Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

double post

a reply to: onebigmonkey

There are also photographs from Mars taken from orbit showing tracks made by machines. DO you dispute that they are there as well?

I don't dispute nothing...just point me to it so I can check it out. Thanks.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: onebigmonkey

There are also photographs from Mars taken from orbit showing tracks made by machines. DO you dispute that they are there as well?

I don't dispute nothing...just point me to it so I can check it out. Thanks.

You may have missed my post here as it landed at the bottom of the previous page.

a reply to: Rob48

indeed Rob those look like rover tracks. Now all that is needed for me is to verify the conditions of said perspectives. The atmosphere, the distance, the tech used on both occasions.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

to answer your question...the images are the original suspect for me. I don't know what it's supposed to show...to me this image looks digitized and therefore always subject to potential manipulation. Now I'm not claiming anything...just looking for that "beyond reasonable doubt" aha moment. These images are just...not that...as any image isn't.

Well, of course they are digitized. The LRO spacecraft does not send print film negatives back to Earth from the Moon. It's a digital image.

Plus, the contrast and other levels were adjusted to maximize the ability to see the astronaut footpaths and the rover tracks.

So if you are saying "the images could be fake", then sure -- I suppose they could have been faked. But do you have any evidence that they were faked? It's easy to say an image -- ANY image -- is fake. If that's were the case, then it seems that we should believe that EVERY image of everything we ever see is fake (just because they could be fake). Where does it end?

So without specific evidence that the image is fake, and is a real picture of the Moon, we can see that the LRO image matches the image of the Apollo 17 site taken in 1972 by the Apollo 17 LM crew as they were leaving the surface of the moon.

Apollo 17 image (still from DAC camera):


LRO image:

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Rob48

indeed Rob those look like rover tracks. Now all that is needed for me is to verify the conditions of said perspectives. The atmosphere, the distance, the tech used on both occasions.

Wouldn't it be enough for NASA to identify that object in the image as the Curiosity Mars Rover if they know the following:

1. This is a picture of the area of Mars where the Curiosty rover is supposed to be.
2. The object in the image is in the exact spot the Mars rover is supposed to be.
3. There are no other objects in the image (an image of the Rover's known location) that look like they could be the rover.
4. There are lines that look like track tracks along the path the rover is known to take leading to that object.

Yeah -- all of that is circumstantial evidence that the object is actually the Curiosity rover (considering you can't see enough detail of the object to positive identify it just by looking at the object). However, add together all of the clues and context, and it seems a person could -- with an extremely high degree of certainty -- identify that as the Curiosity river, given ALL of the evidence.

And just in case anyone thinks the Apollo 17 16mm still has been manipulated somehow, here's a reminder of that still in teh 1972 copy of the preliminary science report, my own copy:



and here is the view from the LRV as the ascent module took off. The full footage contains a time and date specific view of Earth as the camera panned around and zoomed in.



Fast forward to 30:45

and the ascent modukle view



You might want to compare the view at "pitchover" in both.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You're taking too narrow of a view on this one. On its own, it's just speculation, but when you look at it on the whole that's where it becomes evidence. If you present JUST an LRO image and say, "look, aliens" you'll be laughed at because it's inconclusive on its own. But if you present an LRO image as well as NASA records of where the landing sites were you can say "ok, in this area, there should be a landing site" now you combine that with film/video taken while ascending from the moon (which has been done several times in this thread) you'll notice that they're the same, so by a combination of evidence, you can say with a high level of accuracy that it's a landing site.

For example: Someone sends me a link to google earth of a zoomed in area in Nebraska and says "hey look, it's your car, what were you doing in Nebraska" Now from google earth all I can really see is the size, shape and colour of the car, but I know I've never been to Nebraska so I'll laugh at my friend because there's no proof that that's my car.

Now if I zoom in on my house in Google Earth, there's what would essentially be an identical looking vehicle as the one in Nebraska sitting in my driveway. But if I combine other evidence, like the fact that I know that's my house, and I know that's where I park my car, then I can say with relative certainty that it's my car.

