Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Come on Ove, you're in charge of building the studio set.

The LM is meant to be landing in this area. This is the best picture we have.

Where are you going to put your little craters and boulders? Quick! We need those photos pronto! And remember it has to be accurate enough to fool people comparing images from ALL FUTURE MISSIONS to the moon, manned and unmanned.

I found one set, it's called Cinder Lake Crater Field, a copy of
Apollo 11 Landing Site. Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
didn't think there were any did you ?

Now I know you are having a laugh. Look at those images. What do you notice? ....

The fact that they made a copy of Apollo 11 Landing Site in 1967, thats what I notice. Do you think this was the only fake moon landscape they made ?

As for your rocket engine, we would need to see this !

OK, please tell me: which rocket engine is this? What was it used for? Where?

How does this compare to the Lunar Module?

And for the FIFTH time, what was the delta-v required to get the LM from the moon to rendezvous orbit?

You have no rocket and you have no rocket engine fire, escaping moon's gravity, to show us ! is that why you keep talking about "delta-v" whatever that is ?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Come on Ove, you're in charge of building the studio set.

The LM is meant to be landing in this area. This is the best picture we have.

Where are you going to put your little craters and boulders? Quick! We need those photos pronto! And remember it has to be accurate enough to fool people comparing images from ALL FUTURE MISSIONS to the moon, manned and unmanned.

I found one set, it's called Cinder Lake Crater Field, a copy of
Apollo 11 Landing Site. Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
didn't think there were any did you ?

Now I know you are having a laugh. Look at those images. What do you notice? ....

The fact that they made a copy of Apollo 11 Landing Site in 1967, thats what I notice. Do you think this was the only fake moon landscape they made ?

And what images did they use to create it? Think!!

I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Come on Ove, you're in charge of building the studio set.

The LM is meant to be landing in this area. This is the best picture we have.

Where are you going to put your little craters and boulders? Quick! We need those photos pronto! And remember it has to be accurate enough to fool people comparing images from ALL FUTURE MISSIONS to the moon, manned and unmanned.

I found one set, it's called Cinder Lake Crater Field, a copy of
Apollo 11 Landing Site. Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
didn't think there were any did you ?

Now I know you are having a laugh. Look at those images. What do you notice? ....

The fact that they made a copy of Apollo 11 Landing Site in 1967, thats what I notice. Do you think this was the only fake moon landscape they made ?

As for your rocket engine, we would need to see this !

OK, please tell me: which rocket engine is this? What was it used for? Where?

How does this compare to the Lunar Module?

And for the FIFTH time, what was the delta-v required to get the LM from the moon to rendezvous orbit?

You have no rocket and you have no rocket engine fire, escaping moon's gravity, to show us ! is that why you keep talking about "delta-v" whatever that is ?

If YOU really had studied or actually knew something on the subject you would know or would have heard of delta-v!!!!

a reply to: Ove38

Yes, and how detailed were the pictures? Look at the photos of Cinder Lake. Where is all the detail? You can't fake photos there.

is that why you keep talking about "delta-v" whatever that is ?

You've been telling us about how the LM couldn't take off from the moon, but it is clear you don't know the first thing about rocketry. This is basic physics. We're not even approaching the "rocket science" bit yet.

Even assuming you haven't finished school yet (a fair assumption given your posting style), surely if you are going to claim something is impossible you should bother to look up the relevant equations and do the maths to prove it?

By the way, as I am sure you didn't know, the rocket engine you posted a picture of was a Rocketdyne F-1. As used on the Saturn V, to leave Earth. In an atmosphere.

Do you know how much the Saturn V weighed?

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO. They miss out significant chunks of detail that are seen by Apollo TV, 16m and Hasselblad images and LRO views. That is the point you're missing.

Surveyor missions did not take photographs of the Apollo 11 landing site. Most of the thousands of images you are using to bump up your grand total come from repeated images from their TV cameras, not unique photographs.

Cinder Lake was based on a Lunar Orbiter II image of proposed prime landing site II P-6, so your first question is: is this where they landed?

The next obvious point is: where are the rocks? Rocks were important in Eagle's landing. Can you work out why?

