Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: turbonium1

oh and BTW whats that in the back there??

(AS17-134-20441HR)

The LM is in the background, of course.

Why don't you point out where the disturbance of soil is, caused by the LM??

Is it completely invisible from ground, yet clearly defined from lunar orbit??

The magical disturbance that vanishes in close-ups, pops up to viewing at long-range??

originally posted by: turbonium1
The magical disturbance that vanishes in close-ups, pops up to viewing at long-range??

you mean similar to the contrast between a bootprint from a distance and close up seems to disappear??

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
The magical disturbance that vanishes in close-ups, pops up to viewing at long-range??

you mean similar to the contrast between a bootprint from a distance and close up seems to disappear??

It's blatantly obvious that you have no answer for the non-existent 'disturbance', supposedly caused by the landing of an LM on the 'moon'.

You've made quite an effort at avoiding it with your 'footprint' images.

You've shown that a real, physical feature is much more defined at close-range, than it is at a distance. Which is exactly what I've been telling you all along. Well done!

That's why you're asking me to forget about the fact that the footprint is a real, physical feature.

Btw - isn't the area of disturbance caused by the LM a real, physical feature, too? Sure, that's exactly what they claim it is - a real, physical feature.

So, comparing two real, physical features, you say 'forget about a footprint being real, physical feature', it's not important to the issue!!

No, you say it is all about the reflectance of a real, physical feature, compared to the surrounding area. If you forget that the feature is much clearer in a close-up, and only consider the contrast, you can see that the close-up image doesn't show the contrast, while the distant image does!

Take out the most important fact, since it doesn't fit, and then you can compare them! Sheesh...

Even that matter is dubious..

In the distant image, the area below your red circle is just as bright/reflective as the footprint(s) are. Which doesn't fit your argument. The undisturbed area in the foreground is as reflective as the disturbed areas (the footprints).

The close-up image is much less reflective in the upper right corner, than anywhere else. This doesn't fit, either.


Anyway, the actual issue has been resolved, by the fact you cannot explain, or excuse, the problem.

That's why I decided to address your footprint issue.

But the issue is already resolved, so I

It has been resolved, mostly by you being given evidence that completely dismisses your absurd and fictitious claims. There clearly isn't any point discussing this with you as you have absolutely no conceptual understanding of what is being discussed. Come back when you do.

Don't want to deal with footprints? I imagine you don't, because you can't explain how they appear in LRO images. Here's a shot from the Apollo 17 ascent footage that covers the area shown in choos' image image above, together with am LRO image and a copy of that Apollo photo that I've adjusted the contrast on so that you can see the tracks left by the astronauts.



Schmitt is setting up the SEP, which means he is at the cross at the bottom of the LRO and 16mm images. Photographs either side of that sequence show the rover tracks heading across the path from the LM. You can also the a dark area at the end of a short track from the LM.

Frames from the 16mm footage showing these features were publicly available in magazines and also in the Science Report decades before the LRO, but you won't want to discuss that either.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
It has been resolved, mostly by you being given evidence that completely dismisses your absurd and fictitious claims. There clearly isn't any point discussing this with you as you have absolutely no conceptual understanding of what is being discussed. Come back when you do.

Don't want to deal with footprints? I imagine you don't, because you can't explain how they appear in LRO images. Here's a shot from the Apollo 17 ascent footage that covers the area shown in choos' image image above, together with am LRO image and a copy of that Apollo photo that I've adjusted the contrast on so that you can see the tracks left by the astronauts.

Schmitt is setting up the SEP, which means he is at the cross at the bottom of the LRO and 16mm images. Photographs either side of that sequence show the rover tracks heading across the path from the LM. You can also the a dark area at the end of a short track from the LM.

Frames from the 16mm footage showing these features were publicly available in magazines and also in the Science Report decades before the LRO, but you won't want to discuss that either.

I've already discussed it.

You've shown things that perfectly match up to images taken from orbit. Such as footprints, and rover tracks.

The entire purpose of a hoax is to try and make everything match up perfectly. If it didn't look like it all matched up perfectly, it wouldn't be done.

So it is only relevant when we find something WHICH DOES NOT MATCH UP PERFECTLY.

