Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Ove38

You don't even believe this stuff yourself, do you? You are just throwing out random words for the sake of arguing. I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch!

Nobody could be that unobservant. How many individual photos make up the Apollo 17 panorama you posted? I already told you what lens they used. Does it look like a fisheye to you?

And what about the fact that the mountains were photographed from widely differing positions? Do you understand parallax?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

You don't even believe this stuff yourself, do you? You are just throwing out random words for the sake of arguing. I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch!

Nobody could be that unobservant. How many individual photos make up the Apollo 17 panorama you posted? I already told you what lens they used. Does it look like a fisheye to you?

And what about the fact that the mountains were photographed from widely differing positions? Do you understand parallax?

Do you mean stereo parallax ? www.aulis.com...

Listen, there's so much wrong with this moon landing business, that we could go on forever, I think we have to wait for a rover to visit the sites. Thank you for a funny chat !

a reply to: Ove38

Aah the post where the alleged expert basically just makes stuff up, plucks numbers out of thin air, deliberately misinterprets photos and completely misses the elephant in the room: the photos show the moon in really impressive detail that they couldn't have known about at the time of the missions.

Some discussion here:

www.apollohoax.net...

Still no response to the TV broadcast actually showing rocks, Apollo 17 tracks being visible in 1973 prints, time specific photos of astronauts and Earth, and Cinder Lakes crater fields replicating areas nowhere near Tranquility Base.

Ah well...

a reply to: onebigmonkey
It's funny, a couple of pages back we had one hoax believer post a video claiming that the photos were fake because the mountains didn't move when the foreground did, and now we have another one claiming that they are fake because the mountains did move.

They really need to get together and sort their theories out.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: onebigmonkey
It's funny, a couple of pages back we had one hoax believer post a video claiming that the photos were fake because the mountains didn't move when the foreground did, and now we have another one claiming that they are fake because the mountains did move.

They really need to get together and sort their theories out.

You hit on the crux of moon hoax believers they all pick something they dont understand and use that as the basis for their belief instead of asking how could that be.

a reply to: Rob48
It's funny, a couple of pages back we had one hoax believer post a video claiming that the photos were fake because the mountains didn't move when the foreground did, and now we have another one claiming that they are fake because the mountains did move.

and you failed miserably to discredit either of those contentions with any degree of certainty , ya just ridiculed the claims & rambled on incoherently about some rocks .....

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: Rob48
It's funny, a couple of pages back we had one hoax believer post a video claiming that the photos were fake because the mountains didn't move when the foreground did, and now we have another one claiming that they are fake because the mountains did move.

and you failed miserably to discredit either of those contentions with any degree of certainty , ya just ridiculed the claims & rambled on incoherently about some rocks .....

Have you even read your posts? Your accusing others of incoherent babble yet you have done nothing but give quips and your opinion. You have yet to make a coherent argument for your case ive asked you to even clarify your statements and yet you ignore that to move on to other misguided opinions you have. As they say make your case put something on the table and will be happy to discuss it. Show us why the pictures are wrong or prove rockets cant take off from the moon. You have yet to prove anything other than you believe almost anything as long as its misinformation.

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: Rob48
It's funny, a couple of pages back we had one hoax believer post a video claiming that the photos were fake because the mountains didn't move when the foreground did, and now we have another one claiming that they are fake because the mountains did move.

and you failed miserably to discredit either of those contentions with any degree of certainty , ya just ridiculed the claims & rambled on incoherently about some rocks .....

More fakery from you?



Show us your proof and explain it in simple words so we can understand it. So far you've shown nothing.

Oh and here's some more on that paper at moneygrabbing fraudster website aulis:

www.metabunk.org...

You might want to try looking at Kharkov University's website and see if you can find alleged PhD candidate Oleg Oleynik.

a reply to: dragonridr
You have yet to make a coherent argument .....explain it in simple words so we can understand it. So far you've shown nothing

quite the contrary,,, I've done more than you could possibly fathom ... the current apollo paradigm has been shaken to its very core...

I've pointed out several fallacies that the propagandists have choosen to use as evidence,, & when confronted they relented... then there lack of integrity was exposed when they renege and just began too ignore the validity of the agrument...but dont think for one second that will deter us from continuing too reveal your invalid assumptions...

the hoax theory rest on a more solid footing now, than ever & an overwhelming consensus exsist that the apollo
moon landings were a hoax...

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: dragonridr
You have yet to make a coherent argument .....explain it in simple words so we can understand it. So far you've shown nothing

quite the contrary,,, I've done more than you could possibly fathom ... the current apollo paradigm has been shaken to its very core...

Look, I'm sure that sounds absolutely fabulous on your soapbox in front of the mirror but all you've done is present some badly written hyperbole and faked some pictures.

I've pointed out several fallacies that the propagandists have choosen to use as evidence,,

No you haven't.

& when confronted they relented...

Nope. If that was true people wouldn't be responding to your nonsense.

then there lack of integrity was exposed when they renege and just began too ignore the validity of the agrument...

You have yet to present a coherent let alone valid argument. You claimed earlier that there had been agreement not to use LRO imagery, when challenged you simply called people liars. This says more about your integrity than anyone else's.

but dont think for one second that will deter us from continuing too reveal your invalid assumptions...

Looking forward to you actually starting to do that.

the hoax theory rest on a more solid footing now, than ever & an overwhelming consensus exsist that the apollo
moon landings were a hoax...

Not true. For one thing you have no evidence that there is any kind of consensus that they were a hoax - it is just your unsupported opinion. For another the only places where there is a consensus is on websites whose sole purpose is to claim it is a hoax. For a final thing, people sharing an opinion is not the same as something being true. I can support my opinion with facts. You have provided nothing to support yours.