Your next challenge is to match the craters in the Cinder Lake crater field test site with the lunar orbiter, or indeed LRO, view of Tranquility base. It's only 500 feet by 500 feet. Shouldn't be too hard for you - that pretty much covers the entire landing site area of operation. Start by identifying Little West crater and take it from there.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO. They miss out significant chunks of detail that are seen by Apollo TV, 16m and Hasselblad images and LRO views. That is the point you're missing.

Surveyor missions did not take photographs of the Apollo 11 landing site. Most of the thousands of images you are using to bump up your grand total come from repeated images from their TV cameras, not unique photographs.

Cinder Lake was based on a Lunar Orbiter II image of proposed prime landing site II P-6, so your first question is: is this where they landed?...

Yes, Apollo 11 landings site is within region IIP-6

a reply to: Ove38

Aww you went straight for the easy question and missed out all the tricky ones.

Again.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

Aww you went straight for the easy question and missed out all the tricky ones.

Again.

I think tricky questions are a bit beyond Ove38. This is the same poster who asked why the Apollo 17 astronauts didn't take any photos of the Earthrise from the surface: after all they were there for three days!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(That whole thread is a masterpiece of ignorance, btw. Focal lengths, what are they?)

a reply to: Rob48

Ha! I remember that thread.

To the OP's credit, he did admit that he was originally in error once focal lengths were explained to him. The ATS community did a good job there in "denying ignorance" and explaining to the OP why the images of Earth could look to be different sizes depending on focal length...

...As could images of the moon taken from Earth. If I took a picture of the Moon with my average consumer camera or my phone camera, the Moon looks tiny -- much smaller than I expected (i.e., it looks larger "in person"). However, if I use a camera with lens with a higher focal length, the Moon could look larger. But as I said, the OP did a good job in opening his mind to new knowledge and understanding about photography. He asked a question, got responses that were logically, technologically, and scientifically sound, and accepted those responses. Kudos to him.

In a related issue, I've noticed that people (often in the UFO forum) sometimes don't recognize the moon in photos. They expect the Moon to be much larger than it could appear when taken with a basic consumer camera, and no cropping or zoom is used, as in this image:
1.bp.blogspot.com...


As for viewing an Earthrise, considering the Moon is tidally-locked to the Earth, the only way a person on the moon would be able to see an Earthrise is if they walk (or run) toward the horizon behind which the Earth is positioned. The Earth would never change position in the sky for a person standing still on the Moon.

a reply to: Box of Rain
That same "Earth size" issue raised its head in this thread a few weeks ago. With the same picture.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny how these self-proclaimed experts who are so adept at spotting "anomalies" in Apollo images always turn out to be profoundly ignorant of basic optics.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO.....

The facts about Apollo 11 landing site remain the same, in february 1965 spacecraft Ranger 8 tok 7137 images of the region, spacecraft Lunar Orbiter 2 and Surveyor 5 did the same in 1967. With the help of those images, several full size fake moon landscapes, where made in USA, before 1969

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO.....

Yes and how much surface detail is on those training landscapes? You'd have about as much luck using those to fake a landing as you would using this:



You don't get it do you? Every little rock has to be in the right place, otherwise how would NASA explain it away when someone else lands there and finds the landscape looks all wrong?

How can you place every little rock in the right place using orbiter photos that don't even show the rocks?

Ellipse for potential landing site II-P-6-1 and Apollo 11 landing site

And here is the location of the larger Cinder Lake crater field on Google Moon after I've added some Orbiter overlays. It's 6.7 km away from Apollo 11's landing site and is on Lunar Orbiter 2 image 2085 H2

www.lpi.usra.edu...



Still working on the smaller one.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO.....

...You don't get it do you? Every little rock has to be in the right place, otherwise how would NASA explain it away when someone else lands there and finds the landscape looks all wrong?

How can you place every little rock in the right place using orbiter photos that don't even show the rocks?

The slow-scan television (SSTV) recordings of the lunar transmissions broadcast during the Apollo 11 moonwalk are missing. Where in the broadcast did you see those little rocks ?

a reply to: Ove38

I posted it already.

You claimed the broadcast contained no rocks, not only did I find some rocks I found the same rocks in all the panoramas and on LRO views.

I've also just blown your claim that Cinder lake crater fields are a replica of Apollo 11's landing site.

I predict a change of direction in 3..2..1...

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO.....

Yes and how much surface detail is on those training landscapes?....

