Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by CHRLZ
This thread is now descending beyond ridicule... Has any decent point been made by any deniers in the last ten pages or so?

Newp! Took some time off to fly east and attend my daughter's Grade 8 graduation. I'm pretty much convinced she now has a better understanding of science and technology (and critical thought) than anything I've read from the hoax believers in the interim.

And I read it. And it was tripe. Got through it, though.

As I recall, owe someone a response on blue haloes, and will get on that STAT. Hope I get it done before the weekend, as am going climbing in the Rockies on Saturday. Just hope they're not a hoax, too.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Listen to what is said here about the rocks, but more importantly what Pete says who died only a few short months later of a freak Motorcycle accident...I didn't edit this except for the portion cut to play and it is not taken out of context. The original is at Spacerip.com

what a freudian slip

Did Pete and Neil land on the same spot??

Conrad uttered this statement as he stepped from the landing module Intrepid onto the lunar surface on November 19, 1969, four months after Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon:

``Whoopee! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but it's a long one for me.''

Then, as fellow astronaut Alan Bean listened from Intrepid and millions on Earth eavesdropped, Conrad hummed contentedly as he hopped around a barren world 250,000 miles from home:

``Dum de dum dum dum. Dum diddee dum dum dum.''

dum de dum indeed

115:22:24 Conrad: (As his foot touches the surface; TV still) Mark. Off the...Oooh, is that soft and queasy. (Pause, holding on to the ladder as he tests the footing) Hey, that's neat. (Pause) I don't sink in too far. (Pause) I'll try a little...(Letting go of the ladder and stepping out of the LM shadow) Boy, that Sun is bright. That's just like somebody shining a spotlight in your hand. (Pause) Well, I can walk pretty well, Al, but I've got to take it easy and watch what I'm doing.

115:23:27 Conrad: (Gleeful) Boy, you'll never believe it. Guess what I see sitting on the side of the crater!
115:23:30 Bean: The old Surveyor, right?

115:23:31 Conrad: The old Surveyor. Yes, sir. (Laughing) Does that look neat! It can't be any further than 600 feet from here. How about that?

115:23:43 Gibson: Well planned, Pete.

Nice guess there Pete.
Maybe Gibson wanted to say, "well played, Pete."

115:23:50 Gibson: I say that was well planned, Pete.

I guess not

Now mind you, you just landed on another planet, and you are joking around?
It should have been a religious experience. I dont care how much of a comedian you are.

115:25:43 Conrad: Well, let me...I'm going over to get my contingency sample, and I'll get one of the rocks in the sample. And yeah, as a matter of fact, it is built up on the side that (pause) the LM landed on. Let me get a...(Pause) Well, there's one scoop. And another with some more rocks in it. (Pause) Whoo! This dirt's just like the one-sixth-g airplane, Al...

115:26:33 Bean: Flies up in the air.

115:26:34 Conrad: ...(chuckling) and you get to chase it around. It's wild. Now, I'll tell you...You know, this Sun...It really is...It's just like somebody's got a super-bright spotlight. Here's another good-looking rock - whoops - in the sample. (Pause) Here's another rock I want to get in it. (Pause) I think that's about enough, don't you? Except there's one big rock that's too pretty to pass up. No; I may not be a hog. It won't fit. I'll go over here and get this other one, though.

Again with the artificial light references.

115:27:19 Bean: Boy, you sure lean forward, Pete.

115:27:22 Conrad: Hey, "lean forward": I feel like I'm going to fall over in any direction.

115:27:26 Bean: You're leaning about...

115:27:27 Conrad: Say, Houston; one of the first things that I can see, by golly, is little glass beads. I got a piece about a quarter of an inch in sight, and I'm going to put it in the contingency sample bag, if I can get it. I got it. Am I really leaning over, Al?

115:27:50 Bean: You sure are. On Earth, you'd fall over, I believe.

115:27:54 Conrad: Huh?

115:27:55 Bean: On Earth, you'd fall over leaning that far forward.

115:27:59 Conrad: It seems a little weird, I'll tell you. Don't think you're going to steam around here quite as fast as you thought you were.

