Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

page: 35
109
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


But compare if you will the length of the yellow lines that reasonably determine the distance of a shadow in one of the images but not in the other.

edit on 31-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing pic added




posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
My question is this: WHY would they have hoaxed the landing? What would have been the reason?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
I wonder - shouldn't the flag cast a shadow?


They do now (but no doubt NASA just photoshopped them in, or maybe the flags were planted last week using a captured UFO?)

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
My question is this: WHY would they have hoaxed the landing? What would have been the reason?


HomerinNC
They hoaxed the landing because they hoaxed the takeoff........"what doesn't go up doesn't come down either."
edit on 31-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


But compare if you will the length of the yellow lines that reasonably determine the distance of a shadow in one of the images but not in the other.

edit on 31-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing pic added


Apparently you didn't understand Soylent Green Is People's reply to you:

Two different pictures, taken at two different angles: results in two different length of shadows.

In other words: your yellow line will not work here and of course it will not match.

What you would need to do is measure the shadows that can be found in the first photo. Then measure the shadows in the 2nd photo. They will change and either be longer or shorter, but they should all be longer or shorter by the same ratio amount.

If you can show that, then you have something. Right now all you have is two different photos taken at two different angles, and yes, of course that line will not match.


jra

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
I wonder - shouldn't the flag cast a shadow? Or do NASA flags disobey the laws of optics as well as all the other known physical laws of the universe..........


Is it possible that NASA has gone "shopping" here?


Photoshop didn't come around till about 1990. The Apollo 11 - 17 happened during 1969 - 1972. So no, they could not have been Photoshopped.

You are not the first to point out what appears to be a lack of a shadow. What you need to do is use a source that has higher resolution photos.

AS11-40-5874

Now take a look above the Astronauts shadow. You will see the thin shadow of the flag pole. The shadow of the flag itself is outside of the frame of the photo.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 




But I don't see the shadow - not because I am trying to not see it. I don't see it because its not there.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
What is so hard to comprehend that it's not visible from that angle? I'd scream "hoax!" if it would be.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


You don't see it because you are zoomed into the picture way, way too much!

The shadow of the flag pole and flag extends pretty far. Here, take a look at it from a different angle with this high resolution picture here:

AS11-40-5885

Here is my scaled down version to point the shadow out to you, but remember to actually look at the higher resolution picture above:



My red arrows are pointing out the flagpole and flag shadow. Notice how long the shadows are of everything.

Now take a look at the high resolution picture you've been looking at:

AS11-40-5874

And now here is my scaled down version of it, again my red arrows are pointing out the flagpole's shadow:



You won't see the rest of the pole's shadow and the flag, because they go past the frame!.

It's also hard to see the thin shadow of the pole going to the pole due to the trampled condition of the lunar ground from the astronauts foot steps.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
JRA states wrongly I might add "Photoshop didn't come around till about 1990. The Apollo 11 - 17 happened during 1969 - 1972. So no, they could not have been Photoshopped."

PhotoShop is a GENERIC TERM - Photographic manipulation was certainly very well known to all NASA fraudsters during the time frame we are referring to here.

Fortunately for us you posted a perfect example of a "Moonie" blunder
The HR photo you linked us to was very helpful to the "Hoaxers" for it serves to prove a vry good point - whch is - there is NO shadow from the flag and or its pole as there should be, and where any reasonably intelligent person would expect one to be.
edit on 31-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
That's bs. Photoshop is not a generic term. It's very specific. Doesn't even mean computer editing. It means computer editing with one specific software. If they are talking about manipulation there is a word for it: manipulation.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
JRA states wrongly I might add "Photoshop didn't come around till about 1990. The Apollo 11 - 17 happened during 1969 - 1972. So no, they could not have been Photoshopped."

PhotoShop is a GENERIC TERM - Photographic manipulation was certainly very well known to all NASA fraudsters during the time frame we are referring to here.

Fortunately for us you posted a perfect example of a "Moonie" blunder
The HR photo you linked us to was very helpful to the "Hoaxers" for it serves to prove a vry good point - whch is - there is NO shadow from the flag and or its pole as there should be, and where any reasonably intelligent person would expect one to be.
edit on 31-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing


And apparently as a "Hoaxer" you have ignored the evidence that I provided for you.

That or you need glasses.

The shadow for the flag pole is there. The whole shadow is not, because the photo frame does not include the whole elongated shadow because of how long it is.

This is a good example of someone only seeing (or not seeing I should say) what they want to, and not what is there.


jra

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
But I don't see the shadow - not because I am trying to not see it. I don't see it because its not there.


I said look above the Astronauts shadow. You did not. It is there.

I've highlighted it in yellow.




Originally posted by Vitruvian
JRA states wrongly I might add "Photoshop didn't come around till about 1990. The Apollo 11 - 17 happened during 1969 - 1972. So no, they could not have been Photoshopped."

