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

Originally posted by r2d246


Okay I hear you. Listen, there hundred upon hundreds of issues with the moon landing. But all I need is one. Where's the moon dust? It's not on the landers landing gear, not on the lander, not on anything. With all that dust you think that stuff would get like "dusty". But no, everything is picture perfect with no dust on anything anywhere at anytime. That only happens in a hollywood studio. Real life is dirty

edit on 6-11-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)

If YOU actually put some effort in to looking at your claims YOU wouldn't post them, the layer of dust wasn't very thick , no atmosphere for the dust to hang, the LM did not land straight down it had some lateral movement, the 50+ inch long probes at the base of the pads cause a light to go on to let the Astronauts know the were just above the surface engines were then switched of.

Plenty of pics and explanations on this post!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dust on suit!!!



Dust on pad



Plenty of pics on the NASA site to counter your claims if you made the effort!!!!

If it was moving sideways there should be some evidence of a skid stop.. The landing craters should have a slight angle to them.. this is high school physics stuff? !

It has been neatly lifted into place.

Can I also point out that when the camera is protected from the glare of the moon, like in this video. When it goes black and shows the moon horizon we should see stars.

reply to post by rolfharriss

If it was moving sideways there should be some evidence of a skid stop.. There landing craters should have a slight angle to them.. this is high school physics stuff? !

Who said it was moving sideways?

It has been neatly lifted into place.

Or dropped vertically by its thrusters.

"the LM did not land straight down it had some lateral movement," your mate wm

reply to post by rolfharriss


And the reason for no stars even when the camera is protected from the glare of the moon?

reply to post by rolfharriss

And the reason for no stars even when the camera is protected from the glare of the moon?

OMG!!! In the entire history of the Moon Hoax, no-one has ever thought to ask that question before! You're a freaking genius!

Nobody has thought to ask why even when protected from the glare of the sun no stars can be seen.

It has always been the same excuse.. glare of the sun, exposure you don't understand photography..

I do understand photography, when the lander descends and the lunar surface of the moon is no longer visible the stars should have lit up like God's christmas tree.

If you understand science you will know that unlike earth because the moon has no atmosphere light pollution does not occur. The camera in the shadow of the lander should record stars.

This alone proves it was all a hoax.

Someone is faking.. Soviet Earth shot shows a Sphere, Apollo shot shows a pancake 2D object.

Interesting to see the difference in the Soviet Earth shots.. Somebody got the scale wrong at NASA

www.mentallandscape.com...

reply to post by rolfharriss





Position of probe build up of soil to one side DO you actually look at links given

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Nobody has thought to ask why even when protected from the glare of the sun no stars can be seen.

It has always been the same excuse.. glare of the sun, exposure you don't understand photography..

I do understand photography, when the lander descends and the lunar surface of the moon is no longer visible the stars should have lit up like God's christmas tree.

If you understand science you will know that unlike earth because the moon has no atmosphere light pollution does not occur. The camera in the shadow of the lander should record stars.

This alone proves it was all a hoax.

edit on 6-11-2012 by rolfharriss because: smiley ace

Please give an example of when this happened during a mission and what the exposure was,as YOU KNOW about photography?

Didn't you say the dust wasn't very thick on the moon?

These tracks suggest otherwise www.mentallandscape.com...

reply to post by rolfharriss

Nobody has thought to ask why even when protected from the glare of the sun no stars can be seen.

It has always been the same excuse.. glare of the sun, exposure you don't understand photography..

I do understand photography, when the lander descends and the lunar surface of the moon is no longer visible the stars should have lit up like God's christmas tree.

If you understand science you will know that unlike earth because the moon has no atmosphere light pollution does not occur. The camera in the shadow of the lander should record stars.

This alone proves it was all a hoax.

Are you serious? Rather than explain how photography works, since you claim you understand it, let me put it back on you. If Stanley Kubrick could put star fields in 2001, and Star Trek showed stars, and every science fiction movie set in space shows stars, why didn't NASA put fake stars in its fake pictures and movies? Remember, their special effects capabilities were super duper advanced beyond anything that civilians have, right? Their super duper futuristic computers that generated all those square miles of lunar surface down to the tiniest detail could easily plot the exact position of every star and planet from every angle and superimpose it on to their fake pictures, right? So why didn't they? After all, it would be really cheap and easy. You can download software for free that can do it. So why didn't they?

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

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.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

Nobody has thought to ask why even when protected from the glare of the sun no stars can be seen.

It has always been the same excuse.. glare of the sun, exposure you don't understand photography..

I do understand photography, when the lander descends and the lunar surface of the moon is no longer visible the stars should have lit up like God's christmas tree.

If you understand science you will know that unlike earth because the moon has no atmosphere light pollution does not occur. The camera in the shadow of the lander should record stars.

This alone proves it was all a hoax.

Are you serious? Rather than explain how photography works, since you claim you understand it, let me put it back on you. If Stanley Kubrick could put star fields in 2001, and Star Trek showed stars, and every science fiction movie set in space shows stars, why didn't NASA put fake stars in its fake pictures and movies? Remember, their special effects capabilities were super duper advanced beyond anything that civilians have, right? Their super duper futuristic computers that generated all those square miles of lunar surface down to the tiniest detail could easily plot the exact position of every star and planet from every angle and superimpose it on to their fake pictures, right? So why didn't they? After all, it would be really cheap and easy. You can download software for free that can do it. So why didn't they?

Nasa didn't put stars in because that would have been impossible to fake, one mistake - photo overlap and it is blown. The distance of stars is hard to replicate on a backdrop. Also they would have have to have taken the star photos from the moon itself - because of the slight difference in perspective from the Earth.

reply to post by rolfharriss

Nasa didn't put stars in because that would have been impossible to fake, one mistake - photo overlap and it is blown. The distance of stars is hard to replicate on a backdrop. Also they would have have to have taken the star photos from the moon itself - because of the slight difference in perspective from the Earth.

Easily done by computer. You can do it yourself:

www.stellarium.org...

You need to find a better answer. Use your knowledge of photography.

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.

Yes the quality of real 1960's 70's photographs of the moon surface. It is what it should be on the moon, we didn't have the technology to take the hollywood Apollo pictures that exist today.. it is beyond ludicrous !

The whole world is still under the spell, the bigger the lie the more people will believe it due to simple conformity. Nobody wants to be the one to say, look there really is a problem here.

Obviously you have noted how visible the curvature of the moon is from the surface, which is entirely absent from the Apollo photographs.

Originally posted by rolfharriss
I do understand photography, when the lander descends and the lunar surface of the moon is no longer visible the stars should have lit up like God's christmas tree.

If you understand science you will know that unlike earth because the moon has no atmosphere light pollution does not occur. The camera in the shadow of the lander should record stars.

So if you understand photography, then you would know that it is irrelevant whether the camera was in a shadow or not. The exposure would be set relative to the brightness of the SUBJECT MATTER being taken. The exposure settings would NOT be set relative to the location of the camera.

If I was on Earth and had a camera that had exposure settings for daylight photography (which would be similar settings used on the Moon due to the brightness of the subject matter), and I took a picture of the sky at night using those daylight settings, I would not be able to see stars in that picture, even though the camera was in the dark when the picture was taken.

That photographic concept is quite simple when you think of it that way.