Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
it sounds like you are sour that they deleted your name..
the bottom line is that it is in the right section now..

I wouldnt know if he is or not,, but he certainly should be.... although it is not surprising since the ALSJ will only credit vetted propagandists ....time & time again, moon hoax theorists will point out things overlooked by the propagandists, then the propagandists run down there and try too take credit for it which only exposes the propagandists lack of integrity..

-see, the propagandists have run out of there own ideas & failed to produce the smoking gun that proves the apollo paradigm ,therefore they must haunt various moon hoax forums trolling the research of moon hoax theorists hoping too jump their claims.....

There was a reminder earlier in this thread to examine the evidence that was being posted. Calling people propagandists and accusing them of trolling seems to me to be a direct breach of that request.

I'm credited with things on the ALSJ. No-one vetted me. I simply emailed the site with some information it didn't have. Anyone can do that.

So, do you actually have any evidence to present or did you just come on here to abuse people?

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
it sounds like you are sour that they deleted your name..
the bottom line is that it is in the right section now..

I wouldnt know if he is or not,, but he certainly should be.... although it is not surprising since the ALSJ will only credit vetted propagandists ....time & time again, moon hoax theorists will point out things overlooked by the propagandists, then the propagandists run down there and try too take credit for it which only exposes the propagandists lack of integrity..

-see, the propagandists have run out of there own ideas & failed to produce the smoking gun that proves the apollo paradigm ,therefore they must haunt various moon hoax forums trolling the research of moon hoax theorists hoping too jump their claims.....

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

I only brought it up because you misrepresented it. Go back to my original response to you. Remember, lateral comparisons? Feel free to debunk it all you want.

I misrepresented it NO you misread it and the sold called expert is an IDIOT!

Here is YOUR first reply to me

I clicked on the Aulis link and there's plenty of other examples of lateral movement of the Apollo photos.

From the Aulis site

The first series. Astronaut Dave takes a few panorama images in EVA-1 near the LM, AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.

The second series. Jim is doing some panoramic photography (Fig. 8). The distance from his camera to the LM is approximately 40 m. Jim's ALSEP Pan at the end of EVA-2.

The third series. Dave and Jim make a few trips in the rover to Rima Hadley (Fig. 12) to collect samples. One of the panoramas comprises photos from AS15-82-11165 to AS15-84-11284.

See the IMPORTANT words PANORAMA & PANORAMIC

Panorma pictures are taken by ROTATING to show Parallax CORRECTLY you would take an image and move sideways (that's lateral movement) a set distance.

Now is that SIMPLE enough for you to understand ?

This addition to YOUR knowledge has been brought to YOU entirely free of charge!

a reply to: bobbypurify

I suggest you try driving along a dusty dirt road on Earth and see just how the dust kicked up by your wheels acts. NOT anything like the dust in the lunar rover videos.

a reply to: Rob48

Play along with me here, Rob my man. If it's just sand they're driving in, then we could expect completely different results. "Dust" seems to keep coming up, and I agree with your analogy but driving on a beach and a dirt road yield separate outcomes. My argument is that it's not lunar regolith but sand in my entirely made up scenario of how Apollo could have been recreated on Earth

a reply to: wmd_2008

You used one example that didn't coincide with the rest. That is all I pointed out. Nothing more

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Rob48

Play along with me here, Rob my man. If it's just sand they're driving in, then we could expect completely different results. "Dust" seems to keep coming up, and I agree with your analogy but driving on a beach and a dirt road yield separate outcomes. My argument is that it's not lunar regolith but sand in my entirely made up scenario of how Apollo could have been recreated on Earth

Does this look the same to you. Want you to not I've hiw sand swirls off the tires. This is caused by the armosphere as the grains of sand spin.

a reply to: dragonridr

Lol, for one, that thing only bursts sand high when it's going much, much faster than the rover. When it's cruising at the beginning, you've done nothing but help my case. Thanks!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: dragonridr

Lol, for one, that thing only bursts sand high when it's going much, much faster than the rover. When it's cruising at the beginning, you've done nothing but help my case. Thanks!

Watch the sand and hiw it acts and even when they slow down to stop they still have a sand trail. Also notice there is no arc for the sand it just leaves a trail behind.

a reply to: dragonridr

Right at the beginning, as the buggy slows before it accelerates much faster than the rover could imagine, it looks just like the rover. Imo. I did stumble upon this video when looking. More back drop fun!

youtu.be...

That looks rather suspicious to an apollo reviewer. I realize you'll just say that's the parallax and difference between up close and far away, but that looks hokey as ##

a reply to: bobbypurify

That argument cracks me up every time it gets trotted out. Who sieved it? Where? How did they get it to whatever mystery studio you think is involved?

In my degree and PhD research I did more sieving than you can possibly imagine, and you have no idea what a long and tedious process separating size fractions is.

Try again, the gish gallop has plenty left yet...

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Are you referring to the regolith in a studio? You lost me here, big guy. Thanks!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: dragonridr

Right at the beginning, as the buggy slows before it accelerates much faster than the rover could imagine, it looks just like the rover. Imo. I did stumble upon this video when looking. More back drop fun!

youtu.be...

That looks rather suspicious to an apollo reviewer. I realize you'll just say that's the parallax and difference between up close and far away, but that looks hokey as ##

Actually it would be pointless to say because like the guy at Aulis you don't understand the difference!

a reply to: wmd_2008

I won't delve into trying to imply what you do and don't understand. But, you're the one who will soon realize that NASA lied to you, hopefully it won't break you down. However, if I'm to find out NASA and apollo were authentic, I'm free to admit I was wrong and admire how cool it is that someone did walk on the moon. That's why I find dealing in absolutes, especially considering current scientific paradigms, is rather ignorant. What would you do if it came out the moon landings were a hoax?

a reply to: bobbypurify

You appear to be suggesting that the reason they don't get dust plumes in apollo live TV is because it is all sand.

In geological terms sand is a specific range if particle sizes snd you don't just get it off the beach like that - it has to be processed. it is a very labour and/or time intensive process to do that.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wait, what are you implying that I'm implying?

ETA: not trying to mess with you here. Just wondering what your thoughts were on why you are discussing sieving and such

a reply to: bobbypurify

"My argument is it's not lunar regolith but sand"

a reply to: bobbypurify

That's something I don't have to worry about because ALL the video & photographic evidence shows it to be true.

When so called experts can't work out how to show parallax, don't know how exposure would prevent stars from showing, can't understand that shadows follow the terrain they land on or the fact that if one element of video footage is speed up the rest will as well , it's not really a challenge!

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: bobbypurify

"My argument is it's not lunar regolith but sand"

Okay, so why would they have to go to the trouble of everything you alluded to? Educate me, Mr. Monkey.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: bobbypurify

That's something I don't have to worry about because ALL the video & photographic evidence shows it to be true.

When so called experts can't work out how to show parallax, don't know how exposure would prevent stars from showing, can't understand that shadows follow the terrain they land on or the fact that if one element of video footage is speed up the rest will as well , it's not really a challenge!

Ummm? You dodged my question. You're dealing in absolutes and it's dangerous