Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

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.....

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) ?

There is nothing to admit about the training locations, They were common knowledge. You use the word 'admit' like it's some sort of forced confession when it's nothing of the sort. The training was so that they'd know what to do when they got to the moon. Which they did.

Do you admit you were hopelessly wrong about there being no rocks in the Apollo TV broadcast? Do you admit that the Cinder Lakes crater field were nowhere near the Apollo 11 landing site that you claimed it was a replica of? Do you admit that there are, in fact, time specific photographs of astronauts on the moon showing pictures of Earth?

You can also admit that the tracks visible in the apollo 17 lm ascent footage were clearly visible in the 1973 PSR, a photo of which I posted.

I digress. I found the smaller crater field:



Nowhere near Tranquility Base. If no-one beats me to it I'll get an LRO view of the same area.

That's the difference between us. Ypu'll copy and paste lame tired and slready discredited nonsense you haven't bothered to check, I'll keep checking and checking until I get to the bottom of something. That's why Apollo deniers will never win.

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

a reply to: onebigmonkey
If no-one beats me to it I'll get an LRO view of the same area

you know LRO photos arent acceptable evidence

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 ?

The cable was 100 feet long. It didn't uncoil fully, as can be seen in the photos, and the TV camera was actually about 68 feet from the LM. Look, here is the cable. Does that look fully stretched out to you? No, it stayed in loops and was a trip hazard during the EVA. (PS: There's that rock again!)




Neil Armstrong is not infallible, any more than any other human being. How many false claims and embarrassingly simple mistakes have you made in this thread and others? Confusing the moon for the sun, or claiming that the LM would have had to have rocket engines one-sixth as powerful as the Saturn V is a bit more of a blunder than misstating the distance of a camera! They didn't carry a tape measure with them.

So, the TV footage showed the flag being set up. And yet we have photos, on the same physical film magazine, of the same landscape both BEFORE and AFTER the flag was deployed. Note also the total lack of footprints on the surface in the before shot. And of course the same prominent rock visible in the TV footage.



So, yet more clear evidence that the Hasselblad photos were taken during the exact same period that the TV footage was broadcast. But again you ignore all that in favour of quibbling over any perceived errors in Neil Armstrong's recollection.

originally posted by: Ove38
didn't Armstrong say that the tv cable was 100 feet out from the LM ?

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100 feet out

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

,, just admit you were wrong & we can move on

Disclosure of the Moon landing hoax will continue.

NASA Select.
Washington D.C. June 9, 1989.
Apollo 11 Crew Interview
Commemoration
of the First Lunar Landing.
(Taped : 33minutes) esoteric/illuminati 33minutes symbology?

originally posted by: Misinformation

,, just admit you were wrong & we can move on

The TV cable was 100 feet long. It was still partially coiled and therefore the camera was less than 100 feet from the LM.

Would you like to admit to everything you've been wrong about so far in this thread?

originally posted by: Misinformation

originally posted by: Ove38
didn't Armstrong say that the tv cable was 100 feet out from the LM ?

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100 feet out

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

,, just admit you were wrong & we can move on

fine ill feed the troll..

whats the difference between extending a 100ft cable to its full extent and laying out a 100ft cable over 100ft?

a reply to: choos

Here, I'll help. Look at the frame that includes the flag and camera:



See the cable? Is it laid out straight or is it in a big arc? Is it lying flat in the surface?

a reply to: Rob48

well if I was a propagandist,, I'd might say that it is an optical illusion caused by improper perspective due too the curvature of the moon & an uneven surface....

But all that is meaningless in regards to what Armstrong said...He either said it or he didn't....

whether it was true or not is another matter...

but, there is a general consensus that you were wrong ...

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

Armstrong is wrong about both the cabel and the hills

the question is why ?

I think it is because the script and the pictures don't match

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

Armstrong is wrong about both the cabel and the hills

the question is why ?

Armstrong is not wrong about the hill. It is right where he says it is, in the centre of West Crater.

You are wrong about:

The difference between the moon and the sun.

The size of rocket engine needed to lift off from the moon.

The location of the landing site of Apollo 11.

The location of the landing site of Surveyor 5.

LM-13 being a mock-up.

The replica lunar module at the Science Museum being the same as the one in the surface photos.

There being no photos of Armstrong on the moon.

The TV footage being lost.

The relative timings of the surface photos and TV footage.

There being no rocks visible in the TV footage.

The visibility of an Earthrise from the lunar surface.

The idea that the simulator terrain could be used to fake landing photos.

And that's just what I can remember off the top of my head without going back through your posting history. A full list of the things you are wrong about would fill pages.

The question is: why are you wrong about all these things?

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: Rob48

well if I was a propagandist,, I'd might say that it is an optical illusion caused by improper perspective due too the curvature of the moon & an uneven surface....

