Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

Of course I got that, but you don't seem to get that it doesn't prove, somebody walked on mars or the moon, don't say you didn't get it now.

It does when there are people in shot, and those people set up equipment that can be seen in LRO images, and those people collect samples and return them home and they are shown to be from the moon, and photographs taken in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface can be dated exactly thanks to what can be seen on the Earth.

It's not difficult to superimpose pictures. www.hq.nasa.gov...

Seriously? You think anyone would be fooled by a cut 'n' shut job like this:



Let's see how many mistakes we can spot there:

The reseau marks don't line up.

The left-hand Buzz has the shadow on the wrong side of his left arm and left leg.

The left-hand Buzz's shadow is the wrong shape (no left arm).

No photographer reflected in the visors.

The Earth appears far too big in the visor reflections.

The left-hand Buzz's arms and legs are obvious mirror images.

Cloning artifacts and repeated terrain features on the lunar surface between the two astronauts.

Mismatched light direction between left leg and left boot on the left-hand Buzz.


And that's just from a quick examination on a small phone screen. If that kind of fakery would fool you then I can see why you fall for the hoaxers' nonsense.


Bear in mind, too, that this fake was done using modern digital technology. The original Apollo photos are 100% analogue. You can compare the scans available online with the original prints that were available to buy more than 40 years ago, and which were published in newspapers and magazines at the time. They are identical. So any "alterations" would have had to be done using analogue techniques which would be even more painfully obvious.

originally posted by: Ove38
I see that you in lack of argument, in several posts now, pretend not to understand what's being said.

No, that is your assumption based on your prejudice.

A NASA picture is not as you think a good evidence for man ever walking on the moon,

Says who? When did you become the arbiter of acceptable evidence? Once again you fail to see the wood for the trees by taking a fragment of evidence out of context and ignoring everything that goes along with the image. A photograph does not exist in isolation. That Aldrin image I posted (and whose photoshopped image you also posted) contains another astronaut. It also contains something else that you still haven't spotted.

It occurs in a magazine of images that show the Earth from lunar orbit as well as the lunar surface. It shows one astrnaut, photographed by another, installing equipment that transmitted signals to Earth. It shows an astronaut posing for a photograph saluting the flag in a scene that was also captured by the 16mm DAC footage. It shows lunar surface features that were unknown before the landing and were confirmed by later probes.

these claims have to be verified by a non-NASA rover on the moon.

Says who? When did you make that decision? Plenty of non-NASA scientists have examined the lunar data, photographs and samples and have no issue with them. I have absolutely no doubt that when a non-NASA probe or rover does photograph the site the conspiracy crowd will find some other way of wriggling off the hook.

Until then I choose to believe that the Apollo landings like all other landings on the moon were unmanned, and only remote controlled rovers taking a lot of pictures and videos on the moon, that were later manipulated by NASA and mixed with pictures taken in studios on earth.

There it is in a nutshell. You 'choose' to believe it.

In spite of the wealth of supporting evidence you choose to take an opposing view. The photos and video you claim were later manipulated were publicly available at the time. I have many contemporary copies of the photos. They are an exact match of the photos available online. I can tell you when they were taken and where they taken. Your version of events requires you to tell me where the studios were, who set up the studios, who took the photos, how did they manage to manipulate gravity (in both the 16mm footage and TV broadcast of Apollo 11 lunar dust can be seen to behave in a way entirely consistent with lunar gravity and zero atmosphere). Your version of events needs to explain how images of earth were broadcast on live TV to be printed in the newspapers the next morning that are an exact match for the satellite data. How did they manipulate the images? When? Who did it?

In short, your version of events doesn't answer any questions, it generates more and more of them that don't have any answers. You make absolutely no attempt to provide those answers or evidence to support them. When you do, there's something to discuss.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38
I see that you in lack of argument, in several posts now, pretend not to understand what's being said.

A NASA picture is not as you think a good evidence for man ever walking on the moon, these claims have to be verified by a non-NASA rover on the moon. Until then I choose to believe that the Apollo landings like all other landings on the moon were unmanned, and only remote controlled rovers taking a lot of pictures and videos on the moon, that were later manipulated by NASA and mixed with pictures taken in studios on earth.

provide proof of this video manipulation you speak of..

particularly how they were able to manipulate gravity on everything so precisely that it has stood the test of time for over 40 years..

manipulate gravity ? that's easy check out this video from 2:00

originally posted by: Ove38

manipulate gravity ? that's easy check out this video from 2:00

Why not check out all of it, where the video maker has this to say about Dave Scott:

Notice that the accent and the wording are typical of a circus salesman or crook

and this about the scientist explaining the clip:

Schizophrenic kid shill

Nice.