PhotoShop is a GENERIC TERM - Photographic manipulation was certainly very well known to all NASA fraudsters during the time frame we are referring to here.


What I stated was perfectly correct. But yes, some people use the Photoshop name as a generic term for digital image manipulation. Show me an example of 60's digital photo manipulation please. In fact, show me a computer from the 60's that was capable of doing digital photo manipulation while you're at it.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
People don't realize that all of the Apollo landings took place with the sun very low on the horizon. In part due to surface temperatures. Also remember the Moon only rotates once in 28 days so the Sun stayed low through out the surface stay.

Ask yourself something else.
If NASA had anything to hide wouldn't they have taken all those hi res pictures off the web 15 years ago?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
My question is this: WHY would they have hoaxed the landing? What would have been the reason?


What *I* would lie to know is, why the heck did the rest of the world willingly go along with the hoax? The Soviets were watching and listening to the whole thing all the way there and all the way back (yes,the craft could be seen by telescopes- astronomers were able to see the gas trails coming out of the broken Apollo 13 craft).

On top of which, Neil Armstrong went to the Soviet Union in 1970 to make a speech on space research, and there's no way the Soviets would have invited him like that if they knew he was a phony.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorsebeacon
 


It becomes much clearer when you realise, that some people, are just born stupid and there's no getting past that. There's nothing wrong with that as stupid people can lead as fulfilling a life as anyone else, as long as they accept the fact that they're just not as smart as others. The problem is, no parent will tell their child that they're stupid. They coddle their children telling them "you just learn differently" or "it's not that you don't understand, it's just you're so much smarter than them, you get bored and can't be bothered" or other varying forms of BS. These dumb people then grow up and leave the protective bubble of their parents and enter the real world. The real world proceeds to hit them like a tonne of bricks, nothing makes sense to them and they can't amount to anything because they're just not as smart as they've been told.
You're in this world that you can't make sense full of things you've been told you understand better than anyone. Since your entire life you've been told you're a little genius you won't ever accept the fact that you just don't know, no it's some nefarious men in shadows that are behind it. It's not that you're stupid and been lied to your whole life causing you to be stuck at your dead end job for minimum wage, it's the "secret government, NWO" that's holding you back because you're so smart and if you had a chance you'd expose them with your massive intellect blah blah blah.

The entire moon hoax is 100% predicated on "I don't understand this, therefore it's fake" and since the above mentioned dumb people are convinced they're geniuses (perhaps Aussie geniuses?), they believe that they know everything so anything you tell them that contradicts what they came up with on their own, can't be true. Even if every text book, journal and research paper done in the last 500 years tells them they're wrong, they won't believe it because there's a global conspiracy against them. That's why they hold on to their ignorance with such passion as the alternative is admitting to themselves they're not nearly as smart as they think they are.

Of course this is just the only hypothesis I've been able to come up with as to how in 40+ years with zero evidence people have been able to keep this laughable hoax alive, take it for what you will.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
The entire moon hoax is 100% predicated on "I don't understand this, therefore it's fake" and since ... they believe that they know everything ... anything you tell them that contradicts what they came up with on their own, can't be true. Even if every text book, journal and research paper done in the last 500 years tells them they're wrong, they won't believe it because there's a global conspiracy against them. That's why they hold on to their ignorance with such passion as the alternative is admitting to themselves they're not nearly as smart as they think they are.


A very good summation. Although protocol usually instructs us to "attack the arguement, not the person making it" there comes a point when - after so many questions have been reasonably answered, and so many arguements have been demolished - an individual should be asking himself whether their underlying belief is correct. If they persist in agressively making unfounded accusations and ignoring all answers and counter-arguements, then the personality of accuser must be called to account.




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Although protocol usually instructs us to "attack the arguement, not the person making it"


I'm all for attacking the argument and not the person making it. The only problem, is that in 40+ years, the moon hoax camp has yet to make an actual argument. If someone posted something that isn't so old the person who originally made it has since died, I'd be more than happy to attack the evidence, but if all I really need to do is scroll up to the last time someone answered it and post a link, then there's no argument left to attack.

I tend to bounce around the moon hoax threads so they may be overlapping in my mind, but hasn't that same flag pole shadow picture been posted as "proof" at least 3 times in this thread alone?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I think people should stop trying to prove to the hoaxers that the Moon landing was real. Let the hoaxers post what they like, make any kinds of statements they like, beat their heads against the wall as much as they like. They never change, no matter what you tell them or show them.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


The missions are real, they are just doing other things Frira. The equipment is real, the computers are programmed for this and that, but they don't land men on the moon, they are involved in various and sundry other forms of hanky panky. Apollo is not a hoax, it is a front for secret activities. They told you they were launching a spaceship, but they actually launched a killer satellite or something like that. That is Apollo. You are a smart guy, surely you can see that. Very obvious to most of us.





 
109
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join