There's no ONE piece of evidence that proves Apollo, it's the multiple pieces of evidence that show the same thing that result in proof.

a reply to: captainpudding
Interesting captainpudding the concern though is that back then they had already created remote vehicles.

So you could have said you had driven your car to Denver, had it's photo taken there, even set up a camera in your car to take happy snaps out the window to show the wife and the kids, while all the time your back in your city apartment playing hooky.

It goes both ways.

a reply to: subtopia
If you can figure out how a "remote vehicle" could take hundreds of Hasselblad photos showing features that are unmistakably on the moon (and with many of them also showing the shadow of a very human-shaped figure taking the photos), and then return the film to Earth, then you might have a point.

But if you have to invent supernatural, impossible or insanely complex capabilities for machinery to explain it, then isn't it much more likely that the prosaic explanation, that men went instead, is the real one?

a reply to: subtopia

so how do you suppose he would prove he was there?? all you have shown was prove that his car was there..

you see NASA done more than take happy snaps out the window..

they have live video footage of astronauts on the lunar surface displaying lunar gravity..

live video footage of natural formation on the lunar surface that could not be seen from orbit, small rocks that was seen in live video footage that could not be seen from lunar orbit..

live video footage of natural weather phenomena that matches when they were filmed..

how do you suppose they got such details??

Until we see with modern LIVE images of other Astronauts in LUNAR GRAVITY we only have a single source of information to say what lunar gravity is like in relation to how it actually acts on a person in it.

Every other example is the same, mock up's of the lunar surface from rover images.

Video images of weather patterns from lunar rovers.

Scientific certainty requires more than a single source.

We live in a reality where even 1% of doubt is enough to disqualify you from claiming factual truth.

There is still too much doubt, no matter how much you want to avoid and deny it.

a reply to: subtopia

lunar gravity has been calculated to about 1.6m/s^2, these mathematical equation have been around for a long long time well before any apollo mission..

the vomit comet can replicate this gravity for a short period of time..

therefore the apollo video footage is NOT the only source of what lunar gravity will look like and how it reacts on a person..

ETA: also gravity is more or less straight forward.. if gravity is theorised to accelerate a body in a vacuum at 1.6m/s^2.. the object will fall at 1.6m/s^2 in a vacuum.. if you deny this you are basically defying physics, maths that has been learnt by humans over centuries..
ie. if gravity is theorised to be at 1.6m/s^2 then an object being affected by this gravity will NOT fall at 5m/s^2.

mock ups from rover footage? weather patterns from rovers?? you speak like NASA had to film everything several months prior to actually showing it on live TV?? how do you fake natural weather phenomena such as a hurricane and show it on live TV several months in advanced??

you say that even with 1% of doubt is enough to disqualify.. how is it that you are so certain that it was hoaxed??

You'v tried this tack before and it doesn't work, and all it amounts to (again) is "I don't like it the source".

Tough. Just because you have decided that you don't trust NASA, doesn't mean the information they present is false. If you have any data that proves they weren't on the moon then present it.

The data from the source has been available for decades for anyone to examine, and no-one has been able to demonstrate any inconsistency with a zero atmosphere 1/6G environment in the behaviour of the rocks, disturbed material and astronauts and equipment.

Remote vehicles did exist then. So what? In that case the US clearly had the capability to send an object to the moon and back, why is is such a stretch to include astronauts in the package?

Where your argument really falls down is that the LRV you are pinning your hopes on took the TV footage of the astronauts showing them behaving exactly as they should do on the moon, and also showing time and date specific images of Earth that were broadcast on live TV.

originally posted by: subtopia
a reply to: captainpudding
Interesting captainpudding the concern though is that back then they had already created remote vehicles.

So you could have said you had driven your car to Denver, had it's photo taken there, even set up a camera in your car to take happy snaps out the window to show the wife and the kids, while all the time your back in your city apartment playing hooky.

It goes both ways.