But all that is meaningless in regards to what Armstrong said...He either said it or he didn't....

whether it was true or not is another matter...

but, there is a general consensus that you were wrong ...

anyone can pull a 100ft rope out to its full extent and only be 1ft, 2ft, 3ft... etc. from the starting point also..

if you were hoax believer propagandist you would completely ignore this fact.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

Armstrong is wrong about both the cabel and the hills

the question is why ?

Armstrong is not wrong about the hill. You can see it in the decent video, right where he says it is, in the centre of West Crater.

No cabel ? and "hill" instead of of "hills" ?

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: Rob48

well if I was a propagandist,, I'd might say that it is an optical illusion caused by improper perspective due too the curvature of the moon & an uneven surface....

The curvature of the moon? Over a distance of 100 feet? Care to calculate what degree of curvature that is?

I've posted a GIF comparing two photos. They are on the same magazine of film, taken by the same camera. Both show boulders that can be identified in photos taken of the lunar surface from orbit. They are demonstrably of the moon itself.

One shows a totally undisturbed surface. The other shows a flag, a TV camera, a cable and lots of human footprints.

At the same time, live TV was broadcast to most of the globe, showing the exact same landscape, with the exact same rocks and craters, showing the flag being erected, by men, in exactly the same spot that it appears in these still photos.

How does this fit into the hoax theory? Can you, or anybody, come up with a consistent story as to how this was done without men being on the lunar surface?

Do you see how irrelevant your quibbling about the camera distance is? It's like standing in the middle of the highway and arguing that the wheels of the big truck full of logic that's about to flatten you are the wrong size.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

Armstrong is wrong about both the cabel and the hills

the question is why ?

Armstrong is not wrong about the hill. You can see it in the decent video, right where he says it is, in the centre of West Crater.

No cabel ? and "hill" instead of of "hills" ?

Yes, hills. There were several hills visible in the horizon, there have been photos posted of them if you were paying attention. If you let the video run instead of cutting it off there you would hear him go on to talk about one specific example, the large hill inside West Crater.

Look, I accept that, judging by your name and your spelling, maybe English isn't your first language. But please at least try to comprehend what Armstrong is saying, and stop trying to twist it.

The cable issue? Yes, Armstrong was mistaken if he thought it was a full 100ft. But the reasons are obvious: the cable wasn't straight.

Don't you think if they had faked every detail then they would have briefed him to get it right? He's human. Human memory isn't perfect.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Disclosure of the Moon landing hoax will continue.

NASA Select.
Washington D.C. June 9, 1989.
Apollo 11 Crew Interview
Commemoration
of the First Lunar Landing.
(Taped : 33minutes) esoteric/illuminati 33minutes symbology?

6:04 "What were your immediate impressions of the lunar surface when you first walked on it and touched it ?"

Why doesn't Armstrong answer what he felt, when he "first walked on it and touched it" ?

a reply to: Rob48
How does this fit into the hoax theory?

the prevailing hoax theory states that the manned portion of the landings did not happen ,,, or that the landings did happen but not in the way that it was represented & covered up for various reasons.

originally posted by: Ove38

6:04 "What were your immediate impressions of the lunar surface when you first walked on it and touched it ?"

Why doesn't Armstrong answer what he felt, when he "first walked on it and touched it" ?

because he never walked on the moon obviously.. you see.. NASA spent soo much time and effort into replicating the lunar surface to perfection from dust behaviour, to how it would behave when walked on, to rock locations that they completely overlooked the fact that armstrong was walking on it and that they forgot to describe to him what he was supposed to feel while walking on the fake surface.. even though they told aldrin what to feel they just forgot..

but seriously what do you think they would feel wearing a pressurised boot with an over boot on top of it?

a reply to: Ove38

Are you serious? He was asked what his first impressions were, and he gave a very apt answer. Aldrin then added his views.

What were the very next words Armstrong spoke on the surface after the famous "One small step" line? A pretty detailed description of the lunar surface.

109:24:48 Armstrong: Yes, the surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles.
[At the end of this transmission, Neil lets go of the ladder for the first time.]

109:25:30 McCandless: Neil, this is Houston. We're copying.

109:25:46 Armstrong: Ah ... There seems to be no difficulty in moving around - as we suspected. It's even perhaps easier than the simulations of one-sixth g that we performed in the various simulations on the ground. It's absolutely no trouble to walk around.

109:26:16 Armstrong: Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here. I can see some evidence of rays emanating from the descent engine, but a very insignificant amount.

Now here is a question for you. If the photos were taken on a studio set, what in your opinion was NASA's plan when the landing site was revisited and the photos turned out not to match?

Remember, back in 1969 nobody knew when the sites would be revisited. Heck, plenty of people thought there would be moon bases by the year 2000, with Tranquillity Base being a tourist attraction.

Also remember, the landing site is still up there. One day it will be revisited. If the photos were done in a studio, how can they match the real site down to the last pebble and footprint? They need to.