Must have been swinging on those wires.

115:29:53 Conrad: The descent engine, it's just like Neil's. I didn't dig any crater at all! (Pause) Al, you've really got to watch your step down here.

That makes no sense at all either Pete.

115:33:38 Conrad: (To himself) There's some color charts. (Long Pause) Dum dee dum dum dum. Dum dee dum dum dum. No. Which is right side out? The other way. No, that's not right. No. (Pause) I think our next big surprise, Al, is getting this thing (the ETB) up (to the cabin with the LEC).

115:35:27 Bean: Ahhhh!

115:35:30 Conrad: What did you just do, Al?

115:35:31 Bean: Man, I just figured it out.

115:35:33 Conrad: You sure did. You just blew water out the front of the cabin. (Correcting himself) Ice crystals.

115:42:17 Conrad: Dum dum, da dee da dee dum. Trying to learn to move faster. (Pause) Pretty good. Hey, I feel great

115:44:16 Conrad: Dee dum dee dum. I feel like Bugs Bunny. (Pause; Giggles) (Pause)

Its all just make believe right Pete?

115:47:04 Gibson: Roger, Pete. (Pause) Pete, for your information for those photos, your shadow length right now is about 45 feet on a level plane.

Interesting, 45 feet. Ill keep a look out for that one.

115:48:36 Conrad: Dum dee dum dum. (Pause) Whoops. No way I'm gonna...I wonder if I can get in the bottom of this crater hole?

I wonder too Pete.

115:52:52 Bean: Hey, you've got to watch it in these shadows.

115:52:54 Conrad: Yup. You can't see what you're doing. Come over here where I am. See that Surveyor sitting there?

115:52:59 Bean: There that thing is! Look at that!

115:53:01 Conrad: Will you look how close we almost landed to that crater! (Pause)

115:53:06 Bean: Beautiful, Pete.

115:53:08 Conrad: Look at the (LM) descent engine. It didn't even dig a hole! (Pause) Okay.

I know Pete, Its simply shocking, considering all that fine soil your walking on.

115:54:05 Bean: I do. One thing I've noticed: it seems to compact into a very shiny surface. I guess the particles are very small and very cohesive; so every boot print, as you look at it, looks almost like it's a piece of rubber itself. It's so well defined, you can't see any grains in it or anything.

bye bye

I'm sorry, but it's gotta be said - FoosM, that was a pile of irrelevant DRIVEL.

Your current level of *credible* supporters is well-deserved.

Originally posted by FoosM
I tell you what, I would be impressed if they have a video of an EVA *uncut* from walking around to getting into the Rover, driving a distance, getting out and walking around again.

Unfortunately that wasn't possible. The TV camera had to be turned off during LRV traverses.

Now I was trying to figure out if he was on some kind of hill, but that would be pretty extreme, and that would mean they have parked the Rover at an extreme angle which would be strange, since I never seen it parked on an extreme incline.

How long did you spend trying to figure out if they were parked on a hill or not?
AS17-140-21493
AS17-141-21607

If you want to find out more information or photos, it was at geology station 6 at "Tracy's rock".

reply to post by FoosM


Again you have displayed your lack of knowledge concerning Apollo.

If you took ANYTIME at all even to read about the Crews of Apollo you would have found out AS12 Crew: Pete Conrad CDR, Alan Bean LMP, Dick Gordon CMP. These men were probably the most comical of all Apollo. These men even had matching Corvettes! These men got along extremely well and spent considerable amount of time training together!

So what is wrong with them joking around, what they cannot enjoy what they are doing?

Explorers are human beings too Foosm. But again you actually have to research something to figure that out. :shk:

I found this article I just discovered interesting...

"Walt Disney Helped Wernher von Braun Sell Americans on Space"

"Wernher von Braun, the German physicist who oversaw most of the achievements of the U.S. space program until his death in 1977, might not have been as successful if it weren't for Walt Disney. "

rest of the article from space.com is here...
www.space.com...

very interesting reading.

edit: from the article ``To make people believe that space flight was a possibility was his greatest accomplishment,'' said Wright. ``Von Braun brought all of this out of the realm of science fiction.''

