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

Originally posted by Mclaneinc

I can see exactly what the OP is saying, the 400ft up and the on the ground are exactly the same, surely there would have been a change in what the camera / eye line would see, it should have narrowed up but it appreas the same.

Why I don't know but its does not make sense..

If you live in a tower block, look out the window from the top floor and then go down to the first floor in the same line as you were and you won't see the same thing and lets remember the tower block is less than 400ft in most cases.

(UK wise)

Also, the dust being kicked up, surely the same thing happened on Apollo 11, why wasn't there dust on the pads. It seems to displace quite a lot of dust.

Unless we assume it pushed the dust away from the pads?

Exactly.

What I should have done was post two seperate screen grabs from at a height and when landed but not said which was which.

I'd be certain a lot of people could not tell the difference.

The way I did it, people can just say they don't see what I'm saying to deny what is in front of them

Here you go,Manned Apollo Missions to the Moon's surface. From the launch pad, to touchdown on the Moon's surface, to splashdown safely back on Earth, this feature film provides clear evidence that NASA's Missions to the Moon did in fact actually happen.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by rickymouse
Man didn't land on the moon? Those guys must have been Reptilians than. They could have been Vegans also, they are a different breed.

I could show you two pictures-

1- one from 400 feet up

2- one from when the lunar module has landed and the dust has settled

Both from the same camera.

You would not be able to tell me the difference between the two.

Not if an illusion has taken place.

From 400ft the craters you seen would be from larger impacts.

Once the dust has settled the craters exposed would be those of smaller strikes the size of small stones and smaller object strikes.

The illusion is that they both look alike. Kind of.

Can someone screen capture and show the two photos side by side here?

Its an illusion the time frames you talk about, check it out.

It happened.

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

tHE ONE QUESTION i HAVE is we could land with the greatest of ease on the moon, but the best we could do is an uncontrolled splashdown on earth. We were more familliar with Earth's enviroment.
The other thing is we supposedly knew nothing about the moon's gravitational forces, it is amazing that we knew to with in a few %fuel window, the proper rate of decent, air friction, and amount of thrust needed.
Impossible that we got it all right with no errors from the 1st try?
Not one landing mishap........

First off: newtonian physics "works" in our macro world.

Landing softly on the moon at 1/6 earths gravity takes less energy (fuel and thrust) than countering earths "full" gravity. There was acrude spider like LEM trainer they flew for training on earth. it landed vertically. I don't know what the "LEM" weighed upon landing; but lets say it weighed 10,000 lbs with crew. that means to hover it in mid air would take slightly over 10,00lbs thrust. on the moon 1/6or1,666 lbs thrust.1665lbs and you are slowly losing altitude Descending.slowly.

Additionally The Lem was flown by a human pilot who could fine tune the thrust and pitch.(As needed).

There is no atmospheric drag ("air friction") in space or around the moon; it is mostly pure ballistics calculations: balancing velocity+ gravity on one side vs. space craft mass/thrust on the other..
Lunar landing trainer facility at Langley AFB (scroll down 2/3rds of the page):
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by SophieTish
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

I very rarely speak this way, but you deserve it. You really need to get a life, get away from the monitor for awhile and get some fresh air ! If you put as much energy into something useful as you did this idiotic conspiracy theory of yours, you might actually make sense. Do you really think the Russians would of let us get away with a fake moon landing ? I only wish Buzz was here to bitch slap you like he did the foolish reporter who also made this ridiculous accusation. Hey guess what, 911 is not an inside job, we really did land on the moon and Ron Paul will never be President ! I must say I am embarrassed for you.

I'm so worried about what you think

It is a conspiracy website remember?

The video I have posted is an excellent observation for anyone who is open minded enough to see there is next to ZERO difference between the moon's surface from the same camera when hundreds of feet from the surface and when on it!

The very notion of this should raise alarm bells whe you consider in reality, things look closer when they are closer

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by SophieTish
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

I very rarely speak this way, but you deserve it. You really need to get a life, get away from the monitor for awhile and get some fresh air ! If you put as much energy into something useful as you did this idiotic conspiracy theory of yours, you might actually make sense. Do you really think the Russians would of let us get away with a fake moon landing ? I only wish Buzz was here to bitch slap you like he did the foolish reporter who also made this ridiculous accusation. Hey guess what, 911 is not an inside job, we really did land on the moon and Ron Paul will never be President ! I must say I am embarrassed for you.

I'm so worried about what you think

It is a conspiracy website remember?

The video I have posted is an excellent observation for anyone who is open minded enough to see there is next to ZERO difference between the moon's surface from the same camera when hundreds of feet from the surface and when on it!

The very notion of this should raise alarm bells whe you consider in reality, things look closer when they are closer

As I pointed out earlier: on earth there are "atmospheric cues" we are used to : things look fuzzy in the distance and clear up close because of earths atmosphere. Which the moon does not have.

That's enough for me today "kiddees".
Jeez...Are public schools really that bad?.

reply to post by 1BornPatriot

something else to ask yourself - is why are all the landing sites on the part that faces earth ?