Do you not understand what I'm saying here? It seems you don't.

It is totally expected that you would have so many things match up, while I would have only one, or maybe two, things that do NOT match up.

In your mind, you think this means you have more proof of being genuine, than I have proof of it being a hoax.

That's not how it works, though.

Consider a sci-fi film, where there is a scene of astronauts floating in space. You don't know it is from a movie, though. Your friend comes over to your house, and shows you the scene. He tells you it is footage from a NASA mission, which just came out recently.

It is a 5 minute scene. You watch it. And you thank your friend for showing it to you, and you make a copy of it.

Later on, you watch it again. You decide to watch it again, a couple months later. But that's when you notice something in the scene. It seems sort of odd to you. So you go back, and review it, at the spot you found it odd.
You find there is a couple frames where a harness appears to be attached to one of the floating astronauts.

You ask your friend about it. He finally admits it came from a recently released sci-fi movie, and is not real. He apologizes for pulling a joke on you.

The two or three frames was proof of it being faked. 0.01% of the 5 minute scene.

The other 99.99% of the 5 minute scene is not proof of it being real.

That's what you are doing here. You are pointing out, over and over, that 99.99% of the scene is 'real'.

Not that you'll understand this, of course.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yet you've not shown a single thing that doesn't match up. You just ignore the posts that proves your opinion wrong.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Yet you've not shown a single thing that doesn't match up. You just ignore the posts that proves your opinion wrong.

It's obvious that there is little point is trying to explain this over and over to you, because you have no desire to address the issue honestly, and maturely.

I've shown you the area of LM disturbance does not exist in any of the Apollo surface images. You know that, beyond a doubt.

The fact you refuse to even acknowledge this cannot be denied. It is proven by the surface images. Which are all APOLLO surface images. This is supposed to be evidence on YOUR side. You won't even acknowledge them.

So if you want to keep living in denial, that's sad.

Fear of facing the truth is your problem, not mine.

a reply to: turbonium1

Fear of facing the truth is your problem, not mine.

No, it is you who can't face the truth. All you do is offer an opinion. When that opinion gets # down, you come up with another opinion. You've even rehashed things from many pages ago that have already been explained, in detail, to you.

So, where's your EVIDENCE that we haven't been to the moon?

P.S. Opinions don't count as evidence.

a reply to: turbonium1

I'm pointing out that 100% of the scene is real, because it is.

You are the one failing to provide any kind of support for the totally bogus claim that there is any falsehood to it.

You previously latched on to the idea that radiation was somehow the key to unlocking the alleged hoax, all the while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the topic and a total inability to provide any back up to your fictitious claims.

Now you've latched on the the reflectance 'issue', which by your comments (as well as the things you've studiously avoided commenting on) demonstrate that you have not surveyed the literature with which you have been supplied (some of which contained evidence you claimed did not exist) and that you do not understand what is being discussed, despite the use of very very simple metaphors and illustrations that normal adults who have been outside their basements can understand quite easily.

Your only argument here is that "they must have faked everything", a 'they' which includes Japan, China, India and the USSR.

Well, prove it. Put up or shut up.

You are the one that has failed to understand anything and failed to back up your claims.

Feel free to demonstrate that the image I showed above contains anything that is false, any time you like.

The lack of contingent aspect assemblages has once again exposed the apollocrats and their arbitrarily achieved quantum superposition footprint ruse, inconspicuously establishing an insufficient hypothesis with an equal probability of simultaneously both being indeterminately reflective and inconclusively opaque, disseminating an indistinct uncertainty, only resolved when the wave function of cognitive processes of an observer is induced to collapse.

a reply to: Misinformation

Mr thesaurus is back.

Surely there must be something in the T&C that prevents this repeated, deliberately abstruse and unintelligible posting?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
The magical disturbance that vanishes in close-ups, pops up to viewing at long-range??

you mean similar to the contrast between a bootprint from a distance and close up seems to disappear??