Disney, who would become an international icon, opened Disneyland the same year that von Braun worked as a technical director on three Disney TV programs about space.

The first, ``Man in Space,'' aired on ABC on March 9, 1955. The second, ``Man and the Moon,'' aired the same year, and the final film, ``Mars and Beyond,'' was televised on Dec. 4, 1957.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55

"Walt Disney Helped Wernher von Braun Sell Americans on Space"

So now you saying that Walt Disney helped Hoax the Moon landing?

:shk:

Wow I The levels of which the hoaxsters reach.

BTW that article is from 2002, Nothing new there!

reply to post by FoosM

Well there have been huge sets before.
But watching this particular video I dont see where thats necessary.
It shouldnt have to be that bigger than this:

Interesting choice of examples: notice the way the astronauts bound around on wires? No, wait! They don't! They shuffle. Stanley Kubrick knew better than to bounce his actors around on wires... we'll let the "Peter Pan" clip demonstrate why. Also note that he has used flood lights to light the excavation pit. Why? Because it's impossible to light a set that large with a single instrument. Multiple light sources cast multiple shadows, remember? Far easier to use floodlights that are visible in the scene as props. He used the same technique on one of his real secret projects:
"The Spy Who Loved Me!"

The soundstage was in fact so enormous that celebrated director Stanley Kubrick visited the production, in secret, to advise on how to light the stage.

en.wikipedia.org...(film)

The terrain looks bigger and bigger, the jumps get a bit higher and longer? The filmmakers for NASA were just getting better at what they were doing.

It couldn't possibly be because they extended their EVA range with a rover, could it? Oh wait, they did! Also, the first mission was extremely cautious in moving around because no-one yet understood the kinesiology of human locomotion on the lunar surface. Remember, traction is a function of weight, not mass. No-one was quite sure how to walk. Once it had been done, though, the astronauts got progressively better at it, more confident and, hence, more likely to take chances and, well, fall over.

And this is clearly a stage or set. But look how high and how any people they have rigged on the wires... Also the sky was black! Ever wonder why they didnt have stars? Maybe because in the video you would see the wires go past them!

Please go back and watch your example very closely. What do you observe about the quality of the motion. Did you notice how the actors describe an arc in their flight paths? They swing like a pendulum because, technically, that's what they are. Do you have any footage of the astronauts swinging like that? (The video of the salute I posted earlier shows the superimposition of two different jumps. Moon hoax believers like to post this sequence in such a way that it is implied that the two frames were of a single jump. But you wouldn't do that because you've seen the video that proves that they were two different jumps, right?) Also, crucially, notice how the actors "lift off." They tend to travel at a constant speed, or even start and stop comically. Why? Because they're being pulled up by a winch or by sweating stage hands. Now go back and observe the astronauts jumping. How do they move? They start out quickly, slow down and start to fall, picking up speed on the way down. Do I need to explain why? Finally, there is a reason why I chose the random clip that I did. In the first part of the video, the sky is indeed black, which would hide any wires. He then crosses in front of a brightly lit hill. This would reveal any wires. The icing on the cake is that you can clearly see the sun glinting off the antenna on his PLSS. If there were wires they must have been thinner than that.

You know why it seems so big to you, because you think its real. And your brain, and Im not making fun, just an observation, assumes it real and thinks the recreate it you must need the equivalent

Quite the opposite. You cannot grasp the vast distances unsettling optical effects and other-wordly physical phenomena, so you assume it is fake. Then you scramble, unsuccessfully so far, to find evidence to reassure yourself that what you're looking at cannot possibly be real.

If I watch this video it looks like the cables couldnt reach as far as he wanted to go.
full
He struggles to get a location and is obviously being pulled back.
Now I was trying to figure out if he was on some kind of hill, but that would be pretty extreme, and that would mean they have parked the Rover at an extreme angle which would be strange, since I never seen it parked on an extreme incline. How do you explain it?

