Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash waste product from coal power stations (Earth bound!)

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

Now we used to have a guy called FoosM on here claimed the same BS as you, used some BS internet sites as you iirc he was an Australian and your using a famous Australian's name are we actually dealing with FoosM once more.

I consider it an honour you hold me in such esteem, but alas I am at Rolf Harris's current base.

The cold war was a scam, we are being scammed again right now with the war of terror, we reveal the moon hoax and maybe we change the future.

Originally posted by rolfharriss

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

Now we used to have a guy called FoosM on here claimed the same BS as you, used some BS internet sites as you iirc he was an Australian and your using a famous Australian's name are we actually dealing with FoosM once more.

I consider it an honour you hold me in such esteem, but alas I am at Rolf Harris's current base.

The cold war was a scam, we are being scammed again right now with the war of terror, we reveal the moon hoax and maybe we change the future.

Well lets just say if you knew what I think of FoosM it's not an HONOUR

reply to post by rolfharriss

Where is this from ? What mission?

Apollo 16.

Why is this one such poor quality but all the Apollo moon shots taken on Earth so good?

That's a trick question, isn't it? All the other Apollo photographs were taken on or around the Moon. Here are some pictures of stars taken in visible light from lunar orbit:





Plenty more here.

Now, using your knowledge of photography, please explain what is going on here. Further, if they were able to fake photographs of stars from lunar orbit, why were they not able to fake photographs of stars from the lunar surface? Oh, and in case you were too lazy to click on the link, that image was taken on Apollo 16 with an ultraviolet telescope. Why would they even run such an experiment if the whole thing was a fake? How come they faked UV stars but not stars in visible light? Please explain.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Now we used to have a guy called FoosM on here claimed the same BS as you, used some BS internet sites as you iirc he was an Australian and your using a famous Australian's name are we actually dealing with FoosM once more.

In all fairness, FoosM actually did some original research. Some of his "anomalies" actually required detailed analysis and thought. I'll just leave it there.

reply to post by rolfharriss


Rolfharris, not matter how many images showing extra light being used on the moon, multiple directions of shadows which would not be possible without spot lights, the lack of a crater after the decent to the moon, the fact that Russians proved it is impossible to this day to go though the Van Allan belt (even the shuttles don't go outside the orbit for that particular reason), the lack of deep dust on the moon during the decent and travel on the moon, as the Russian unmanned rover clearly demonstrated, and the list goes on... and the fact that the federal reserve took over the whole operation still eludes people, well you get my point since were on the same page here, the lie is so big, REALLY big, that most people will look away believing it without even second guessing, and even if 400, 000 people worked on the project, a handful of people were actually in the loop of the real operation. The LIE is just too big Rolf.

reply to post by rolfharriss


That is a very provocative thesis rolfharris. Don't agree with it though. But it is an interesting thing to toss around. If Apollo was shown to be a hoax it might put pressure on the 9/11 debate. I am very much not a 9/11 twoofer and pretty much accept the official story at face value. I am an Apollo fence sitter however. But if Apollo were shown to be a hoax unequivocally then it changes our perspective on everthing for ever more. Every single national event of even modest merit would come to be scrutinized. Back to Apollo rolfharris, what would motivate a hoax? This has been a great difficulty for me. Every time I read about this, that, or the other objection to Apollo truth, what stops me from giving the arguments much credence ultimately is lack of motivation. I don't really feel it. Why try and fool us? Can you convince me?

reply to post by XaniMatriX


Care to show me even a single example of "shadows going to multiple directions". I'm asking for comedic effect again...

reply to post by XaniMatriX


Hey XaniMatriX, thanks for the post. I like your conviction lacking the same myself. As I wrote to rolfharris there, I not infrequently come across facts of one sort or another suggestive of a hoax and even come up with original ideas from time to time that suggest hoax to me. But the motive aspect has always been a stumbling block for me. Can you help me with that? Seriously? Why did they do it? As best I can tell it makes no sense to hoax the world public.

reply to post by DJW001


These aren't UV, but Apollo 16 was the UV photo mission I believe.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by XaniMatriX

 

Care to show me even a single example of "shadows going to multiple directions". I'm asking for comedic effect again...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Look at the lunar module, and then the rocks in the foreground.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

same apply's here, it is an example of multiple overhead light sources.

this is the last time i respond to you PsykoOps, please do not respond to my posts, you do not take anything seriously when it comes to debate.

Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by XaniMatriX

 

Hey XaniMatriX, thanks for the post. I like your conviction lacking the same myself. As I wrote to rolfharris there, I not infrequently come across facts of one sort or another suggestive of a hoax and even come up with original ideas from time to time that suggest hoax to me. But the motive aspect has always been a stumbling block for me. Can you help me with that? Seriously? Why did they do it? As best I can tell it makes no sense to hoax the world public.