The person presenting the hoax point of view is missing out important information, namely that it was a live TV broadcast from the moon, and also that they used a fake feather. There is no evidence that the feather is anything other than genuine. They cite the use of slow motion in 'From the Earth to the Moon' (an excellent series) as an example of how it could be faked, but don't draw attention to the obvious fact that they cut it into two clips, rather than the continuous clip that it is on the moon. Slowing down the video would require a separate audio track, as the audio matches exactly what is going on. Any evidence that this was done? Where was the studio? Who filmed it? Who set up the studio? Who broadcast it?

The clip that always gets touted is very short, but it is actually part of a long TV broadcast - very long, and as usual features lots of things that they could only photograph on the moon as they had no prior knowledge of them. Not long after the hammer and feather clip they were filming their ascent over Hadley Rille. One of the images below shows a still from that ascent, the other was taken from the LRO.



Spot the difference.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

If we look at old Apollo images from the moon, the surface looks very similar or identical in all the pictures, whereas the background or horizon, is always blurry

If we o look at some recent pictures of the moon surface, the rocks are white and sticking up from the ground (not as in standard Apollo images, grey rocks lying scattered around on the ground) and the horizon is not blurry

The rocks and surface looks very similar or identical to pictuers taken by the Surveyor moonlanders a couple of years before the Apollo pictuers were presented

originally posted by: Ove38
If we look at old Apollo images from the moon, the surface looks very similar or identical in all the pictures, whereas the background or horizon, is always blurry

No it isn't.

apod.nasa.gov...

www.nasa.gov...

Not too similar to the Apollo 11 landscape, are they? And the background isn't blurry.

This ain't real to me rob....Fake to me

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

I have absolutely no doubt that when a non-NASA probe or rover does photograph the site the conspiracy crowd will find some other way of wriggling off the hook.

You are absolutely correct.

The conspiracy believers paradox: The actual truth is cast aside in the search for evidence, no matter how erroneous, that bolsters and/or supports a belief system.

Believing in conspiracies has become a religion.

originally posted by: Ove38

manipulate gravity ? that's easy check out this video from 2:00

i watched the whole thing.. may i ask why you chose to ignore the other part of the video and only attempted to answer the hammer and feather??

is this how you normally form conclusions?? pick and choose evidence that you think suits your frame of mind while ignoring everything else??

and about the hammer and feather drop..



why is it in the hoaxers footage they drop the feather vertically?? what is he trying to prove?? that the feather can drop in the same time as a hammer if you manipulate how the feather is dropped??

in case you havent noticed apollo 15's feather was dropped horizontally, why does your hoaxer feel the need to drop the feather vertically in an atmosphere what is he trying to prove??

he says its all about calibration.. i like it how he has to "calibrate" his own results inorder to try to duplicate it in an atmosphere..
why doesnt he drop the feather horizontally?? do you know anything about drag and how it works by any chance?

seems he is pushing lies and you fell for it..

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

manipulate gravity ? that's easy check out this video from 2:00

i watched the whole thing.. may i ask why you chose to ignore the other part of the video and only attempted to answer the hammer and feather??

is this how you normally form conclusions?? pick and choose evidence that you think suits your frame of mind while ignoring everything else??

and about the hammer and feather drop..

why is it in the hoaxers footage they drop the feather vertically?? what is he trying to prove?? that the feather can drop in the same time as a hammer if you manipulate how the feather is dropped??

in case you havent noticed apollo 15's feather was dropped horizontally, why does your hoaxer feel the need to drop the feather vertically in an atmosphere what is he trying to prove??

he says its all about calibration.. i like it how he has to "calibrate" his own results inorder to try to duplicate it in an atmosphere..
why doesnt he drop the feather horizontally?? do you know anything about drag and how it works by any chance?

seems he is pushing lies and you fell for it..

Of course you cant turn the feather sideways if you do the air causes resistance. But on the moon he could indeed turn it sideways and have them hit at the same time. When they redo it on earth thats not an option unless you build a large vacuum chamber. Turning the feature and making sure it points straight down they can hit very close. But to say this is what was done is an obvious lie. Funny people claim to spot fake things on apollo but never seem to catch a blatant lie by hoaxers.

originally posted by: Ove38
If we look at old Apollo images from the moon, the surface looks very similar or identical in all the pictures, whereas the background or horizon, is always blurry

As Rob48 points out, this is quite patently not true. The sharpness of the lunar horizon is another indication that the photographs are taken in zero atmosphere - you've even presented an Apollo image with a nice sharp horizon. The surface looks similar/identical? It is dusty, rocky and has craters? You were claiming not that long ago that the Apollo photographs of the lunar surface were taken by probes, so how come those probes took photographs that don't look(according to you) like other probe photographs?

If we o look at some recent pictures of the moon surface, the rocks are white and sticking up from the ground (not as in standard Apollo images, grey rocks lying scattered around on the ground) and the horizon is not blurry

You only have one example to look at, a Chinese probe.You can quite clearly see from the shadows that the images are taken when the sun is high in the lunar sky, so the surface isn't going to look the same as in lunar morning. Those reflective rocks are going to flare in the camera lens and appear white. You also need to bear in mind that most of the Chinese images are taken by photographing a screen on Earth, not the raw images themselves.