The camera is tilted and he is struggling to dig a trench on a steep slope:

[Jack means that the soil is cohesive. He goes to his upslope (left) knee to scoop soil from the bottom of the trench; but he spills some of the soil getting up.]...[Jack goes to the south end of the trench, Gene to the north. Jack goes to one knee to sample. He gets off balance with his right knee off the ground and, in the process of jumping to his feet, kicks surface material into the trench.]... etc.

history.nasa.gov...

I suppose your theory is that all the technical wizards decided to stage a scene where their Peter Pan rig couldn't reach? Brilliant.

The shadow moves position (forward) when the astro supposedly only moved up and down.

Oh dear. I've given up on trying to explain how shadows work to you. Here, try this Jarrah White style experiment for yourself. Go outside in the sunlight (this may require waiting until after sunrise.) Look down at your shadow. Now jump up in the air. Which way does your shadow move?

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
I tell you what, I would be impressed if they have a video of an EVA *uncut* from walking around to getting into the Rover, driving a distance, getting out and walking around again.

Unfortunately that wasn't possible. The TV camera had to be turned off during LRV traverses.

Now I was trying to figure out if he was on some kind of hill, but that would be pretty extreme, and that would mean they have parked the Rover at an extreme angle which would be strange, since I never seen it parked on an extreme incline.

How long did you spend trying to figure out if they were parked on a hill or not?
AS17-140-21493
AS17-141-21607

If you want to find out more information or photos, it was at geology station 6 at "Tracy's rock".

Well I did say "extreme". I did see those pix before. I know about tracy's rock.
So how do you explain it, thats what Im waiting for.

Originally posted by ppk55
I found this article I just discovered interesting...

"Walt Disney Helped Wernher von Braun Sell Americans on Space"

"Wernher von Braun, the German physicist who oversaw most of the achievements of the U.S. space program until his death in 1977, might not have been as successful if it weren't for Walt Disney. "

rest of the article from space.com is here...
www.space.com...

very interesting reading.

edit: from the article ``To make people believe that space flight was a possibility was his greatest accomplishment,'' said Wright. ``Von Braun brought all of this out of the realm of science fiction.''

Disney, who would become an international icon, opened Disneyland the same year that von Braun worked as a technical director on three Disney TV programs about space.

The first, ``Man in Space,'' aired on ABC on March 9, 1955. The second, ``Man and the Moon,'' aired the same year, and the final film, ``Mars and Beyond,'' was televised on Dec. 4, 1957.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by ppk55]

I made several posts about this. Around page 57 or so.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Well there have been huge sets before.
But watching this particular video I dont see where thats necessary.
It shouldnt have to be that bigger than this:

Interesting choice of examples: notice the way the astronauts bound around on wires? No, wait! They don't! They shuffle. Stanley Kubrick knew better than to bounce his actors around on wires...

Yes of course he did because having them bounce around as they really would be able to do on the moon would look like Peter Pan, in other words fake. And incredibly difficult to pull off correctly. Better to keep them shuffling low to the ground and come up with a reason for it. Just like in 2001. Before Apollo everyone expected people on the moon to be able to leap and bound several feet into the air. But Kubrick kept them on the ground. Why is that?

Far easier to use floodlights that are visible in the scene as props. He used the same technique on one of his real secret projects: "The Spy Who Loved Me!"

The soundstage was in fact so enormous that celebrated director Stanley Kubrick visited the production, in secret, to advise on how to light the stage.

en.wikipedia.org...(film)

Fantastic, now you have directly linked Kubrick to the bond films. I tried to indirectly, thanks.
You also have verified that Kubrick would know how to light large sets.
Of course for SWLM he didnt need to worry about using one light source.
But secondly, again, who says those astronauts were really on that set?
You keep forgetting about Front Screen Projection.
Anyway for what light they could have used, I already covered that in an earlier post.

The terrain looks bigger and bigger, the jumps get a bit higher and longer? The filmmakers for NASA were just getting better at what they were doing.

It couldn't possibly be because they extended their EVA range with a rover, could it?

Each mission became longer and longer with more and more samples collected.
Rover was used in 15-17 thats three landing later. So no, no just because of the Rover.