Profit, 9 billion dollars in profit.

reply to post by XaniMatriX


Nope, hit and miss. Shadows are going to the same direction. Nice try thought.
Also if you want to make this fun how bout a pop quiz: If there is multiple lighsources how many shadows does each object then have? How bout highlights. How bout shadow intensity. Think bout that for awhile

reply to post by DJW001


I am sure this has all been discussed here but worth going through the exercise for myself. Visible light imaging from the moon would give smaller star images. Would give bluer star images. Would give different aberration displacements. The common center of gravity of the earth-moon system travels pretty much the same as the earth itself around the sun for the purposes of my assessment. But the camera points differently with respect to the barycenter and the moon rotates differently vs earth? Light travel time to the moon for the planets would be different than for the planet light to earth travel time so the planets would be displaced a little from their earth perspective. No atmospheric refraction so stars would photo a little different there too. The atmosphere filters out a lot of UV but I am writing about visible light here. Maybe that is why they went for UV photos. Let's assume we can come up with a good motive and so then let's say Apollo was a hoax , maybe they take UV photos because of all these visible light issues. Maybe that would be hard to hoax. Get everything just right so the stars look a little bit smaller and a little bit bluer and less refracted without an atmosphere and with different aberration because the moon rotates differently and the camera needs to point in a different direction to take into accout the change in position of the camera's aperture with respect to the direction of the earth-moon barycenter direction of travel. And the moon rotaes differently vs earth so tiny aberrational effect there. And the planets are slightly displaced because of altered light travel time to the moon vs earth. All of this added up would be hard to hoax? I don't know that, just a hypothesis. So then they do UV photos which gets around not all of it but perhaps a little of it. How well have the UV photos been scrutinized for this kind of thing? If you don't know exactly where the camera is then it would not really be assessable. Maybe if they were not really on the moon that is what they would argue. They would say the camera is near here, but not exactly here. That way they could avoid most of this.

reply to post by PsykoOps


www.lpi.usra.edu...

you see the high contrast around the "astronauts" shadow? if there is only one main source of light, the sun, you wouldn't get such an effect, the whole area should be as bright, indicating an artificial light source.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Look at how dark the shadows are, the "astronaut" in question is directly under the shadow, why is he still visible as if there is light directed towards him?

www.lpi.usra.edu...

again shadows going in different directions from a the same vantage point, how is that possible with one main light source the sun? the person shadow intersects with the shadow of an object next to him, impossible with one light source, and also in the image above the high contrast around the astronauts shawdow.

reply to post by XaniMatriX


Sorry, I'm only seeing one light source in those photos.

You need to learn about Bounce, Ambient, Ambient Scatter. I work with this all the time in my CGI shots used to make 3D meshes in computer programs look real. Things in shadow will be lit because of those 3 things. The amount that they get lit will depend upon many different factors, such as the color of the materials involved and the reflectivity of those materials.

Once you learn a bit more about those I believe things will become a bit clearer to you. You might even become "enlightened"?

reply to post by XaniMatriX


I get that much as a possible explanation XaniMatriX. But 9 billion dollars for that amount of risk seems not woth it to me. I mean the chance of getting caught is pretty substantial. So if you were to say a trillion dollars I might go for it. The bad guys from Webb to Armstrong would split obscene amounts of money and say screw you to the public. Even if caught they would be protected by the system or whatever. But for me it seems 9 billion isn't enough to cover the risk. Maybe I am ignorant and underestimating the power of a bribe. But say I was Armstrong and I am a smart guy and calculating risk-benefit here. Am I going to risk supreme shame and embarrassment for one hundred million dollars? Perhaps Armstrong and Webb went for it, but I would not do it.

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by rolfharriss
This photo proves the moon dust in the apollo photos is fake as it has no resemblance to www.mentallandscape.com...

Good grief. That's a scan of a photocopy of a black and white picture that's been run through the photograveur after being sent over a teletype. I hate to use the "t" word, but I honestly cannot believe you are being serious on this thread.

You won't DJ but I will......TROLL!

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

www.lpi.usra.edu...

you see the high contrast around the "astronauts" shadow?

You mean the falloff? It indicates a light source. Doesn't specify anything else about it.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Look at how dark the shadows are, the "astronaut" in question is directly under the shadow, why is he still visible as if there is light directed towards him?

Could it be because there is light directed towards him? There's this giant reflector there. Not the strongest one but it's big ass. Can you guess what that is?

www.lpi.usra.edu...

again shadows going in different directions from a the same vantage point, how is that possible with one main light source the sun?

Glad you asked that. It's called perspective. Shadows travel to the same direction but the close to the ground vantage point makes the perspective such that they seem to intersect. Also the terrain contributes to that. As you can see the slope on the left side.
Play another round?

Originally posted by rolfharriss

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

Now we used to have a guy called FoosM on here claimed the same BS as you, used some BS internet sites as you iirc he was an Australian and your using a famous Australian's name are we actually dealing with FoosM once more.

I consider it an honour you hold me in such esteem, but alas I am at Rolf Harris's current base.

The cold war was a scam, we are being scammed again right now with the war of terror, we reveal the moon hoax and maybe we change the future.

No offense rolf but with regards to some of your posts on this thread, I for certainly do not hold you in such high esteem, Foos was able to put an argument together, you are not.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Slope, haha, nice excuse

www.flickr.com...

even if there is a slope, then the shadow would fall in the same direction.

Also if there is a reflective surface to highlight the astronaut, then the ground should also be somewhat illuminated, but that is not the case.