NASA’s 1971 Apollo 15 Video Clip Shows UFO Parked On Lunar Surface Observing Moon Landing, (?)

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

No we don't believe YOUR eyes , your low res images are no use to try and prove your point.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
There is an obvious problem with a belief in the Moon Hoax & ufo's on the Moon and undestanding shadows here is a classic from a Moon Hoax believer post a while back.

Yeah, the same with this not-so-famous moonscape photo. Gotta be an artificial light source with shadows like that.
And good advice to boot!

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

No we don't believe YOUR eyes , your low res images are no use to try and prove your point.

So one is never able to draw conclusions from low res images? You need a completely different picture taken at a different time, place, elevation to prove your point? You do realize that a completely different picture does not prove anything and has no real bearing on the original video we are attempting to analyze - it is interesting at best.

Why is it that you cannot use the original to prove or disprove your point? Here is another screen shot with the film colorized to bring out contrasts better, sorry but there is no hill. Maybe it grew later to be captured by a high-res camera.




For those that would like to think for themselves and not be rushed or influenced to judgement, you can watch this little clip and decide for yourselves.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Still looks like a hill, albeit it a crappy, low resolution hill. And Paranormal Crucible? Really? Really? The fact that they claim it's a UFO is a debunking in and of itself.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

The original WAS used to prove YOU ARE WRONG because the outline of the hill & crater of your image when lined up with the HI RESOLUTION surface image of the same features they match .

So want explain that, even you can't act that dumb to try and keep the ufo BS going.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE


So one is never able to draw conclusions from low res images?

Not when they are at best inclusive and at worst dishonestly presented. I'll ask again: how does your UFO manage to hover at such an angle?

Are you ready to concede yet that the 'hill' you identified in your earlier post is actually level ground?

You need a completely different picture taken at a different time, place, elevation to prove your point?

Yes, when the view is the same, it provides better resolution and it corresponds with the views taken from the air by numerous unmanned probes.

You do realize that a completely different picture does not prove anything

Yes it does - it proves that what you are looking at is a hill in the distance, not a UFO.

and has no real bearing on the original video we are attempting to analyze - it is interesting at best.

It has every bearing on it. You don't like it because it does not corroborate your version.

Why is it that you cannot use the original to prove or disprove your point? Here is another screen shot with the film colorized to bring out contrasts better, sorry but there is no hill. Maybe it grew later to be captured by a high-res camera.

You can keep manipulating it is often as you like, it is still a hill, it is not a UFO, there is no shadow underneath it and that image, like the others you keep posting, is not an honest representation of the scene because it depicts it as horizontal when it is not.

For those that would like to think for themselves and not be rushed or influenced to judgement, you can watch this little clip and decide for yourselves.

This video is absolute garbage.