So you admit they made gigantic fake moon landscapes on Earth (for training) but you don't admit they made fake moon photos, moon movies and moon rocks on Earth (for training) ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO.....

...You don't get it do you? Every little rock has to be in the right place, otherwise how would NASA explain it away when someone else lands there and finds the landscape looks all wrong?

How can you place every little rock in the right place using orbiter photos that don't even show the rocks?

The slow-scan television (SSTV) recordings of the lunar transmissions broadcast during the Apollo 11 moonwalk are missing. Where in the broadcast did you see those little rocks ?

You keep telling us the TV recordings are missing. Have you not watched the videos we keep posting? They are not missing.

Look, here is a frame from the TV camera on the moon. Do you see that prominent rock in the foreground, just in front of the flag?



Now here's a picture from inside the LM looking back at the TV camera. (Source: www.hq.nasa.gov... )



There's the same rock. You can also match up the little craters off to the right (left in the TV view).

So, we know that the terrain on the Hasselblad photos exactly matches the TV footage that was shown live during the landing. Therefore they could not have been faked after the fact. And that photo from inside the LM also shows lots of rocks that are visible from the LRO.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO.....

...You don't get it do you? Every little rock has to be in the right place, otherwise how would NASA explain it away when someone else lands there and finds the landscape looks all wrong?

How can you place every little rock in the right place using orbiter photos that don't even show the rocks?

The slow-scan television (SSTV) recordings of the lunar transmissions broadcast during the Apollo 11 moonwalk are missing. Where in the broadcast did you see those little rocks ?

You keep telling us the TV recordings are missing. Have you not watched the videos we keep posting? They are not missing.

Look, here is a frame from the TV camera on the moon. Do you see that prominent rock in the foreground, just in front of the flag?

Now here's a picture from inside the LM looking back at the TV camera. (Source: www.hq.nasa.gov... )

There's the same rock. You can also match up the little craters off to the right (left in the TV view).

So, we know that the terrain on the Hasselblad photos exactly matches the TV footage that was shown live during the landing. Therefore they could not have been faked after the fact. And that photo from inside the LM also shows lots of rocks that are visible from the LRO.

So, we know that the photo was taken before the "live" broadcast

didn't Armstrong say that the tv cable was 100 feet out from the LM ? Hmm ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38
I have already told you about the 100 000 images taken of the moon and on the moon by the Surveyor landers and Lunar Orbiter missions, before the Apollo missions ! The Apollo 11 landing site (Sea of Tranquility) was photographed by at least three different missions to the moon, before the Apollo mission

1. the Ranger missions
2. the Lunar Orbiter missions
3. the Surveyor missions

The Ranger missions were low quality - nowhere near enough detail. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Orbiter missions were very good, but nothing like as clear as the current LRO.....

...You don't get it do you? Every little rock has to be in the right place, otherwise how would NASA explain it away when someone else lands there and finds the landscape looks all wrong?

How can you place every little rock in the right place using orbiter photos that don't even show the rocks?

The slow-scan television (SSTV) recordings of the lunar transmissions broadcast during the Apollo 11 moonwalk are missing. Where in the broadcast did you see those little rocks ?

You keep telling us the TV recordings are missing. Have you not watched the videos we keep posting? They are not missing.

Look, here is a frame from the TV camera on the moon. Do you see that prominent rock in the foreground, just in front of the flag?

Now here's a picture from inside the LM looking back at the TV camera. (Source: www.hq.nasa.gov... )

There's the same rock. You can also match up the little craters off to the right (left in the TV view).

So, we know that the terrain on the Hasselblad photos exactly matches the TV footage that was shown live during the landing. Therefore they could not have been faked after the fact. And that photo from inside the LM also shows lots of rocks that are visible from the LRO.

So, we know that the photo was taken before the "live" broadcast

didn't Armstrong say that the tv cable was 100 feet out from the LM ? Hmm ?

no it wasnt.. stop making things up on the fly to shoe horn it into your agenda.. think a little before you make your wild claims

that photo has the flag on the moon... the entire EVA was broadcast live on tv including the planting of the flag.. if anything that photo is after the EVA, and nearer to lift-off.. definitely NOT before the live broadcast.

he said the cable was pulled out to its full extent.. he never said the tv cable was 100feet out from the LM..