Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1

You're comparing water to soil, which is truly absurd.

Worse, I'd already cited sources that said water is TOTALLY UNLIKE soil!!


Water is a smooth surface, at the microscopic level.

Soil is not a smooth surface at the microscopic level.

i never claimed i was comparing soil with water.. i am using the lake image as an EXAMPLE OF REFLECTION ANGLES.. how many times do i need to repeat myself?

They reflect sunlight in different ways, as we know...

no, they reflect light in the same exact way as any object does.. the difference is the amount in certain directions.

Both of the surfaces are hit by sunlight, let's say...

Seeing the reflection, or not seeing it - point of view - is relevant to a smooth surface.

no it is relevant to all surfaces, all surfaces reflect light, smoother surfaces just reflects light more uniformly in a certain direction. rough surfaces also reflect light and can be arranged when in a large group to reflect more light in a certain direction..

As the sources stated, a smooth surface reflects sunlight in one, same,, direction. Seeing the reflection depends on the angle of view, therefore.

Soil is not smooth, at the molecular level. It cannot be made into a smooth surface at the molecular level, either.

molecular level?? are you saying that water at the molecular level is smooth?? so if i compare a single molecule of water to a single molecule of sand one will be rough the other smooth??

do you even know what a molecule is?

On your last argument, above...

A rough surface may indeed have more reflectance at certain areas, compared to elsewhere on that surface....sure...

you just claimed it doesnt just above?!?!?!

You seem to believe that a footprint doesn't fit with my argument...because you're asking me how I could ever hope to explain it....is that correct?

Well, I've just explained it to you...once again.

You are confused about what I'm saying here, or just pretend that the problem doesn't exist..

you that soil is a rough surface at the molecular level therefore seeing a reflection is only relevant to smooth surfaces of which soil is not.

so the bootprint being brighter is not a reflection of sunlight is it??

So why do we see the footprint as more reflective, in surface images? After all, it is very smooth, and flat, right?

Aren't you claiming the footprints can even be seen in images taken from lunar orbit, as well?

Now why would we see these footprints from lunar orbit? Are the footprints more/less reflective than the surrounding surface, from lunar orbit? What is the reason, if not more/less reflectance?

A footprint is seen from the surface, many footprints are seen from lunar orbit, too.

Yet, the Blast Zone is not seen from the surface...it can only be seen from lunar orbit?

Nonsense.

umm no, i specifically picked that image of the bootprint because it showed a CLEAR difference in reflectance of sunlight..

i can pick another image that will show a neglible difference like say oh i dont this:


i have already shown you this one and also have previously asked the same question i will ask now,
WHERE IS THE DARK SOIL AROUND THIS BOOTPRINT?????

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

There is not much to read there, at a 6th grade level it would take 10minutes at best.

It actually does explain it, you just happened to not be able to,understand what you are reading; you're expecting to find a preset group of words that are in your head while skimming the writing instead of actually reading it, understanding it and comprehending what it says.

I am not your parent, your teacher, your college professor or your mental health case worker; I am NOT going to dumb it down onto your level and explain it to you as I would to a 5 year old, if you cannot be bothered to read and understand what is there and be blind instead, that is your choice.

Eyes wide shut.

Spouting Genius scene, take 205.

One can hardly imagine that our world once had no trolls....until the internet came along.

I know, right?

Some of them have come into this thread and spouted nonesense like "we haven't been to the moon".

originally posted by: choos

no it is relevant to all surfaces, all surfaces reflect light, smoother surfaces just reflects light more uniformly in a certain direction. rough surfaces also reflect light and can be arranged when in a large group to reflect more light in a certain direction..

There cannot have been any flatness, uniformity of the lunar surface, for one thing. A spewing of dust is random, nothing is arranged, and some ridiculous 'flatness' magically appears from randomly spewed out 'lunar dust'!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

no it is relevant to all surfaces, all surfaces reflect light, smoother surfaces just reflects light more uniformly in a certain direction. rough surfaces also reflect light and can be arranged when in a large group to reflect more light in a certain direction..

