Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

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. There was a large crater which we overflew during our final approach which was... had hills of the order of 100 feet in height, and we were only 11-1200 feet west of that hill and we couldn't see it. A 100-foot-high hill from from 1100-1200 feet away, so...

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
But you said no astronauts went to the moon. There is an astronaut walking about right beside a rover, on the moon!...

They are not on the moon, this was filmed on earth

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
But you said no astronauts went to the moon. There is an astronaut walking about right beside a rover, on the moon!...

They are not on the moon, this was filmed on earth

But the same clip shows the LRV driving in a vacuum, under one sixth gravity, across the same large lunar landscape, with identifiable lunar landmarks on it. Where was the set? You just don't get how colossally stupid your argument is, do you?

Honestly, you were spouting the same rubbish about "Why didn't the astronauts behave exactly as I think they should?" more than three years ago. Everyone pointed out how silly it was then. Aren't you bored of this story yet?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
But you said no astronauts went to the moon. There is an astronaut walking about right beside a rover, on the moon!...

They are not on the moon, this was filmed on earth

But the same clip shows the LRV driving in a vacuum, under one sixth gravity, across a large landscape.....

Why do you think this was filmed in vacuum under one sixth gravity ? because of a bit slow motion movement in the film ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

He's trying to explain away NASAs images and video of Apollo 11

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

how sure are you?? how sure are you that the 100 foot high hill is not within the crater?? how sure are you that the 100foot high crater wall has not blended in with the scenery?? how sure are you that the crater wall was what he thought was the horizon?

you know that crater walls would blend in with the ground seamlessly? it is what gives the irregular surface..

you do realise that there are thousands of craters on the moons surface??

you do realise that those thousands of craters also have crater walls??

you do realise that these crater walls are obscuring the real horizon??

a reply to: Ove38

No, he is explaining what he saw on the moon to an interested astronomer.

Here is a view of the landing area. Can you spot the central peak inside West Crater? That is the hill he was referring to.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

how sure are you?? ...

Well here also he says like Collins, that he couldn't see the stars, that's simply not believable.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

how sure are you?? ...

Well here also he's says like Collins, that he couldn't see the stars, that's simply not believable.

can you see the stars during the day?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

how sure are you?? ...

Well here also he's says like Collins, that he couldn't see the stars, that's simply not believable.

can you see the stars during the day?

1:20 the sun doesn't block the star viewing in space

How can you tell it was a lie?
There is presently no American base there to defend or research it. That much land and not a single base, cmon, look at history. Look at Antartica. No nation especially America would give up dominace to our closest celestial body. It is the perfect place to place an observation base for spying on earth.
As i have said on other posts on the moon the lack of hi resolution images of All the moon is proof in itself of distraction from what really went on.

If its true wouldn't the pride of the nation pay for a satellite to orbit the moon and beam back LIVE, COLOR images of the surface, especially the landing zones, in fact just charging a single doller to view the LIVE images would probably make billions more than the cost to do it. How about that for a private venture capitol investment.

Wouldn't get the ok to do that though, now would we......

GET REAL ATS'S, STOP WAITING FOR OTHERS TO GIVE YOU TRUTH AND PROOF. CROWD FUND A SATELLITE NOW....

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

how sure are you?? ...

Well here also he's says like Collins, that he couldn't see the stars, that's simply not believable.

can you see the stars during the day?

1:20 the sun doesn't block the star viewing in space

Thanks for that, that was a really beautiful video.

Back I topic though, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove but I believe that bright object that comes to view at around 1.20 is the moon, given that lights in the cities on earth are on, I can guess that that video is actually on the "night" side of earth..

Having said that, stars are still difficult to see, do you know why?

Do you know why you would see more stars on a clear night out in the country than you would on a clear night in the city??

If you can find out why you might realize why the astronauts found it difficult to see the stars, difficult not impossible

P.s. A good example of what I'm trying to point out for you occurs at around the 3 min mark in the video you posted

P.p.s I gave you a star for that video, just saying

originally posted by: Ove38


1:20 the sun doesn't block the star viewing in space

Please tell me where you can see the sun in that video.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

how sure are you?? ...

Well here also he's says like Collins, that he couldn't see the stars, that's simply not believable.

can you see the stars during the day?

1:20 the sun doesn't block the star viewing in space

Thanks for that, that was a really beautiful video.

Back I topic though, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove but I believe that bright object that comes to view at around 1.20 is the moon, given that lights in the cities on earth are on, I can guess that that video is actually on the "night" side of earth..

Having said that, stars are still difficult to see, do you know why?...

No their not, at 1:04 you can see orion's belt and betelgeuse. We are not on any side of the Earth, we are in space, and we can see the sun and the stars, at the same time. Somthing Armstrong and Collins say they couldn't.

originally posted by: subtopia

If its true wouldn't the pride of the nation pay for a satellite to orbit the moon and beam back LIVE, COLOR images of the surface, especially the landing zones, in fact just charging a single doller to view the LIVE images would probably make billions more than the cost to do it. How about that for a private venture capitol investment.

Wouldn't get the ok to do that though, now would we......

GET REAL ATS'S, STOP WAITING FOR OTHERS TO GIVE YOU TRUTH AND PROOF. CROWD FUND A SATELLITE NOW....

Live? How many imaging satellites provide "live imagery"?

Here you go, the entire moon at high resolution.

target.lroc.asu.edu...

Zoom around to your heart's content.

originally posted by: Ove38

No their not, at 1:04 you can see orion's belt and betelgeuse. We are not on any side of the Earth, we are in space, and we can see the sun and the stars, at the same time. Somthing Armstrong and Collins say they couldn't.

Do you know how high the ISS is? It is on the night side of the Earth in that video. Why do you think the Earth's surface is dark?

The sun is not visible in that video. You can see it is just about to rise right at the end of the video before it cuts off, and the stars are already being blotted out.



Here is what the sun looks like from the ISS

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38


1:20 the sun doesn't block the star viewing in space

Please tell me where you can see the sun in that video.

source www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

how sure are you?? ...

Well here also he says like Collins, that he couldn't see the stars, that's simply not believable.

Deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

If you want to see stars and planets in Apollo photographs I can supply you with plenty.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

Read the transcript, the whole point of the question/answer is to explain away the small studio they used, with no hills, no real horizon and everything confined to a small space around the fake lunar module.

thats your interpretation of it due to your prejudice, it doesnt occur to you he is describing the landscape as he saw it.

so how hard is it to fathom that a 100 foot high hill can be within a 590 foot diameter crater?? you were complaining that you were promised hills before?? seems you changed your mind?

also are you denying that there are thousands of craters (large and small) on the moon?? are you denying that craters will never have elevated crater walls that would hinder line of sight???

The elevated crater walls, are the 100 foot high hills, he claims he couldn't see, because "the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar"

how sure are you?? ...

Well here also he says like Collins, that he couldn't see the stars, that's simply not believable.

Deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

If you want to see stars and planets in Apollo photographs I can supply you with plenty.

Doesn't change what they said back then in 1969/70 does it ?

Why is it so difficult for you to disconnect those images from the persons in question ?