It's blatantly obvious that you have no answer for the non-existent 'disturbance', supposedly caused by the landing of an LM on the 'moon'.

reading this first sentence of your reply demonstrates that you have not the slightest clue of what i have been telling you for the last few months..

the LM disturbance visible from orbit is due to the regolith changed in a way to make it more REFLECTIVE when compared with the surrounding..

ive shown you the bootprints NOT to talk about bootprint but to compare the reflectiveness of the regolith both within the print and surrounding it.. you are the one deliberately ignoring this comparison (probably because you know that it gives you your explaination)

in one image the bootprint reflects alot of sunlight compared with the surrounding, in another image the reflective difference is neglible.. WHY???

the only explaination you can give is that one is fake......

You've shown that a real, physical feature is much more defined at close-range, than it is at a distance. Which is exactly what I've been telling you all along. Well done!

except that ive been explaining to you that the LM disturbance is a REFLECTIVE ISSUE.. the bootprint being more/less defined depending on viewing distance is irrelevant to my point, its the reflection of sunlight that is my point. i wonder how many more times i need to say this before you understand???? my guess is that you will never understand since it will prove you wrong.

anyway its more proof that you do not have a clue about this..

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Surely there must be something in the T&C that prevents this repeated, deliberately abstruse and unintelligible posting?

Hear hear!

This may fall under the category of posts which do not further the discussion.

While turbonium goes away for a week and misinterpretation tries to find new ways to mangle the English language, here's something I've been playing with today.

Japan's Kaguya images are all available for download and they supply their own software that allows you to process the images. Go here if you want to play with them:

l2db.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp...

As we were looking at an APollo 17 image above I went to download the images covering the Taurus-Littrow landing site. I then whacked up the dpi to 1200, adjusted the levels and did some sharpening. I did this for the images showing lighting conditions in the morning and evening.

I then looked at an annotated version of this LRO image (I forgot to bookmark the one I used!):

www.nasa.gov...

and overlaid them.

Here's the result of that with all three side by side. I added a red dot on the LM to help pick out where it is.



The JAXA image on the left has the same lighting direction as the LRO one. Notice the long grey smear next to where the red dot is. Notice where the LM shadow is on the LRO image.

Compare that with the light coming form the opposite direction on the other JAXA image. See how there is now a black smudge the other side of where the LM is? Is there any such darkened area in the LRO image?

Here, just for fun, are the three images superimposed:



I am going to be the first to say that it s by no means conclusive, and this JAXA image is not the best quality, but what we have here is a shadow of an object casting a shadow by standing proud of the lunar surface that is in exactly the same place as that recorded for the Apollo 17 lunar module.

If anyone wants to provide any kind of proof that it isn't the lunar module then go right ahead and do that.

Some more books arrived for me today, Volumes 1 & 2 of the 3rd Lunar Science Conference Reports from 1972.

This pair of pages relates to the discussion over preceding pages, and proves that the phenomenon that turbonium denies was ever mentioned in the past was indeed discussed long long ago.





I hope that the text is legible, but it proposes that compaction of the lunar surface causes it to appear brighter, and that this compaction could also be achieved by the lunar module exhaust. It also identifies the bright halo around the LM.

As a bonus, it also shows the lunar module and tracks on the surface as recorded by the Panoramic Camera, disturbances also recorded by Japan and India, as well as the LRO.

I am going to be the first to say that it s by no means conclusive, and this JAXA image is not the best quality

Who are you and what have you done with OneBigMonkey ?

originally posted by: choos

the LM disturbance visible from orbit is due to the regolith changed in a way to make it more REFLECTIVE when compared with the surrounding..

ive shown you the bootprints NOT to talk about bootprint but to compare the reflectiveness of the regolith both within the print and surrounding it.. you are the one deliberately ignoring this comparison (probably because you know that it gives you your explaination)



except that ive been explaining to you that the LM disturbance is a REFLECTIVE ISSUE.. the bootprint being more/less defined depending on viewing distance is irrelevant to my point, its the reflection of sunlight that is my point. i wonder how many more times i need to say this before you understand????

I understand that it is impossible.

You claim that reflections originating from the surface cannot be seen from the surface...

But, you've shown no previous examples to support your claim.

You can't replicate this, in any way, shape, or form.

The papers you cite have not shown any previous examples, or replicated it, either.


As it cannot be shown possible, or replicated, the reality is all too obvious..


Disturbed soil cannot reflect only upwards, first of all!