Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's a lie and you know it. What falling objects?!

a reply to: yhin999

Sorry if people point out that your fairy stories are fairy stories. Did you not notice the tag line "Deny ignorance" when you signed up?

Science doesn't respect politics, unfortunately for you and your ilk. It is what it is.

Perhaps the David Icke forums would be more to your taste. They don't ask for anything like evidence over there: just crackpot theories, the wackier the better.

originally posted by: yhin999
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's a lie and you know it. What falling objects?!

Straps. Hammers. Feathers. The CSC ring. Sample collection scoops. Astronauts. Dust.

Come on, you've watched all the footage haven't you?

a reply to: Rob48

More battering and belittling. Crackpot theories. You and your ilk. Where do you get off man. You always have to make it personal. Attack the messenger, it's always the same. What do you think about my challenge to NASA. Shouldn't be too hard. They've only had about 45 years to prepare. It must be so easy for you.

a reply to: Rob48

Hammers, straps, dust, you are out of control. What are you guys on?

originally posted by: yhin999
a reply to: Rob48

More battering and belittling. Crackpot theories.

Come on. Moon landing hoax? Isn't that pretty much the dictionary definition of a crackpot theory? It's one step up from the Flat Earth theory. I am attacking the theory, not the poster, in case you hadn't noticed.

You, however, are not attacking the evidence but attacking the people who present it, accusing a born and bred Englishman of doing it out of patriotism for the USA. Or rather, as you worded it, being one of the

no brained over patriotic simple minded gullible people

Who is belittling whom?

Consider this argument lost.

originally posted by: yhin999
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's a lie and you know it. What falling objects?!

I'd say mainly the dust rooster-tailing from the wheel of the rover...

..dust, which by the way, did not hang in the air (because there was no air), but rather fell slowly along a parabolic ballistic path.

So there is no moisture on the moon? Correct? Footprints with no moisture? That's interesting.

So there is no moisture on the moon? Correct? Footprints with no moisture? That's interesting.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Parabolic ballistic path? Keep it up Einstein.

a reply to: yhin999

Sorry, are those words too long for you?

So there is no moisture on the moon? Correct? Footprints with no moisture? That's interesting.

Pretty much. There's a bit of water in permanently shaded areas, but yes, the footprints in the regolith are made without the help of moisture. Can you work out why? Hint: think about the size and shape of the particles.

It boggles me the amount of people on this forum that are so passionate about the moon landing being real who are so armed to the teeth with hoax debunking information.

Why does it surprise you that a forum with active sections on space exploration, aliens and UFOs should attract people who are interested in, and know quite a lot about, space flight? Seems pretty obvious to me.

originally posted by: yhin999
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Parabolic ballistic path? Keep it up Einstein.

When a projectile is launched and drag is ignored (as it should be in a vacuum), the trajectory of the object follows the shape of a parabola. In the case of the dust thrown up by the rover, that dust is the projectile.

Could you please explain what problem you have with this? You didn't give me much to go on to understand why you take issue with this idea.

originally posted by: Ove38

1. The Hasselblad images never left Earth

Uh-huh. So they took photographs of the lunar far side how? Time speciic images of Earthrise how?

2. Pinewood Studios
3. Westbury Design and Optical Ltd (a special effects company at Pinewood Studios)
4. don't know (Stanley Kubrick ?)
5. with tv studio equipment

Nope, nope, I know, and nope. No evidence presented.

6. no rocks were seen in the blurry broadcast

Wrong. I've put these as links as they are too big to display properly.

The top one is a series of stills taken from around 35 minutes into the EVA TV broadcast. Most people are only familiar with the one view of the TV broadcast, but after the camera was put in place from its slot on the LM the astronaut how carried it did a pan, around the landing area and stopping at regular intervals. I've compiled these into a single image and identified some craters and rocks.

The other images are sections of the LRO view of the site as well as a couple of panoramas compiled at the ALSJ. One mistake I spotted too late - I used a light blue arrow on the TV stills, but a purple circle elsewhere. Try not to get too upset about it.

i61.tinypic.com...

i59.tinypic.com...
i58.tinypic.com...
i59.tinypic.com...

The original ASLJ pans are here:

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

It's worth noting the influence of changing viewing angle and the resulting parallax, indicating a large area, not a small studio.

Feel free to prove them wrong. Don't forget that this is only for Apollo 11. Apollo 16 had some great TV footage that appeared on a newspaper front page and it has clearly identifiable rocks and craters. Apollo 17 and 15 also had very clear TV images.

7. As Armstrong said "relay transmitter"

Link? Proof? Anything? They landed a device on the lunar surface to relay the astronaut's voices when they were in cislunar space? Seems a bit of a waste of time?

8. remote controlled

Proof?

9. they were from lunar meteorites found on earth

They only know they are lunar meteorites because of the Apollo samples. How much, in total, do currently known lunar meteorites amount to? Apollo samples do not exhibit the features that mark out a meteorite's passage through atmosphere.

10. They were in cislunar space the whole time

Well there's something we can agree on. Why is it such a stretch to let them get the rest of the way? Are you suggesting that they were in cislunar space but sent a probe on ahead which then met up with them again? Describe precisely what you think happened here. otherwise it just looks like you're dodging the bits you can't argue against.

11. Earth was filmed by remote controlled rovers and landers

Even when it's on a continuous shot and features astronauts? How?

12. this is just something you made up, out of some fuzzy pictures of earth

No. Wrong. It is not made up.

Zoom in on the Earth in www.hq.nasa.gov...

and compare it with the satellite images (visible spectrum and infra-red)



That image was taken at the end of EVA-3, and the angle of the Earth in the lunar sky and position of the terminator is entirely consistent with the recorded time, as is the position of Australia on the western limb of Earth and the fact that signals were being received through Goldstone at the time. The arrows are there to help the blind.

Prove it wrong.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
I've compiled these into a single image...I used a light blue arrow on the TV stills, but a purple circle elsewhere.

you've just committed Hoax Heresy,, you know better than to utter that tongue here

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
I've compiled these into a single image...I used a light blue arrow on the TV stills, but a purple circle elsewhere.

you've just committed Hoax Heresy,, you know better than to utter that tongue here

and you have displayed typical hoax propaganda techniques


what better way to tackle evidence with transfer?

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
I've compiled these into a single image...I used a light blue arrow on the TV stills, but a purple circle elsewhere.

you've just committed Hoax Heresy,, you know better than to utter that tongue here

By backing up my argument with evidence? Must be hard for you to come to terms with. The sources are there. Prove it wrong.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Ove38
Well the enhanced (fake) movie on the left is quite different from the raw movie on the right, don't you think ?

Well, yeah. One side is perspective-stablized and enhanced version of the other.
But I'm not sure what the enhancement has anything to do with anything.

The point is that the film is from 1972 and shows the Apollo 17 site -- and the layout of the site seen in the film (including footpaths) matches the photo that was taken 40 years later.

Oh you do not understand that ? there are no "footpaths" in the raw movie on the right !

Should've gone to Specsavers.

Your bluish image is obviously from the enhanced (fake) movie on the left

a reply to: Ove38

How about when the same things are visible in the 1973 edition of the Preliminary Science Report, like this photo that I've just taken of my personal copy?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: yhin999
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's a lie and you know it. What falling objects?!

I'd say mainly the dust rooster-tailing from the wheel of the rover...

..dust, which by the way, did not hang in the air (because there was no air), but rather fell slowly along a parabolic ballistic path.

You see a "parabolic ballistic path", I see a dummy in a remote controlled toy car. The "astronaut" is completely stiff like a doll, throughout the whole ride.