There cannot have been any flatness, uniformity of the lunar surface, for one thing. A spewing of dust is random, nothing is arranged, and some ridiculous 'flatness' magically appears from randomly spewed out 'lunar dust'!!

which is why we dont see the reflection of the astronauts in the lunar soil..

but it can still reflect light and when arranged in a certain manner it can be made to reflect more light than usual ie. by compressing the soil to present a flat (ish) surface causing a higher reflectance as seen in the boot image.

seriously you have changed your mind so much that you havent even realised that you are partially agreeing with me..

and before you forget, why is it that there is dark lunar soil around the bootprint??


after months and months of explaining to you, it looks like you have finally admitted that lunar soil can be made to reflect more light when compressed.. but you have still failed to explain the dark soil around it which is also related to reflecting light and soil compression.. i wonder if it will take another several months for you to work out..

originally posted by: choos
but it can still reflect light and when arranged in a certain manner it can be made to reflect more light than usual ie. by compressing the soil to present a flat (ish) surface causing a higher reflectance as seen in the boot image.

We already know that soil, etc. can reflect more/less light, within the overall surface area. A flattened area of soil reflects more light in the Apollo image, which is the footprint, because it is more uniform, and flat, than the surrounding area.

You still do not understand what I'm telling you here.

I am talking about the direction(s) of those reflections off the surface. So when a footprint reflects more light than the surrounding area, that's what we see in the (supposed) surface images. Same as on Earth.

Now, why do you think the more reflective footprint can easily be identified in the surface images?

Because it is reflecting light in (virtually) every direction....including the surface...right?

If you looked at this same footprint, at that moment, you would see it as more reflective than the surrounding area, yes? Even though we have no proof of that, because they didn't take images of it from every angle, we know it would reflect at all angles of view. We have countless examples of it, and it can be proved easily, at any time.

I've explained this to you, many times. This surface is rough, not smooth, at the molecular level. That is why, even when it looks quite smooth, and flat, and compressed, it is still seen at all angles of view, including the surface. We still see it, whether flattened, lumpy, compacted, loose, etc. The soil may reflect more, or less, light, because of such factors....but it still reflects light in all directions, at that same intensity. The footprint reflects more light in all directions, compared to the surrounding area, no matter where you view it.

originally posted by: choos
and before you forget, why is it that there is dark lunar soil around the bootprint??

See above.

originally posted by: choos
after months and months of explaining to you, it looks like you have finally admitted that lunar soil can be made to reflect more light when compressed.. but you have still failed to explain the dark soil around it which is also related to reflecting light and soil compression.. i wonder if it will take another several months for you to work out..

Again, this has been explained to you.

One more time - I am referring to the direction(s) of reflected sunlight. Not the level of intensity for each of those reflections. The direction(s) of reflected sunlight are the directions it is visible, and can be imaged.


Before we can move on to the main point, you must understand what I've said so far.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

I know, right?

Some of them have come into this thread and spouted nonesense like "we haven't been to the moon".

Just the opposite, in fact. The title of this thread is Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked.

Others have since come into this thread and spouted nonsense like 'we have been to the moon'.


If you think a thread discussing the moon landing hoax issue is just "nonsense", why do you keep on posting in that thread?

I have thought certain threads were just nonsense. I don't even go into those threads, let alone write post and post about it being such 'nonsense'. If it's nonsense, throughout, who cares to discuss it?

a reply to: turbonium1

Yet here you (and sometimes others) are, NOT proving we haven't been to the moon.

Your arguments are old and boring. You're just spouting the same nonesense you did when you joined the thread.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I am talking about the direction(s) of those reflections off the surface. So when a footprint reflects more light than the surrounding area, that's what we see in the (supposed) surface images. Same as on Earth.

so what you are saying is that the bootprint is reflecting more light than the surrounding soil, which is why it is dark??

Now, why do you think the more reflective footprint can easily be identified in the surface images?

Because it is reflecting light in (virtually) every direction....including the surface...right?

no, in the image i have posted with the red circle the bootprints are more clearly visible because it has presented a flat surface with no gaps (due to being compressed) it is reflecting MORE light towards the camera than the surrounding soil.. doesnt take a genius to understand this.

If you looked at this same footprint, at that moment, you would see it as more reflective than the surrounding area, yes? Even though we have no proof of that, because they didn't take images of it from every angle, we know it would reflect at all angles of view. We have countless examples of it, and it can be proved easily, at any time.

you dont need more proof than the image i have posted.. in that one image it is CLEARLY seen that the boot prints are reflecting more light towards the camera..

the problem here is that you seem to think that if the sun was behind the camera and that camera snapped the image of the bootprint the bootprint will still be bright.. This is where you would be horribly wrong..

you have already said that the bootprint is presenting a much more smooth surface than the soil around it, if this is the case than the bootprint is going to reflect more light away from the camera when the sun is behind the camera also.

that is why i have used the lake image to try to explain to you the difference viewing angles makes. but you have yet to understand what that point is about.

