The Video that shows 100% Man DID NOT land on the Moon

reply to post by PsykoOps



Yeah was in constant motion alright, BUT if u noticed the video was paused and took a pic again just before it landed and the video continued and when they finally landed they showed the paused pic, which did not match the video pic of the crater and area when was videoing at higher altitudes comming down on that crater. The last pic on landing after the dust settled was cut and that is when they put in the paused pic. Otherwise you would be looking at a close up of dirt dust i yo face with a dirty lense.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I think you should fix the blatant lie in this OP.

you claim at the 3:20 marker they are at 400 ft. when the announcer clearly says 200 ft, 180ft.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

I think you should fix the blatant lie in this OP.

you claim at the 3:20 marker they are at 400 ft. when the announcer clearly says 200 ft, 180ft.

That is right, the anouncer does say 200 ft.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Of all the footage that questions whether man landed on the moon, it is the landing footage. The following is the approach and landing of Apollo 12-

EDIT- straight to the chase as it were-

Pause the video at two points-

1- 3:20 into the video. Pause it and look at the detail. This is approx 400 feet up.

2- 4:50 into the video. Pause it and look at the detail. This is after the module has landed and the dust has settled.

Ask yourself, what difference do you see- could you even tell which image was which if I just showed you those two pictures without telling you which one was which?

The answer is no.

Under normal circumstances, if you come in to land, you would surely be able to tell the difference from when you were 400 feet above the surface and when you were on it- it's just obvious yet the moon landing footage defies this logic.

edit on 3-9-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)

Question. Why did the video picture, landing crater site, not look like the paused pic at different altitude, just before they landed?
Second, it looks like they landed in a crater, but not the one they saw to land by.
Now if this is the same video taken the time of the shoot, then why are the pics different, when they should be the same. Also, i do not recall seeing any pics of the capsile landing inside a crater nor do i recall seeing any craters of that size at that altitude in the old pics of the capsile and the men on the moon.

Originally posted by cloaked4u
We had to be so convincing that we landed on the moon because we had to be the FIRST ones on the moon to put a flag up there to claim it before the russians did. THATS WHY, and this know is what the first astro nuts do not tell you. I wonder if the chimp they sent up came back alive. I doubt it, with all the cosmic rays and rads and all. But hey, we made it to the moon, years later probably. But hey, them dang solialist ruskies cain't beat us. he,he,he,he,he

They sent up the monkey so that everyone could watch the ship float around up there, but had to do the filming of the astro nuts down here playing movie makers on a set stage, because they coulden't figure a way around the radiation killing the monkeys. The ruskies had the same problems to figure out how shield from this stuff that was new to them all. BUT we were first.

edit on 3-9-2012 by cloaked4u because: (no reason given)

That is how i think it went down at the time. The big space race and all. Cain't dissapoint your kids now can yah.

reply to post by GBP/JPY

They didn't land in a crater, they landed near the edge of a crater (the crater in which Surveyor III had landed).
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is a description of the landing.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The problem is, craters look like craters no matter how big they are, there is nothing to judge scale by.


Here is a slightly better quality version of the landing sequence.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by miniatus
Not more of this, please.

There's plenty of evidence that man landed on the moon.. all of the theories spewed forth so far have been nonsense and usually quite silly.

The physical evidence of the moon landing is still observable .. it's been spotted by Russia and China, the whole moon flight was monitored by countries all over the world.. trying to say it didn't happen is just complete and utterly ridiculous.

The question asked in this thread is very sensible and reasonable.

Why is the scale and deatil seemingly the same from 400+ above the surface and when on the surface?

Does the notion of being closer to an object revealing more detail not apply on the moon?

You Guys realize there is no atmosphere on the moon so no "atmospheric cues" Things don't get fuzzier as they recede or clearer as they come come closer. I.e. little suspended dust;no smoke; water vapor/fog diffraction or scattering of light.
This has been done to death.

Originally posted by miniatus
Not more of this, please.

There's plenty of evidence that man landed on the moon.. all of the theories spewed forth so far have been nonsense and usually quite silly.

The physical evidence of the moon landing is still observable .. it's been spotted by Russia and China, the whole moon flight was monitored by countries all over the world.. trying to say it didn't happen is just complete and utterly ridiculous.

Too bad.

OK so of the sensible defenders (who admit the blatant similarities and difficulty in assessing whether we are close to the surface or not), why then, when we see other footage of the moon's surface is everything clear- does this not undermine your argument of no atmosphere etc?

It is only with the landing footage- that is constant through one camera, does the surface of the moon look exactly the same as when at height of 200 feet plus.

The footage almost reminds me of zooming in on google earth, just does not look legit.

We landed on the moon, I can't believe people still doubt it. Who knows where else we been??

reply to post by Wonderer2012

It is only with the landing footage- that is constant through one camera, does the surface of the moon look exactly the same as when at height of 200 feet plus.

No. It doesn't.
The relative distance between craters changes a great deal.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by 1BornPatriot

 

The reason we landed on the side of the moon that faces us is because of the communication technology available at that time.

Shhhhhhh.........dont tell them that!!!

Let them dig. Eventially they will actually look into what it took to get to the moon.

I think if the do a little bit more fact checking ( not by way of youtube ) into the departments, technologies, and engineers involved. They would probably do a face palm, when looking back at the craziness they said today.

Then again...... Maybe its just pure fun to try and discredit the brave astronauts who put there lives on the line for the scientific advancement of all human kind. Getting to the moon was no easy mission. But they pulled it off.


Rest in peace to the astronauts who gave their lives doing what others werent brave enough to do.

Ehhhhhh..... Some people.

So the explanation for the laser mirror and the flags seen from space would be...?

It amazes me that people haven't sussed this yet.
The Apollo team did land on the moon but they needed a soft landing so chose the Sea of Tranquility, this is a massive dust bowl. The dust from which, in the moons atmosphere, would stay in the immediate area for days. This made photographic evidence difficult so Nixon made an executive decision to fake the film.
It was faked in Nevada before the Apollo team landed.

reply to post by Iron7


Look at the video when Neil stepped onto the moon. Who ever filmed him was already on the moon. How can this be? it was a side shot as Neil was stepping down the ladder.

reply to post by The only 1 who knows the

Who ever filmed him was already on the moon. How can this be?

OMG. You just busted the whole thing wide open. Amazing! How could no one have noticed that before?

reply to post by The only 1 who knows the


Moron - meet brain...

I just want to know one thing.

How is it possible that dust can be blown away from the landing space craft, when there is no air or atmosphere on the moon? Am I missing something?

Am i the first one that noticed that at 3:20 they are NOT 400 ft from the surface, like you say? Try about half that. They are approximately 200 ft from the surface.

Probably wont change your opinion, but just wanted to point that out.