Please go back and watch your example very closely. What do you observe about the quality of the motion.

Why? It was just an example to show you have many people could be strung on wires on a small stage and you still dont see the support system for it. Its not an example of movement. Again, dont you think NASA would have created special equipment for their needs? It happens all the time for films. As a matter of fact NASA did create special equipment for simulating 1/6th gravity. They even had a building for it, #29.
Also:

Lunar Landing Research Facility (LLRF), a training simulator that allowed NASA engineers to study the complex lunar landing process and give the Apollo astronauts critical hands-on pilot training in the LEM. Completed in 1965 at a cost of $3.5 million, the most obvious feature of the LLRF was its enormous gantry, an A-frame steel structure measuring 400 feet long by 240 feet high. The LLRF simulated lunar gravity on the LEM through an overhead partial-suspension system that counteracted all but 1/6th of the Earth’s gravitational force, and allowed the vehicle to fly unobstructed within a relatively large area. The LLRF also was used as a lunar-walking simulator, with subjects walking on inclined planes while suspended by a system of slings and cables.

I mean look how big this thing is:
And this was for stringing up the LM



Maybe also for launching it, lol



How many lights do you think they used?



Still think NASA cant build big sets with wires?
Right.

In the first part of the video, the sky is indeed black, which would hide any wires. He then crosses in front of a brightly lit hill. This would reveal any wires. The icing on the cake is that you can clearly see the sun glinting off the antenna on his PLSS. If there were wires they must have been thinner than that.

Why? The wires could have been painted black, I have already pointed that out.
Secondly, they could have been keyed out.
Regarding the hills who says they were really there? Its a composite image.

If I watch this video it looks like the cables couldnt reach as far as he wanted to go.
full
He struggles to get a location and is obviously being pulled back.
Now I was trying to figure out if he was on some kind of hill, but that would be pretty extreme, and that would mean they have parked the Rover at an extreme angle which would be strange, since I never seen it parked on an extreme incline. How do you explain it?

The camera is tilted and he is struggling to dig a trench on a steep slope:

I suppose your theory is that all the technical wizards decided to stage a scene where their Peter Pan rig couldn't reach? Brilliant.

Anybody watching that can see that, you have a better explanation? And before you try, consider the astronaut didnt have to go to that location if he was really on the moon. He would have if he had no other location to go to like on a set- get it?

The shadow moves position (forward) when the astro supposedly only moved up and down.

Oh dear. I've given up on trying to explain how shadows work to you. Here, try this Jarrah White style experiment for yourself. Go outside in the sunlight (this may require waiting until after sunrise.) Look down at your shadow. Now jump up in the air. Which way does your shadow move?

Sorry, apples and oranges.
You obviously are having a hard time understanding or your mind is not allowing
you to see the problem.
The Astronaut jumps twice.
The second time he jumps he moves backwards on the film.
In the photo his second jump has his shadow moving forwards.
It should have moved back like in the film.

Look carefully at the photos.
And we are not making it look its one jump, its abut how in the world could the the photographer astronaut successfully manage to take two photos with the astronaut jumping at exactly the same height? So when you combine them it looks like one jump.


[edit on 7/2/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by FoosM
Well I did say "extreme". I did see those pix before. I know about tracy's rock.
So how do you explain it, thats what Im waiting for.

Explain what? They parked on the slope of North Massif. The LRV was parked on the slope and sitting at an angle. You can call it "extreme" if you like. I'm not sure where you're getting lost with all of this and what you need explained.

Here's the list of all the geology station 6 videos. There are many references to being on a steep slope in many of the clips.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by jra]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dragnet53

 

Wha...wha....what now???

All those 100 of billions of dollars went to what exactly? I wish I knew myself. I should ask Jarrah to see where did all those billions went to in the constellation project.

Oh, sure...you go ahead, we would love to see him trip over himself some more....let him screw himself deeper into the ground.

Oh, and 'Space Chimp' Ham's great-great-great...errm, better throw in one more 'great', just in case....grandson ( Allegedly! Never was proven that he was in that hotel room when they said he was!!

