Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Ove38

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 ?

You positively revel in your ignorance, don't you?

The LM wasn't at Pinewood Studios at that time. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was built in 1969?

And please answer my questions about those magic 3D matte paintings. How were they done?

And why do small rocks in the descent film exactly match those seen on the surface photos, and in modern orbital photos? Is this just a coincidence? Which came first, the "unmanned" landing or the "studio photos"?

Also please provide those calculations that show that the LM couldn't have taken off with people on board, as you claim.

originally posted by: Ove38

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.

It's a Christmas card.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

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.

It's a Christmas card.

Yes, first Christmas after the photo was taken I would say

I have a lot of strange Apollo photos

originally posted by: Ove38

I have a lot of strange Apollo photos

What is strange about these publicly available photos, exactly?

let me ask a question, to me this looks like wood (the white ring)

what do you think ?



apollo 11 footpad www.murdoconline.net...

a reply to: Ove38

Do you even know what your images show?

Which LM is this? Where is it now? Was it ever completed to fly?

Yes, the one you posted there is the Apollo 11 footpad. What about the ones you said looked odd? Which LM was that? Why do you think it was in pieces?

a reply to: Ove38

I think it's not the most important part of the footpad and there's this internet thing that will tell you how it is made.

originally posted by: Rob48

What is strange about these publicly available photos, exactly?

How come the mockup LM on earth has the same tape and paper as the LM on the moon ?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
What about the ones you said looked odd? Which LM was that? Why do you think it was in pieces?

Because the hasselblad picture taking was over


They forgot the Hasselblad film magazine inside the mockup LM

a reply to: Rob48
Well, I'm sure we'll see the Lunar Module one day. It's not going anywhere. People will go back.

In the meantime, heres some Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photos to look at, which is better than ANY satellite imagery of Earth available to civilians.

there ya go again ,,,you know full well nobody is going too stepfoot on the moon within your lifetime,

you Propagandist keep falling back upon the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photos as evidence ,,,why do you keep using it as crutch....you said "we have all kinds of evidence" so ya didn't need it "....

you also know full well, if someone were to spot anything within the LRO photographs & claimed it was artificial object (i.e. alien technology) you wouldn't accept that as proof....therefore your only acceptting the LRO photography of apollo sites as proof because it meets with your preconceptions...

the fact they are claimed to be better than ANY satellite imagery of Earth ...should also send up Red flags...

you are not being objective & this is totally disingenuous...

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

What is strange about these publicly available photos, exactly?

How come the mockup LM on earth has the same tape and paper as the LM on the moon ?

It's not a mockup. It's LM-13, which was a real LM, to be used for flight. It was in the middle of being built by Grumman when the Apollo programme was cancelled, so it was not finished.

The partially built LM was then put together for display at the Cradle of Aviation.

Do your "funny photos" look so funny now?

a reply to: Misinformation

there ya go again ,,,you know full well nobody is going too stepfoot on the moon within your lifetime,

I'd happily take that bet

With a bit of luck I have 50 years left on this planet. If that is the case I'm sure I will see someone else walk on the moon. If I had to guess I would say the next one will be Chinese.

the fact they are claimed to be better than ANY satellite imagery of Earth ...should also send up Red flags...

No, it is a simple matter of distance. How high above the moon is the LRO? How high above the Earth are, say, the QuickBird sats?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

What is strange about these publicly available photos, exactly?

How come the mockup LM on earth has the same tape and paper as the LM on the moon ?

It's not a mockup. It's LM-13, which was a real LM, to be used for flight. It was in the middle of being built by Grumman when the Apollo programme was cancelled, so it was not finished.

The partially built LM was then put together for display at the Cradle of Aviation.

Do your "funny photos" look so funny now?

sorry, but this dosen't look like a real LM to me

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

What is strange about these publicly available photos, exactly?

How come the mockup LM on earth has the same tape and paper as the LM on the moon ?

It's not a mockup. It's LM-13, which was a real LM, to be used for flight. It was in the middle of being built by Grumman when the Apollo programme was cancelled, so it was not finished.

The partially built LM was then put together for display at the Cradle of Aviation.

Do your "funny photos" look so funny now?

sorry, but this dosen't look a real LM to me

Oh well "sorry", but it is, and your opinion doesn't change that fact.

www.cradleofaviation.org...

Here is a whole bunch of photos of the partly built LM.

www.apolloarchive.com...

You will find your pics among them, apart from the last one which I think is the Apollo 14 LM.

originally posted by: Rob48
You will find your pics among them, apart from the last one which I think is the Apollo 14 LM.

Correct - it's a combination of two images, A14-66-9254 and 9255.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

What is strange about these publicly available photos, exactly?

How come the mockup LM on earth has the same tape and paper as the LM on the moon ?

It's not a mockup. It's LM-13, which was a real LM, to be used for flight. It was in the middle of being built by Grumman when the Apollo programme was cancelled, so it was not finished.

The partially built LM was then put together for display at the Cradle of Aviation.

Do your "funny photos" look so funny now?

sorry, but this dosen't look like a real LM to me

and to be perfectly honest, not to be rude or anything.. but not "looking right" to you is definitely no indication of anything..

for eg. you mistook the moon for the sun.. ie. the moon looked like the sun in your opinion
you mistook the "night" side of earth for the "day" side of earth.. ie. the "night" side of earth looked like the "day" side of earth..

a reply to: choos
not to be rude or anything.. but not "looking right" to you is definitely no indication of anything...

that depends it may or may not.....

I can tell you what it is a good indication of though,,,that the propagandists don't have convincing enough evidence ...

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
not to be rude or anything.. but not "looking right" to you is definitely no indication of anything...

that depends it may or may not.....

I can tell you what it is a good indication of though,,,that the propagandists don't have convincing enough evidence ...

or that hoax believing propagandist dont understand or comprehend what they are looking at.. and therefore make up fairy tales to fill in so it can make sense to them..

the lunar surface is a completely different environment than anywhere on earth.. you see lunar surface footage cant comprehend what is really happening and so you make up your fairytale that it is movie magic made with technology that didnt exist.

a reply to: choos

there ya go again,, dragging out one of the propagandists greatests hits,,,the arrogance is overwhelming ,,,just another propagandists fallacy assuming the whole thing had to be filmed in slow-mo...not to mention the fact there wasn't actual "Live" tv coverage for many portions of the misssions...

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: choos

there ya go again,, dragging out one of the propagandists greatests hits,,,the arrogance is overwhelming ,,,just another propagandists fallacy assuming the whole thing had to be filmed in slow-mo...not to mention the fact there wasn't actual "Live" tv coverage for many portions of the misssions...

There you go again confusing fantasy for fact. They didnt have the means to fake you see all the cool videos at the movie and think well it would be easy. But the fact is they didnt have the technology at the time. You dismiss evidence with a wave of your magic wand and simply say that could be faked. See the key is explaining how it was faked or its nothing more than your opinion and as weve seen so far your opinion tells you that weird things that violate the laws of physics occurs. Still haven't explained why a rocket cant launch off from the moon but apparently conceed they can be used to land. So they appear only to work while landing but lose all ability to provide thrust when going up?

Also looking for proof of these remote controlled rovers that apparently unfold and assemble themselves is there video?