Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

Sir Bernard is not the expert you think he is.. He was brain washed by the Soviets during one of his many trips to Russia.

Sir Bernard who? Lovell? Where did choos mention him in the post you quote?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

it even looks exactly as the Apollo 11 magazine

www.ehartwell.com...

EXCEPT IT DOESN'T

Hasselblad Magazine

The magazines had exposure setting on them!

Oh and the magazine letter for identity .

Hasselblad Mag Identity Marking

Well those are only stickers, but there's one little problem with your magazine, you have 1970 stamped on it

airandspace.si.edu...

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth


www.hasselbladusa.com...

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Ok, can you link me to one such photo? One that shows, in your opinion, a fake lunar surface that is claimed to be real?

And answer the question. Would the astronauts have practised using the cameras or not?

there's one little problem with your magazine, you have 1970 stamped on it

Stamped? Are you sure? What does this number represent?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Ok, can you link me to one such photo? One that shows, in your opinion, a fake lunar surface that is claimed to be real?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Now why is this a fake lunar surface ?

1. if this picture hade been taken by a chest mounted camera, you would not have seen the top of the helmet and top of the backpack, of the astronaut in the picture

2. the sunlight would have been even on the whole lunar surface, not just shining on the astronaut

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Ok, can you link me to one such photo? One that shows, in your opinion, a fake lunar surface that is claimed to be real?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Wrong!

Just look how many CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE lunar features are visible behind Mr Aldrin.



Boulder b in particular is extremely prominent.

And guess what, it is visible from orbit.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Ok, can you link me to one such photo? One that shows, in your opinion, a fake lunar surface that is claimed to be real?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Wrong!

Just look how many CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE lunar features are visible behind Mr Aldrin.

Boulder b in particular is extremely prominent.

And guess what, it is visible from orbit.

I see no boulders, I see one larger rock 60 feet behind him near the studio black screen

to even claim that this 1,5 foot wide rock is visible in eny LRO image is ridiculous

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Ok, can you link me to one such photo? One that shows, in your opinion, a fake lunar surface that is claimed to be real?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Now why is this a fake lunar surface ?

1. if this picture hade been taken by a chest mounted camera, you would not have seen the top of the helmet and top of the backpack, of the astronaut in the picture

2. the sunlight would have been even on the whole lunar surface, not just shining on the astronaut

Again with the lies!!!

Why did you cherry pick a digitally enhanced version of buzz aldrin to base your claim on??

Why not next time photoshop an Apollo lunar surface image with an airbus a380 next to the LM yourself and claim that they never landed on the moon because an a380 never existed back in 69-70???

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Ok, can you link me to one such photo? One that shows, in your opinion, a fake lunar surface that is claimed to be real?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Wrong!

Just look how many CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE lunar features are visible behind Mr Aldrin.

Boulder b in particular is extremely prominent.

And guess what, it is visible from orbit.

I see no boulders, I see one larger rock 60 feet behind him near the studio black screen

to even claim that this rock is visible in eny LRO image is ridiculous

You do keep walking into this don't you Ove?

For simplicity I have only labelled the boulders in red. The photo was taken from the pink X, in about the direction of the arrow.

Boulder b is approximately 2.5 metres across, easily large enough to appear in LRO imagery. It is 68 metres from the LM and is visible in several photos taken on the surface, including the one of Buzz you linked to, and also the Little West Crater panorama I linked to before:

Notice how the relative positions of the boulders changes, showing that they are all there on a 3D landscape.

Boulder c is just outside this LRO frame to the east. It is about 175 metres from the LM.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Ok, can you link me to one such photo? One that shows, in your opinion, a fake lunar surface that is claimed to be real?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Wrong!

Just look how many CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE lunar features are visible behind Mr Aldrin.

Boulder b in particular is extremely prominent.

And guess what, it is visible from orbit.

I see no boulders, I see one larger rock 60 feet behind him near the studio black screen

to even claim that this rock is visible in eny LRO image is ridiculous

You do keep walking into this don't you Ove?

This is complete nonsense, I don't buy that !

originally posted by: Ove38

upload.wikimedia.org...

Now why is this a fake lunar surface ?

1. if this picture hade been taken by a chest mounted camera, you would not have seen the top of the helmet and top of the backpack, of the astronaut in the picture

2. the sunlight would have been even on the whole lunar surface, not just shining on the astronaut

The image seems right to me.

The sun is low in the sky, as you can tell by the long shadow being cast by the astronaut. The Astronaut also seems to be leaning forward slightly, so it could make sense that the top of the backpack and a portion of the top of his helmet would be in shadow (considering that the sun is low and behind him).

The front of him would be lit up by the reflective regolith, which is similar in reflectance as old asphalt. The reflected light (reflecting mainly at an angle "upwards") probably would not fall upon the top of the helmet and the top of the backpack as much as it would his front.

So this image looks pretty consistent with what you would expect from a person being on the moon.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Ove38

upload.wikimedia.org...

Now why is this a fake lunar surface ?

1. if this picture hade been taken by a chest mounted camera, you would not have seen the top of the helmet and top of the backpack, of the astronaut in the picture

2. the sunlight would have been even on the whole lunar surface, not just shining on the astronaut

The image seems right to me.

The sun is low in the sky, as you can tell by the long shadow being cast by the astronaut. The Astronaut also seems to be leaning forward slightly, so it could make sense that the top of the backpack and a portion of the top of his helmet would be in shadow (considering that the sun is low and behind him).