If you like, we can play the "I can find photographs with rocks sticking out of the ground with astronauts in them" game, but it will just cost people bandwidth and you won't believe them, so it would be pointless.

The rocks and surface looks very similar or identical to pictuers taken by the Surveyor moonlanders a couple of years before the Apollo pictuers were presented

Well, they are on the moon.

You need to compare like with like. Both the Chang'e-3 and Surveyor proves took their photographs remotely and sent them back to Earth. The Surveyor images were taken with a TV camera, the Chinese probe with a digital camera. Apollo stills were taken with the best camera and lenses you could get. Go look at the Surveyor images or even Lunokhod and see if they are of the same quality as the Hasselblads.

The Surveyor probes were specifically sent to test out likely landing areas for Apollo, so it's hardly surprising that they look like areas where Apollo landed.

In the end, all you're presenting here is "It doesn't look like I think it should and I don't believe it".

So you don't believe there are white rocks on the moon ?

Ok, Apollo believers, why aren't there any hills in Apollo 11 images ?

I have checked Magazine R,Q and S www.lpi.usra.edu...

and here's a Apollo 11 panorama collshubby.tripod.com...

hills are clearly visible in other Apollo missions

Please explain ? I was told there would be hills !

a reply to: Ove38


Do you think every part of the Moon is the same I suggest you check the positions of the missions on a map of the surface.

Apollo Landing Sites

originally posted by: Ove38
Ok, Apollo believers, why aren't there any hills in Apollo 11 images ?

Because Apollo 11 landed in a very flat area. Deliberately so, to make landing more straightforward.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Note particularly points 1, 2 and 6.

The Apollo 11 landing site in Mare Tranquillitatis was one of three sites selected for the first lunar landing from a list of 30 sites originally under consideration. Final site choices were based on the following factors:

Smoothness: Relatively few craters and boulders

Approach: No large hills, high cliffs, or deep craters that could cause incorrect altitude signals to the lunar module landing radar

Propellant Requirements: The least expenditure of spacecraft propellants

Recycle: Effective launch preparation recycling if the Apollo Saturn V countdown is delayed

Free Return: Within reach of the spacecraft launched on a free-return translunar trajectory

Slope: Less than 2° slope in the approach path and landing site

Please explain ? I was told there would be hills !

Who told you that? Got a source? They were lying or misinformed.

Here is a wide view of the Sea of Tranquillity. Away from the hills at the margins it is notable for being very flat indeed.

hills are clearly visible in other Apollo missions

That's because the other missions landed in different places! Once the landing was tried and tested, later missions went to more challenging terrain.

I was told Earth had hills. Why aren't there any hills in this photo allegedly taken on Earth?


Must be fake, right?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Ove38


Do you think every part of the Moon is the same I suggest you check the positions of the missions on a map of the surface.

Apollo Landing Sites

No, I don't think every part of the Moon is the same, but I was most definitely told, that there are hills and I don't see any, do you ?

The blind stupidity of this whole idea that the moon landings were faked is perfectly illustrated by the 'flag waving in the wind' argument. The truth is the flag had a mechanism on it to make it move. Fact. Do some research instead of parroting #e you got from YouTube

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Ove38


Do you think every part of the Moon is the same I suggest you check the positions of the missions on a map of the surface.

Apollo Landing Sites

No, I don't think every part of the Moon is the same, but I was most definitely told, that there are hills and I don't see any, do you ?

Again, who told you to expect hills at Apollo 11's landing site? It was chosen to be one of the flattest spots available.

Even so, there are some small hills visible, anyway.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...


If you want to see hills, have a look at the Apollo 17 photos. More hills than you can shake a stick at.



www.hq.nasa.gov...

That's the lunar module photographed from a distance of about 2 miles.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38
Ok, Apollo believers, why aren't there any hills in Apollo 11 images ?

Who told you that? Got a source? They were lying or misinformed.

The first man on the moon ! at 4:00 in this video



MOORE: When you were actually walking about, did you have the have any difficulty in distance judging? Because I think I heard you say once that near... far things looked quite near.

ARMSTRONG: Yes, we had some difficulties in perception of distance. For example, our television camera we judged to be, from the cockpit of the lunar module, only about 50 to 60 feet away, yet we knew that we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100-foot cable. Similarly, we had difficulty guessing how far the hills out on the horizon might be. A peculiar phenomenon is the closeness of the horizon, due to the greater curvature of the Moon than we have here on Earth – of course four times greater, and the fact that it is an irregular surface, with crater rims overlying other crater rims. You can't see the real horizon, you're seeing hills that are somewhat closer to you.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38
Ok, Apollo believers, why aren't there any hills in Apollo 11 images ?

Who told you that? Got a source? They were lying or misinformed.

The first man on the moon ! at 4:00 in this video

its no wonder you believe in the hoax theory.. you refuse to do any research..

hills on the horizon.. what does that mean to you??

www.hq.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...