Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by masterp

My question is: where is the uneven ground in the above picture? there is no uneven ground to justify the shadows not being parallel enough.

The second of those images is AS11-40-5961.jpg, as jra has pointed out.

This is the last of a partial panorama that Neil Armstrong took from the edge of little west crater. If you look at the images that make up that partial pan, it may help give a better idea of the terrain where Neil was standing.

The descriptions, with links to the images, beginning with:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

can we please, please, please, (with sugar on top) try to remember this:

Multiple lightsources are not the cause for shadows not being parallel

Multiple lightsources are a cause for multiple shadows

So until you find a apollo picture with multiple shadows, let them be.


Besides that: That vid of shatner is obviously a fake. Why? Simple: Riker and Kirk never met. Picard met Kirk once, and Kirk died when that happened, so all 4 of them cant be sitting with guinan. Besides that spocks ears are all wrong.
Also Weedwhacker: I must correct you. Shatner never directed a Star Trek movie. They just somehow miscounted and jumped from 4 directly to 6.

Originally posted by debunky

Also Weedwhacker: I must correct you. Shatner never directed a Star Trek movie. They just somehow miscounted and jumped from 4 directly to 6.

I think it is tradition or something to skip numbers on sequels. Highlander did it also when they jumped from One to Three.

reply to post by masterp


I am being 100% serious here if YOU cant see how the ground is uneven on those pictures you posted please get your eyes checked.
If you look back in the thread someone else thought like you set up a mock up with 2 light sources the object then had 2 shadows.

You can try it yourself go to some uneven land puts some objects or friends in various location and see how the shadows look

Here is a good example on a fairly flat piece of land.

www.apollo-hoax.me.uk...

Have a look at this video see how much a shadow can change due to the terrain it falls on.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by FoosM


What would you do with evidence if you committed a crime?
I dont know about you, but the first thing I would do is destroy it.

So you have nothing of any substance upon which to base your beliefs. Excellent.

Why would they risk their lives and careers?

On the contrary, if you had the ability to blow open one of the world's great conspiracies and make a lasting name for yourself, wouldnt you do it? Especially since many of those involved with Apollo have come to (or passed through) old age...there would no longer be any risk to their careers.

Many parts of this "studio" are in plain sight.

Where? Point it out, dont just make assertions without backings them up. You stated in this same post that all the evidence was destroyed. So which is it? Was it destroyed, or not? If not, show us all the evidence!

No it wouldnt.
Your just making it larger than it is in your head.

Another assertion without any kind of justification.

There are mountains of data. Hours of footage and audio. Thousands of photographs.

There was independent tracking of the spacecraft. At least 3 radio telescopes received signals from Apollo 11 from the moon, one of which wasnt part of the NASA network. Pictures in Australia did not go through the NASA channels in Houston, but were decoded in Australia for Aussie audiences. There was media at the radio telescopes when the pictures were being beamed down, they watched it live off the dish before anyone at NASA got their hands on it.

Tidbinbilla in Canberra, which was dropped as one of the broadcast dishes before the launch, was tracking the orbiter. Its dish was also able to pick up the signal from the LM at times when the orbiter and LM were in close proximity, and so they watched the broadcast without NASA's knowledge.

The only way to fake all of that is to have pre-recorded the audio and footage and rebroadcast it from the LM. The LM also needs to have landed on the moon, since that is where the images came from.

So in your alternate reality, NASA needed to pre-record footage and beam hours of it from the LM to Earth. Separately, they needed to have pre-recorded audio in the orbiter once again to rebroadcast during the entire trip. The LM needed to make a landing on the moon both to broadcast footage form the right spot and also to place the reflector All of this needed to be accomplished even to fake that humans had set foot on the moon.

The only bit missing from there is the humans themselves being inside the craft.

See where i am getting at?

if you disagree, then explain to me how else they could have faked Apollo 11 given all the data and tracking that occurred.

Yes they have, that includes the photographs.

What is there other than the photograhps? And i mean physical evidence, not other audio or video "anomalies" that prove little to nothing.

Look for yourself

I thought your precious Jarrah White was supposed to be presenting this compelling evidence! So where is it?

Originally posted by zvezdar
There are mountains of data. Hours of footage and audio. Thousands of photographs.

You know what, those thousands of photos just might be the problem. There's too many.

I think they took around 6000 of them during the moon landings, and just about all of them are perfectly exposed, framed, focused, etc.

Check out this time and motion study of whether it would be possible to shoot that many or not and make up your own mind.

www.aulis.com...

Originally posted by ppk55
I think they took around 6000 of them during the moon landings, and just about all of them are perfectly exposed, framed, focused, etc.

No they aren't. There are lots of photos that are not perfectly framed, or focused. Besides, it's not hard to get what you want in frame, even with the lack of a view finder. You simply point at it at your subject and shoot. This is made even easier as they used a lens that was slightly wide angle.

Check out this time and motion study of whether it would be possible to shoot that many or not and make up your own mind.

That study by Jack White is a joke.

Here's a post I made regarding his calculations a few years ago. I'll quote the relevant part.

Originally posted by jra
But back to Jack Whites PPM calculations. His method makes no sense. With Apollo 11 for example, I see no good reason why he takes the 31 minutes out of the total 2h31m EVA to calculate the PPM (other than to skew the results to his liking of course). Seeing as how the 121 photos were taken throughout the entire EVA, it would make sense to use the full 2h31m time for the calculation don't you think? And when you do that, you get 0.8 PPM instead of 3.90 PPM. Plus the later mission, both astronauts shared the task of photographing and documenting, so if you redo the calculations for Apollo 17, which has the most photos taken for it's 3 EVA's, and you use the total EVA time and divide that between the two astronauts then you get 0.75 PPM instead of 2.35 PPM.

Jake White does what ever he can to skew the results in his favour. I find him to be a very dishonest person.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by jra]

reply to post by ppk55


Do you really not see all the obvious flaws in this study? For one thing, he doesn't account for the fact that there are TWO astronauts performing the various tasks and taking photos. That doubles the time right there. Another charlatan.

Hopefully he takes on 9-11 next!

Actually, the Moon hoax is a no brainer for most of us and its wasted energy once the point has been made. MUCH BETTER that the young researcher turn his attention to the more critical area of 9/11 research. All that the Moon thing does is to set forth in the consciousness of ordinary citizens that YES the government is capable of propaganda on an immense scale. The 9/11 deception and propaganda is far more important so let us spend our valuable time there - its far more significant to the cause of survival of our nation and our very freedom. The truth of the Moon fraud is really not that critical at this point - in the future it may serve in a positive way as a 'clincher' for the true skeptic and 9/11 aetheist