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

Originally posted by Tardacus

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?

The shadow is from part of the craft and it is moving relative to the surface of the moon but not the window as its part of the lander

reply to post by wmd_2008


So now all of that displaced dirt is tiny bits of dust? That was alot of tiny bits of dust and it did not alter the landscape one bit?

reply to post by hanyak69

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.

Because the exhaust plume on the moon diffuses rapidly after exiting the engine nozzle

Unlike earth there is no atmosphere to constrain or push back against the expanding gases - the plume expands
outward and exerts little pressure - about 1 psi

The leaf blower uses a fan to push air in front of it - generates considerate force

reply to post by wmd_2008


The pilot seemed to be able to hold her pretty steady then...absolutely no wobble in the window shadow size.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


this is pretty funny....

dude shows us a video of astronauts LANDING ON THE MOON as proof that we DIDN'T land on the moon.

makes perfect sense.

reply to post by hanyak69


you get berms against the side of the rock. there are no berms on those rocks or on the landers pads, the only way the pads could have no berms is if the pads made a perfect 90 degree contact with the surface. any movement of the pad,even just inches, after making contact with the surface would create a berm on one side of the pad.

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

So now all of that displaced dirt is tiny bits of dust? That was alot of tiny bits of dust and it did not alter the landscape one bit?

Go to beach pile up some sand then blow that over the sand round it would you see a lot of difference

The LOGIC used in this place just amazes me more and more every day!

Originally posted by Tardacus
reply to post by hanyak69

 

you get berms against the side of the rock. there are no berms on those rocks or on the landers pads, the only way the pads could have no berms is if the pads made a perfect 90 degree contact with the surface. any movement of the pad,even just inches, after making contact with the surface would create a berm on one side of the pad.

What is berms????

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The pilot seemed to be able to hold her pretty steady then...absolutely no wobble in the window shadow size.

What do you mean by window shadow?

reply to post by thedman


but the rock would still catch some of the dirt and change its appearance, like a helicopter landing.

reply to post by hanyak69


nope it sure didnt. look at photos of the landers on the moon. look under the landers the moon "soil" is smooth, and the same level as the surronding "soil".theres no large holes or streaks in the surface where the dust and rocks have been blown away by the landing thrusters. yet in this video we can see huge amounts of debris being blown everywhere.

reply to post by wmd_2008



a berm is a mound of dirt or soil piled up against the side of an object that was moving through the dirt but has now stopped moving.

berm; noun,
1) a mound or wall of earth or sand;

reply to post by wmd_2008


you would get sand dunes,and yes it would change the area around where you blew. Where did the dirt go? that big mound did not change one bit the holes around the lander did not change one iota. And you say you make sense? Go drink more Nasa-aid

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)

The small craters in the dust drew larger as the vehicle descended...as it should have and did. I don't think that you are seeing what you think you are seeing in the video.

Originally posted by Tardacus
reply to post by hanyak69

 

nope it sure didnt. look at photos of the landers on the moon. look under the landers the moon "soil" is smooth, and the same level as the surronding "soil".theres no large holes or streaks in the surface where the dust and rocks have been blown away by the landing thrusters. yet in this video we can see huge amounts of debris being blown everywhere.

edit on 4-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

You mean streaks like this

streaks

reply to post by wmd_2008


The shadow in the window remains exactly constant throughout the flight.

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
I'm a pilot and the O P's case is the first thing I noticed...scale is all off......3500 feet was really 90 feet in my estimation, or so so....good eye....these are the details we should look for in investigating a story....how are the details told.....

edit....he plopped it down in the crater.....

edit on 3-9-2012 by GBP/JPY because: Yahuweh ...coolest of names

Hoe can you tell scale without a point of reference?

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

you would get sand dunes,and yes it would change the area around where you blew. Where did the dirt go? that big mound did not change one bit the holes around the lander did not change one iota. And you say you make sense? Go drink more Nasa-aid

what school did you go to if you blew some sand onto other sand could you tell what was what is that simple enough for you.

Do you really expect a film from the DAC camera put through youtube will show what you think it should show

reply to post by wmd_2008


OK wanna use that photo...look at the landing pad and how clean it is? Must have been a perfect soft landing not to sink any in the dust.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
Why do all of the "moon-landing" conspiritors, just assume that our super-secretive cold-war Govt. would not do both?
Land on the moon, and release fake footage so our "competitors" couldn't use the video in their own endeavors?
Am I the only one that believes it could be both?

edit on 9/3/2012 by GoOfYFoOt because: added text

I've always suspected this. I think they did visit the moon but probably in a very limited capacity, perhaps not even actually landing, though I believe they probably did.

With todays technology we cannot even get a successful high frame rate video from Mars, without great difficulty and numerous mishaps and glitches. Yet in 1969, we could beam a completely unprecedented moonlanding flawlessly to national TV. What gives?

It seems highly unlikely, given the Cold War political implications, that the US would risk allowing the world to watch a potentially disastrous feat involving national heroes and the creme de la creme of NASAs astronauts.

I reckon much of the footage was faked, adjusted, collaged and manipulated well ahead of time for a public showcasing of an event that had already happened, and probably in quite different fashion to the story portrayed.

Imagine if Neil Armstrong burned up or suffocated upon setting foot on the moon or there was a crash, the reaction at all levels. Funding would be slashed,jobs lost,political heads would roll, US would look like Icarus to the USSR, national spirit would be drowned. Far too much risk.