) tends to agree....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a6d601cdebe7.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 30 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

sure I still laugh at a waste of a program the constellation project was. They owe us tax payers 100 billion plus dollars for a failed attempt at something they never did accomplish. SO

reply to post by dragnet53

sure I still laugh at a waste of a program the constellation project was. They owe us tax payers 100 billion plus dollars for a failed attempt at something they never did accomplish.

The have not spent a 100 billion on Constellation project ever, again you need to learn about what you state in here.

So far all you have done is post non-sense.

reply to post by FoosM


This is off topic but needs to be addressed:

First the EX bbcode is for external source quotes:

NASA article states this..

the quote tag is for what someone says:

theability says Foosm needs to learn bbcode guide and get with the program

A Guide to BBCode on ATS

Research proves useful.

Lets see if you can learn from a post and apply knowledge!

www.visual-memory.co.uk...

Above is a link to some stuff about front screen projection.

Note the use of it in Where Eagles Dare highlights the issues with moving back grounds. The article doesn't touch on the issues with grain and tell tale signs which are notable in post.

Doubt it will end any debates but it might advance the conversation somewhat beyond stating that it exists.

Oh and edit: The last major blockbuster to extensively use front projection was the Sylvester Stallone action thriller Cliffhanger from 1993. Stanley Kubrick, a long time advocate of the process, also used front projection in his last film Eyes Wide Shut (1999) for some of the scenes requiring the actors to walk down streets.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Pinke]

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM

 

Again you have displayed your lack of knowledge concerning Apollo.

If you took ANYTIME at all even to read about the Crews of Apollo you would have found out AS12 Crew: Pete Conrad CDR, Alan Bean LMP, Dick Gordon CMP. These men were probably the most comical of all Apollo. These men even had matching Corvettes! These men got along extremely well and spent considerable amount of time training together!

So what is wrong with them joking around, what they cannot enjoy what they are doing?

Explorers are human beings too Foosm. But again you actually have to research something to figure that out. :shk:

If you took time to read my post you would understand I know the Pete used to like to joke around. And that is why he was able to leave so many clues during dialogue. Problem is you cant let go of Apollo being real so your mind wont interpret his words as being clues:

First we have Conrad saying they didnt go to the moon, then during his supposed moon trip he calls the sun a stage light, amongst other things:

Conrad about the flag "on the Moon":
"This American flag looks fine, just aside the Lunar Module, is it? It looks like a model."

"If one looks through the many 100 s of pages of radio transcript of Apollo 12 so one gets the feeling having been at a volleyball game on Saturday afternoon and not having been witness of heavy steps of the human beings on a foreign and deadly orb."

At the end Houston said after 131 hours and 51 minutes mission time:

"This was the best simulation we ever had." And nobody laughed...

(Wisnewski, p.274-275)


Face it, Apollo was a dumb de dumb de dumb sham.
Pete and others cant discuss it openly because they probably signed contracts,
their lives and wives are threatened with death. So they have to reveal it clues.
But if the general public is not sophisticated enough to see it, well then the Apollo lie will continue.

could you just state what you think makes them fake and why?

Here are links to the originals for anyone who wants them.

AS11-40-5928
AS11-40-5930

Ok, what makes those photos fake.
Real simple, looking through the videos and photos of Apollo 11 I distinctly noticed that the horizon seems to cutoff at a short distance. And it was those photos that made it really stand out:








And what was the clue?
The shadow of the LM.
Take a look where it stops.

Either these guys landed in a deep crater or the moon is small like a planetoid in Mario Galaxy and they are Mario and Luigi running around it. Or the moon is a flat disc. Becauase, where is the rest of the horizon? To bring out this issue I did a little photoshopping:



So basically you can see this effect:


Which door do you see the Astro going through? The really small one? Or one of the middle ones?

files.abovetopsecret.com...

So what we got looks like a set.
Similar to this one:


Here is a picture of Mars look how easy it is to discern how far the horizon is.