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: dragonridr
You have yet to make a coherent argument .....explain it in simple words so we can understand it. So far you've shown nothing

quite the contrary,,, I've done more than you could possibly fathom ... the current apollo paradigm has been shaken to its very core...

I've pointed out several fallacies that the propagandists have choosen to use as evidence,, & when confronted they relented... then there lack of integrity was exposed when they renege and just began too ignore the validity of the agrument...but dont think for one second that will deter us from continuing too reveal your invalid assumptions...

the hoax theory rest on a more solid footing now, than ever & an overwhelming consensus exsist that the apollo
moon landings were a hoax...

about that.. funny how TPTB (or the entity you are so afraid of) has never silenced anyone.. and yet you were so afraid a few pages ago about the TPTB when you were talking about missing satellites..

so on one hand.. exposing the greatest hoax of modern history = nothing to be afraid of even though its been kept secret for over 40 years and counting..

on the other hand.. exposing missing satellites is too dangerous to talk about = be very very afraid if you even think about exposing this..

its almost like theories regarding missing satellites is more true than theories of the hoaxed manned lunar missions..

coincidence?? i think not..

Just to prove that I never agreed not to use LRO images, here's another working of one hot off the press.

I received a book through the post: 'Lunar science: a post Apollo view'. It was published in 1975, and contains lots of Apollo images and scientific analyses. One image was taken at Hadley Rille - AS15-89-12116.

Here it is, as photographed by my phone this morning from the page of the book compared with a view taken by the LRO 40 years later. I've put some pretty arrows on to help those with their blinkers on.





Anyone care to explain how this could possibly happen?

NASA can move not only small rocks but move mountains... in the developing room. Like they did with this cover of official NASA book SP-368. But the Apollo defenders will say : NASA didn't print the book, the Government Printing Office printed it!



The Apollo astronauts borked their color camera because they weren't trained on it.

To improve the quality of television pictures from the Moon, a color camera was carried on Apollo 12 (unlike the monochrome camera that was used on Apollo 11). Unfortunately, when Bean carried the camera to the place near the Lunar Module where it was to be set up, he inadvertently pointed it directly into the Sun, destroying the SEC tube. Television coverage of this mission was thus terminated almost immediately. Source Wiki [14] Jones, Eric M., ed. (1995). "One Small Step". Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal. NASA. Retrieved November 7, 2011. Note at 109:57:55.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Strawman.

Dispute the contents of the book, dispute the post that you posted it in reponse to, or carry on wittering over the decisions of a graphic artist. You had a response to this 2 years ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
NASA can move not only small rocks but move mountains... in the developing room. Like they did with this cover of official NASA book SP-368. But the Apollo defenders will say : NASA didn't print the book, the Government Printing Office printed it!

Doesn't it seem more likely that the graphic artist who put that cover together added the extra mountain because he or she felt it gave balance to the composition? That additional mountain certainly does aide in drawing the eye around the composition, making it more dynamic

It's a book cover, and it isn't unusual for book covers to be designed by graphic artists, including altering photos to aide in composition. In the case of this cover, I'd say the graphic artist did a good job.

I'm not sure why you think there is an issue here...and I especially don't know what this has to do with a Moon Hoax. The original image is still there and publicly available for all to see.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Just to prove that I never agreed not to use LRO images

that does not prove anything one way or another....

No amount of propagandists applause will sustain the weight of their lack of evidence....

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographs don't have a leg to stand on...theres no way to verifly the authenticity of LRO photography of apollo sites , much less decipher them without the use of your preconceived suppositions.....

The LRO photography constitutes nothing but a Crutch ....that you can bang upon your present paradigm....

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Just to prove that I never agreed not to use LRO images

that does not prove anything one way or another....

No amount of propagandists applause will sustain the weight of their lack of evidence....

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographs don't have a leg to stand on...theres no way to verifly the authenticity of LRO photography of apollo sites , much less decipher them without the use of your preconceived suppositions.....

The LRO photography constitutes nothing but a Crutch ....that you can bang upon your present paradigm....

says who?? i suppose you have evidence to support your claims?? you know how you always complain that the propagandists have a lack of evidence??

wheres yours??

you know about kaguya/selene right? chandrayaan??

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
NASA can move not only small rocks but move mountains... in the developing room. Like they did with this cover of official NASA book SP-368. But the Apollo defenders will say : NASA didn't print the book, the Government Printing Office printed it!

The Apollo astronauts borked their color camera because they weren't trained on it.

To improve the quality of television pictures from the Moon, a color camera was carried on Apollo 12 (unlike the monochrome camera that was used on Apollo 11). Unfortunately, when Bean carried the camera to the place near the Lunar Module where it was to be set up, he inadvertently pointed it directly into the Sun, destroying the SEC tube. Television coverage of this mission was thus terminated almost immediately. Source Wiki [14] Jones, Eric M., ed. (1995). "One Small Step". Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal. NASA. Retrieved November 7, 2011. Note at 109:57:55.

Cant believe your bringing up that tired old argument especially when i know you know that wasnt even the original cover.See you have been told this in the past in the multiple threads you started on this. The cover was changed when they did a book printing from the original NASA release. Shame on you for trying to blame that on NASA when it was publisher change also came in different colors i suppose the red or blue covers were done because they didnt know what color the moon was right?

a reply to: dragonridr

Holy crap! Dude you have (so far) 462 posts in this thread!

Do you live in here

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: dragonridr

Holy crap! Dude you have (so far) 462 posts in this thread!

Do you live in here

Make that 463.

This thread was started over 2 years ago im guessing by that disclosure wasnt that imminent after all huh? Look back through the thread if you dare youll see the same old posts shot down multiple times yet like a bad penny they turn up again and again and again. See certain people arent here to disprove apollo but are here to see how many people he can trick into buying into fantasy.