They also had computers but are you going to claim that they are capable of doing what a modern computer could?

Everything is an IF or a BUT with you guys , what IF they did that, BUT what if they had done this etc.

Show any probe etc from that time that could be sent to the Moon, move about and use a Hasselblad and also CHANGE the exposure settings depending on the sun position,also the film back and then launch from the Moon and return the film.

Seriously YOU & OTHERS on here clutch on straws like a drowning man!

originally posted by: Gibborium
a reply to: turbonium1

I find it interesting that you have come to the conclusion that NASA had / has no goal(s) in mind, especially after Apollo. Voyager I and II immediately come to mind. Let's see, they were launched in 1977 . . .

The twin Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft are exploring where nothing from Earth has flown before. Continuing on their more-than-35-year journey since their 1977 launches, they each are much farther away from Earth and the sun than Pluto. In August 2012, Voyager 1 made the historic entry into interstellar space, the region between stars, filled with material ejected by the death of nearby stars millions of years ago. Scientists hope to learn more about this region when Voyager 2, in the “heliosheath" -- the outermost later of the heliosphere where the solar wind is slowed by the pressure of interstellar medium -- also reaches interstellar space. Both spacecraft are still sending scientific information about their surroundings through the Deep Space Network, or DSN.

The primary mission was the exploration of Jupiter and Saturn. After making a string of discoveries there -- such as active volcanoes on Jupiter's moon Io and intricacies of Saturn's rings -- the mission was extended. Voyager 2 went on to explore Uranus and Neptune, and is still the only spacecraft to have visited those outer planets. The adventurers' current mission, the Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM), will explore the outermost edge of the Sun's domain. And beyond. Voyager missions

And of course we have the space shuttle. It's conceptualization began in 1954 with programs like the NACA proposal submitted by Walter Dornberger.

The formal design of what became the Space Shuttle began with the "Phase A" contract design studies issued in the late 1960s. Conceptualization had begun two decades earlier, before the Apollo program of the 1960s. One of the places the concept of a spacecraft returning from space to a horizontal landing originated was within NACA, in 1954, in the form of an aeronautics research experiment later named the X-15. Space Shuttle Concept

NASA's goals have changed and been refocused many times throughout history due to many changes forced upon them such as budget cuts, lack of interest from the community, and so forth. However,to say they had no goals is disingenuous and a fallacy. HERE, for your enjoyment, is a list of projects and missions which NASA has produced.

I didn't say they had no goals, first of all.

But, they didn't have a goal to land man on the moon a few times, drop it like the black plague, and then just fly around Earth, over and over again, for the next 40 years!

We sure wanted the Shuttle, to pour s&^loads of money into it for about 40 years

Space exploration is directed outward, not in reverse..let alone 40 years .. sheesh!

It's nonsense, but you take comfort in Apollo's fable.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Space exploration is directed outward, not in reverse..let alone 40 years .. sheesh!

It's nonsense, but you take comfort in Apollo's fable.

if you say space exploration is directed outwards and not in reverse..

mind telling me what the purpose of the voyager missions were? rosetta probe? cassini?

or any of these:
en.wikipedia.org...

because that sure looks like they are exploring the solar system..

a reply to: turbonium1

Space exploration is directed outward, not in reverse..let alone 40 years .. sheesh!

You're the one who seems to think they should keep going back to the moon when they've already moved on to landing on Mars, Titan, Jupiter, asteroids, comets.

Sounds like you're the one stuck in reverse.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1

Space exploration is directed outward, not in reverse..let alone 40 years .. sheesh!

You're the one who seems to think they should keep going back to the moon when they've already moved on to landing on Mars, Titan, Jupiter, asteroids, comets.

Sounds like you're the one stuck in reverse.

The unmanned missions are a great example of genuine space exploration - it is directed outward.

Compare the manned missions to the unmanned missions. After we (supposedly) land men on the moon, we go back to LEO for the next 40 years.

Get the idea now?

Telescopes are another great example of genuine space exploration directed outward.

Do you know the problem yet?