The front of him would be lit up by the reflective regolith, which is similar in reflectance as old asphalt. The reflected light (reflecting mainly at an angle "upwards") probably would not fall upon the top of the helmet and the top of the backpack as much as it would his front.

So this image looks pretty consistent with what you would expect from a person being on the moon.

what about the shadows in this one ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

If you were sending people to the moon, would you or would you not let them practice using the cameras they were taking with them beforehand? If not, why not?

The obvious thing is, that someone used this specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, to take some pictuers of a fake landing module (LM) on Earth

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Ok, can you link me to one such photo? One that shows, in your opinion, a fake lunar surface that is claimed to be real?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Wrong!

Just look how many CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE lunar features are visible behind Mr Aldrin.

Boulder b in particular is extremely prominent.

And guess what, it is visible from orbit.

I see no boulders, I see one larger rock 60 feet behind him near the studio black screen

to even claim that this rock is visible in eny LRO image is ridiculous

You do keep walking into this don't you Ove?

This is complete nonsense, I don't buy that !

Is that it? Is that your argument? Care to refute it? The LRO has a resolution of 25cm per pixel. The LM is only a little over 4 metres in diameter, and that shows up very nicely, so why should a 2.5 metre rock not be visible?

Why are the same rocks visible from another panorama taken right over at Little West Crater, with the parallax exactly confirming their positions? Do you have ANY ARGUMENT AT ALL to refute this other than good old "appeal to incredulity"?



You don't buy it? Well sadly for you, the truth isn't for sale. Remember, you thought the moon was the sun. I don't think you are an expert on space.

Edit: I'd also love to know who gave you a star for that brilliant one-line non-argument!

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Ove38

upload.wikimedia.org...

Now why is this a fake lunar surface ?

1. if this picture hade been taken by a chest mounted camera, you would not have seen the top of the helmet and top of the backpack, of the astronaut in the picture

2. the sunlight would have been even on the whole lunar surface, not just shining on the astronaut

The image seems right to me.

The sun is low in the sky, as you can tell by the long shadow being cast by the astronaut. The Astronaut also seems to be leaning forward slightly, so it could make sense that the top of the backpack and a portion of the top of his helmet would be in shadow (considering that the sun is low and behind him).

The front of him would be lit up by the reflective regolith, which is similar in reflectance as old asphalt. The reflected light (reflecting mainly at an angle "upwards") probably would not fall upon the top of the helmet and the top of the backpack as much as it would his front.

So this image looks pretty consistent with what you would expect from a person being on the moon.

what about the shadows in this one ?

Have you ever looked at the ground on a sunny day? Do you know how perspective works?



Also, what do these lines represent exactly?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Ove38

upload.wikimedia.org...

Now why is this a fake lunar surface ?

1. if this picture hade been taken by a chest mounted camera, you would not have seen the top of the helmet and top of the backpack, of the astronaut in the picture

2. the sunlight would have been even on the whole lunar surface, not just shining on the astronaut

The image seems right to me.

The sun is low in the sky, as you can tell by the long shadow being cast by the astronaut. The Astronaut also seems to be leaning forward slightly, so it could make sense that the top of the backpack and a portion of the top of his helmet would be in shadow (considering that the sun is low and behind him).

The front of him would be lit up by the reflective regolith, which is similar in reflectance as old asphalt. The reflected light (reflecting mainly at an angle "upwards") probably would not fall upon the top of the helmet and the top of the backpack as much as it would his front.

So this image looks pretty consistent with what you would expect from a person being on the moon.

what about the shadows in this one ?

Have you ever looked at the ground on a sunny day? Do you know how perspective works?

how can you compare that with this ?



the more likely explanation is this

a reply to: Ove38

You realise your bottom example is an assembled panorama, so there will be perspective distortion? The same effect seen in your second picture (using a very wide lens) in fact. Or are you claiming that is a fake as well?

And again, could you please explain what these lines are doing? Do you really think these align with the shadows?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

You realise your bottom example is an assembled panorama, so there will be perspective distortion? The same effect seen in your second picture (using a very wide lens) in fact. Or are you claiming that is a fake as well?

No this is a fisheye lens distortion, the point is to make you think you see mountains in the horizon, those that Armstrong didn't see, remember ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

You realise your bottom example is an assembled panorama, so there will be perspective distortion? The same effect seen in your second picture (using a very wide lens) in fact. Or are you claiming that is a fake as well?

No this is a fisheye lens distortion, the point is to make you think you see mountains in the horizon, those that Armstrong didn't see, remember ?

How would Armstrong have seen those mountains? They are almost 400 miles from where he was standing.

Plus, it's not a fisheye lens, it's an assembled panorama of photos taken using a 60mm lens. Is a 60mm lens considered a fisheye in your world?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

You realise your bottom example is an assembled panorama, so there will be perspective distortion? The same effect seen in your second picture (using a very wide lens) in fact. Or are you claiming that is a fake as well?

No this is a fisheye lens distortion, the point is to make you think you see mountains in the horizon, those that Armstrong didn't see, remember ?

How would Armstrong have seen those mountains? They are almost 400 miles from where he was standing.

Plus, it's not a fisheye lens, it's an assembled panorama of photos taken using a 60mm lens. Is a 60mm lens considered a fisheye in your world?

Don't be funny now, you remember Armstrong couldn't see any hills in Apollo 11, so they fixed this in later missions. This is obviously a fisheye lens photo of a fake horizon with hills.