Because genius if you land on the far side of the moon you can not coomunicate with earth

Which kinda of defeats the purpose..........

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Uhhhhh, I don't get it. What I'm I supposed to be looking at?
I have seen some evidence that is pretty convincing that Moon landing could of possibly been faked.
However I don't see what you're getting with this footage?
What am I missing here

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by SophieTish
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

I very rarely speak this way, but you deserve it. You really need to get a life, get away from the monitor for awhile and get some fresh air ! If you put as much energy into something useful as you did this idiotic conspiracy theory of yours, you might actually make sense. Do you really think the Russians would of let us get away with a fake moon landing ? I only wish Buzz was here to bitch slap you like he did the foolish reporter who also made this ridiculous accusation. Hey guess what, 911 is not an inside job, we really did land on the moon and Ron Paul will never be President ! I must say I am embarrassed for you.

I'm so worried about what you think

It is a conspiracy website remember?

The video I have posted is an excellent observation for anyone who is open minded enough to see there is next to ZERO difference between the moon's surface from the same camera when hundreds of feet from the surface and when on it!

The very notion of this should raise alarm bells whe you consider in reality, things look closer when they are closer

As I pointed out earlier: on earth there are "atmospheric cues" we are used to : things look fuzzy in the distance and clear up close because of earths atmosphere. Which the moon does not have.

That's enough for me today "kiddees".
Jeez...Are public schools really that bad?.

OK if that is the case, explain this image taken from the moon surface?-



I can see footprints, I can see detail as good as I would see it on earth.

So do the rules just change when NASA took pictures?

It doesn't add up.

Here is Apollo 15's landing, which is a much better example than the OP- there zero difference in the surface- the camera is just literally zooming in- it's a special effect which has dated badly.



You have rocks or craters that look quite large at 3,000 feet and remain pretty much that size and same detail when just 100 feet up- in fact even look the same when on the surface.

You cannot claim to be open minded and think this moon landinf footage is legit. The two notions do not combine.

reply to post by wmd_2008


now do that with the same lens. So your are saying that someone was outside the module to change lens when needed?

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

now do that with the same lens. So your are saying that someone was outside the module to change lens when needed?

NO for the hard of learning what I am saying is that you cant assume what you see in the film is the same as looking at it with your OWN EYES, the pictures were to show how a lens can effect the percieved depth in the image

There`s something strange about that shadow thats is on the right side of the window.i can`t put my finger on exactly what is strange about it but here`s what i saw.

The light source is coming from the top of the window because the lunar surface at the top of the window is much brighter than at the bottom of the window,so the object that is causing the shadow is located above the window.
When the rockets fire to slow the descent the shadow is pulsating and changing width so it is definately a shadow and not a solid object.The rockets and light source from them have to be above the window and behind the object in order to affect the shadow being cast on the window.
The shadow is not being cast on the ground because it covers the exact same amount of space at 400 feet as it does when the lander is on the ground,so the shadow is definately being cast on the window not the ground.
The shadow does not change position on the window so the lander can not be changing it`s relative position to the light source.The lander is either being piloted perfectly,within less than an inch,in relation to the light source or the light source is attached to the lander,since the shadow is not moving, left, right, up or down,it remains in the exact same position on the window throughout the entire descent and landing.

reply to post by 46ACE


If we had never been there how could the scientists be sure of 1/6 gravity? Or no atmosphere? However they got it right with a tinfoil landing module, from the first attempt? Out of all the landings on the moon, not one mistake? I have known some Nasa scientists, most are book smart but thinking off the cuff is not their strong point. Common sense is lacking. How ever, we have a better track record for mistake free missions with landing on the moon than with the space suttle program, in a time where our knowledge was limited? Now they know space is not a void like previously thought, and the discovery was made in the 90's. Seems to me they would have noted that back in the 60's. I want to move to the moon I would never have to sweep.

reply to post by Tardacus


Or the light source is a very large distance away say 93,000,000 miles so the light is parallel when it arrives at the moon!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


but you would need a focus capable camera or change the lens to create the optical illusion.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Or the light source is a very large distance away say 93,000,000 miles so the light is parallel when it arrives at the moon!!!

what?? that doesn`t explain anything. the sun is relatively the same distance from the moon as it is from the earth. hold your finger up in front of the window, now move your finger back and forth across the window,and observe the shadow that it is casting on the far wall, is the shadow moving?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


How come after the landing the thrusters throw out alot of dust but the objects around the lander remain the same, and unchanged. Their appearance is the same before as after the landing. Now relate that to here on Earth do this experiment get a leaf blower and a pile of dirt with a rock next to it > blow the dirt toward the rock and what happens then watch the video again.

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

but you would need a focus capable camera or change the lens to create the optical illusion.

Please explain how you think its an illusion

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

How come after the landing the thrusters throw out alot of dust but the objects around the lander remain the same, and unchanged. Their appearance is the same before as after the landing. Now relate that to here on Earth do this experiment get a leaf blower and a pile of dirt with a rock next to it > blow the dirt toward the rock and what happens then watch the video again.

Sorry but the camera wont show tiny bits of dust against the rocks if that's what you are thinking!