Ok, Mars not the same as the moon, fine,
Surveyor 7 took revealed a more realistic horizon:


Ok, now everyone should know if you walk towards the horizon, more of the horizon will be revealed, and if you walk away from the horizon, less of the horizon will be revealed. So...

why


does the horizon get


longer as we walk away from it?


and why the difference in color between the photos and they are from the same magazine. The sun didnt change its color temperature did it?

Mod Edit to fix oversize images

[edit on 7/2/2010 by semperfortis]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by FoosM]

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, what makes those photos fake.
Real simple, looking through the videos and photos of Apollo 11 I distinctly noticed that the horizon seems to cutoff at a short distance. And it was those photos that made it really stand out

The surface isn't perfectly flat. There is a small rise that the shadow is on. It's blocking our view of the horizon. The photos taken from further away are not as obscured by the small rise. Plus the last photo you posted (AS11-40-5961) looks to be on slightly higher ground as well.

There are also plenty of other photos that show the horizon beyond that small rise. Plus there are a lot of photos taken from within the LM looking out in that direction.

and why the difference in color between the photos and they are from the same magazine. The sun didnt change its color temperature did it?

It appears that the photo is mildly sun struck. There are a few photos with a similar orange/red tint to them in that magazine (Magazine S).

[edit on 2-7-2010 by jra]

FoosM, has it occurred to you that your postings (huge images that require mod intervention, lengthy irelevant quotes, broken code, misuse of quoting codes, lack of citation..) all reflects your general skill level? In fact, it would appear you are trying to bury this thread in garbage to drive people away - don't you like the way your claims are being demolished? Please note how short this response is. It deals with the key issues. Hint - GET TO THE FLIPPING POINT. I (optimistically) expect you to respond in kind. Actually, I expect you won't, but others will judge whether you make my point for me..

Originally posted by FoosM
If you took time to read my post

I did. Where exactly did you quote, and cite in context, these words:

..we have Conrad saying they didnt go to the moon

Cite the text and the transcript timing please.

then during his supposed moon trip he calls the sun a stage light

Again, cite and timing, please. And we'll look at the context.

"This American flag looks fine, just aside the Lunar Module, is it? It looks like a model."

What irrelevant garbage. It's a common saying when you see something 'out-of-this-world'. English not your first language? Stop wasting our time with this MANURE.

At the end Houston said after 131 hours and 51 minutes

???? Apollo 12 went for over 244 hours. You say 131 hours was at the end? Can you PLEASE try a little harder?

"This was the best simulation we ever had." And nobody laughed... Wisnewski, p.274-275)

Wisnewski is a well-documented LIAR. But even if that were not the case, I trust you verified this 'quote'. So now's your time to show your research ability - tell us where we will find it in the transcripts.. I'm genuinely interested to see the context and hear the quote, so - you posted it, you cite it.

Face it, Apollo was a dumb de dumb de dumb sham.

It's no wonder you have so many supporters here, with that sort of serious, measured tone. You clearly have a research background - what other stuff of note have you done?

their lives and wives are threatened with death.

??????? Those are very serious claims, soI trust you have copious proof. Mods, are you noting this? Ok with that sort of unsupported and slanderous claim?

Foosm, if you can't support that sort of comment, you are posting gutter slime. I would suggest you grow some cojones and go visit those families and make those comments to their faces. (please can I watch the Sibrel moment that would ensue?)

So they have to reveal it [sic] clues.

How sad. You run out of any 'proof', and are left with nothing but trying to find 'clues'. The lameness just increases. Reverse speech, anyone? Oh yes, you already tried that one too.

But if the general public is not sophisticated enough to see it

Oh, the IRONING.....

Added after seeing FoosM's astonishing Photoshop 'analysis' :
FoosM, may I ask your permission to use that last post of yours, when I next run a Digital Imaging class? We only briefy touch upon photogrammetry, and I like to spice up my classes and give the students a good laugh. Who needs basic logic, understanding of basic terrain and perspective, or sophisticated techniques like 'measurement', geometry.. let alone ray-tracing, de-convolution, ... when you can instead use the FoosM method of drawing circles and doors! FoosM, you are not helping your cause.



[edit on 2-7-2010 by CHRLZ]