too be at an undisclosed location,,,but was he really in the command bunker the whole time ,,,then later on he is spotted at the whitehouse....

coincidence...I think not....

Fraudulent gibberish.

If SJ is going to burst an aneurism over a revered image, then I sincerely hope he is going to take you to task for the blatantly fake Nixon added to the Eisenhower press conference.



Fake. Fake. Fake. Fake. Totally Irrelevant Fake.

I'm beginning to think you are a POE.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

so now you deny Nixon was Vice President during Operation Sputnik ... what are you trying too imply ....

it is totally relevant showing Nixon had a history of space propaganda,,,,

just because your upset that there is a general consensus that the actual moon landings were a hoax is no reason to bad-mouth & call me a POE

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: onebigmonkey

so now you deny Nixon was Vice President during Operation Sputnik ... what are you trying too imply ....

it is totally relevant showing Nixon had a history of space propaganda,,,,

just because your upset that there is a general consensus that the actual moon landings were a hoax is no reason to bad-mouth & call me a POE

You maybe need to read what I put.

I'm calling that video a fake. The Nixon appearance in it is fake, as in fraudulent, made up, not true, a lie. That clear enough?

How you translate that into denying Nixon was VP during Sputnik is a mystery to me.

There is no general consensus that the moon landings were a hoax. That is also not true, fake, fraudulent, a lie.

The idea that Apollo was hoaxed is not true, fraudulent, fake, a lie.