Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Ove38

Ove38, are you going to admit that you cannot tell the difference between the moon and the sun?

Even when the video you link to *tells you* it is the moon?

Did you even notice the title card on the video?



Moonglow. Not sunglow. The Earth is dark and ther aurora are visible. How could it be the sun?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Ove38, are you going to admit that you cannot tell the difference between the moon and the sun?

Even when the video you link to *tells you* it is the moon?

Did you even notice the title card on the video?

Moonglow. Not sunglow. The Earth is dark and ther aurora are visible. How could it be the sun?

Ok, sorry moonglow, still don't think it makes any difference in space.

The video was titled "Yes, you can see the Sun and Stars from space!" guess this was like the petrified wood rock given to Holland by NASA in 1969, fake

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Ove38, are you going to admit that you cannot tell the difference between the moon and the sun?

Even when the video you link to *tells you* it is the moon?

Did you even notice the title card on the video?

Moonglow. Not sunglow. The Earth is dark and ther aurora are visible. How could it be the sun?

Ok, sorry moonglow, still don't think it makes any difference in space.

So you post a video claiming that it shows you can see the stars and the sun at the same time, and then claim that the fact it doesn't show the sun "doesn't make any difference".

Come on, admit it, you don't really believe this rubbish do you, you are just trolling? Nobody could be that ignorant.

The video was titled "Yes, you can see the Sun and Stars from space!" guess this was like the petrified wood rock given to Holland by NASA in 1969, fake

That is not the title NASA gave it. The video was posted by a conspiracy channel. And you swallowed it whole just like you swallow the rest of the tired old conspiracy rubbish.


NASA described it as moonglow which is what it is. Where you went wrong was in believing the description by "The Truth Channel", who posted the video.

They didn't even bother to edit out the original description!

Do you see where being so gullible gets you?

originally posted by: Rob48

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.

Not good enough resolution.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

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.

Not good enough resolution.

Not good enough for what? Much of it is 50cm per pixel, which is as good or better than commercial satellite imagery of Earth.

originally posted by: Rob48
Come on, admit it, you don't really believe this rubbish do you, you are just trolling? Nobody could be that ignorant.

rubbish ? you found one little mistake in one hundred questions about the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings ?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

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.

Not good enough resolution.

Not good enough for what? Much of it is 50cm per pixel, which is as good or better than commercial satellite imagery of Earth.

I would like to see the moon lander close up.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

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.

Not good enough resolution.

Not good enough for what? Much of it is 50cm per pixel, which is as good or better than commercial satellite imagery of Earth.

I would like to see the moon lander close up.

Well, I'm sure you will one day. It's not going anywhere. People will go back.
You wouldn't believe it anyway, otherwise you would believe the original photos.

In the meantime, this is as close as you will get. 25cm per pixel in most of these images, which is better than ANY satellite imagery of Earth available to civilians.

rubbish ? you found one little mistake in one hundred questions about the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings ?

No. Every single one of your "questions" is rubbish, has been shown to be rubbish, and in every case you ignored that and moved on to a new question. Just like you will now.

a reply to: Ove38
which piece, ascent or descent stage?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

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.

Not good enough resolution.

Not good enough for what? Much of it is 50cm per pixel, which is as good or better than commercial satellite imagery of Earth.

I would like to see the moon lander close up.

Well, I'm sure you will one day. It's not going anywhere. People will go back.
You wouldn't believe it anyway, otherwise you would believe the original photos.

How can you discuss this with me for several pages and still don't get that I believe the moon landers and moon rovers are there, on the moon ? It is really as I said to you several pages ago, you are not discussing with me, you are discussing with a unbeliever you think exists outside of your head ! no wonder you can't get the facts.

originally posted by: suicideeddie
a reply to: Ove38
which piece, ascent or descent stage?

Well, if the ascent stage is visible, that would be bad news for the belivers, any close up would be good, so that we can check with, the close up images they showed us.

a reply to: Ove38

But your story keeps changing, so how am I supposed to keep track?

You claim the rover footage was shot on Earth, and now you say the rovers are all on the moon.

You admit the landers are on the moon, and yet the astronauts filmed and photographed inside and around them never went to the moon!

Who took all the Hasselblad photos of the landers on the moon, in your world view? Including ones from more than 3km away? How big was the studio?


Just admit that you don't have a story other than stating the opposite of whatever the official story is, however much it contradicts itself.

originally posted by: Ove38
I would like to see the moon lander close up.

The #2 moon lander is on display at the National Air and Space Museum, I've seen it. Both ascent and descent components.

Apollo Lunar Module

LM-2
Intended for second unmanned flight; used instead for ground testing. Landing gear added for drop testing. Does not have optical alignment telescope and flight computer

On display at the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

But your story keeps changing, so how am I supposed to keep track?

You claim the rover footage was shot on Earth, and now you say the rovers are all on the moon.

You admit the landers are on the moon, and yet the astronauts filmed and photographed inside and around them never went to the moon!

There's no change, other lunar moduels and rovers were used on earth. The lunar moduel made by Westbury Design and Optical Ltd (a special effects company at Pinewood Studios) the same company that made the matte paintings (Apollo backgrounds) is still in London.

originally posted by: Ove38
The lunar moduel made by Westbury Design and Optical Ltd (a special effects company at Pinewood Studios) the same company that made the matte paintings (Apollo backgrounds) is still in London.

Tells us when Westbury Design and Optical Ltd was formed.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
The lunar moduel made by Westbury Design and Optical Ltd (a special effects company at Pinewood Studios) the same company that made the matte paintings (Apollo backgrounds) is still in London.

Tells us when Westbury Design and Optical Ltd was formed.

Well the chef Cliff Culley had another name for the company back in the 60s

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
The lunar moduel made by Westbury Design and Optical Ltd (a special effects company at Pinewood Studios) the same company that made the matte paintings (Apollo backgrounds) is still in London.

Tells us when Westbury Design and Optical Ltd was formed.

Well the chef Cliff Culley had another name for the company back in the 60s

So it wasn't called that then? Everyone can just save themselves the bother and read your contributions to this from 2 years ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
So it wasn't called that then? Everyone can just save themselves the bother and read your contributions to this from 2 years ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=

This Apollo Lunar Module "formerly entered the Museum’s care in 1977" Before that it was at the Pinewood film Studios, where it was made by Westbury Design and Optical Ltd (Cliff Culley) in accordance with drawings from NASA.

true or not ?

a reply to: Ove38

So a movie prop company makes a copy of the LM for display and this proves what exactly?

It would be rather difficult for the museum to display the REAL Apollo 11 LM because it is still on the moon, with half of it no more than a few bits of metal in an impact crater.

Do keep up, Ove.

As for these "matte paintings", please explain how matte paintings can be made three-dimensional, as seen in all of the Apollo surface photos. You did read the photogrammetric analysis, didn't you?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
So a movie prop company makes a copy of the LM for display and this proves what exactly?

NASA, Stanley Kubrick, Neil Armstrong, Arthur C. Clarke and the LM at Pinewood studios in London ?

I dont know ? you tell me what this is ? just a coincidence ?

To make things worse, its the exact same film studio, that in 1972 (in a James Bond movie) visually suggest that the moon landing were filmed in a studio.