I've explained this to you, many times. This surface is rough, not smooth, at the molecular level. That is why, even when it looks quite smooth, and flat, and compressed, it is still seen at all angles of view, including the surface. We still see it, whether flattened, lumpy, compacted, loose, etc. The soil may reflect more, or less, light, because of such factors....but it still reflects light in all directions, at that same intensity. The footprint reflects more light in all directions, compared to the surrounding area, no matter where you view it.

complete and utter horsefeces..

where do you get the gall to make this rubbish up?

so if the sun was behind the camera do you think the bootprint will still be as bright as in the image??

See above.

you have failed again.. you simply dont understand..

it has already been established that the compressed lunar soil reflects more light, what about loose kicked up soil??

Again, this has been explained to you.

One more time - I am referring to the direction(s) of reflected sunlight. Not the level of intensity for each of those reflections. The direction(s) of reflected sunlight are the directions it is visible, and can be imaged.

Before we can move on to the main point, you must understand what I've said so far.

no you havent explained why there is darker soil around the bootprint.. the sunlight is coming from the exact same angle, the camera is viewing at the exact same angle..

so why is the bootprint so bright? (this you have finally managed to explain)
why is the soil around the bootprint darker? (this you have failed to explain) (heres a hint: ITS REFLECTING LESS LIGHT)

once again the light source for both these questions are the same (same intensity same direction)
and again, the camera viewing the scene for both the above questions are the same..

it is just one image yet two shades of soil, you have yet to explain at all why the darker soil exists.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I've explained this to you, many times. This surface is rough, not smooth, at the molecular level.

Aha...ahahahahaha.

You have absolutely no fkin' idea what you are talking about now, you're just making crap up completely as you go along, oh god damn your idiocy is shining more brightly then magnesium ignited in front of ones face, I thought it was just general lack of knowledge and comprehension...not now.

....

originally posted by: CB328
I just looked up the escape velocity of the moon and if my math is right 2.4 kilometers per second equals about 5000 miles per hour that the lander would have to get up to to escape the moon en.wikipedia.org...

Then they would have to fire more fuel to slow down to 2000 miles per hour for redocking with the capsule in orbit. Add that to the fuel they used to slow down and position for landing and that's probably to much fuel for that lander to carry.

That is not exactly exact science now is it. Its a bit useless to first sit there and say "they went exactly this many miles per hour for this and exactly this many miles per hours to do that" and then lazily conclude that they probably did not have enough fuel.

It's also factually incorrect - there is a difference between the speed needed to escape lunar orbit and the speed required to reach it.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Shamrock6

Your argument is moot.

Look how many presidents and high security agents went in and out of the white house in the last hundred years, FBI, NSA, CIA agents, all with high level compromising data....Thousands of people are keeping secrets right now.

Secrets yes, but there are not thousands keeping one and the same secret at the same time (compartmentalization and all) and for 60 years at the same time and spanning the globe and expanding over to other countries who also developed space programs in the meantime.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Shamrock6

Seems your assumption and mine are both true.

Some lies are better crafted than others and some of the vessels are stronger than others.

Example

Not one, till they decided it was ok.

Secrets can be kept for a long long time if it is crafted properly and the information controlled.

From your article

Although reports of the deal leaked out within days,

originally posted by: choos

no, in the image i have posted with the red circle the bootprints are more clearly visible because it has presented a flat surface with no gaps (due to being compressed) it is reflecting MORE light towards the camera than the surrounding soil.. doesnt take a genius to understand this.

Then why don't you understand that the light is also reflected everywhere else, too?

It is not just reflecting more light towards the camera.

This is a fact, and if you refuse to accept that fact, there is no reasoning with you.

Repeat post

originally posted by: choos
the problem here is that you seem to think that if the sun was behind the camera and that camera snapped the image of the bootprint the bootprint will still be bright.. This is where you would be horribly wrong..

you have already said that the bootprint is presenting a much more smooth surface than the soil around it, if this is the case than the bootprint is going to reflect more light away from the camera when the sun is behind the camera also.

that is why i have used the lake image to try to explain to you the difference viewing angles makes. but you have yet to understand what that point is about.

This is about rough surfaces reflecting light at all angles.

If we can see those reflections from orbit, then we will see these reflections from the surface, also.

You're claiming that the only angle we can see the supposed Blast Zones around the LM's is from lunar orbit...

No proof of any kind, obviously, but who cares!


The lake is a smooth surface, and the lunar surface is a rough surface, as I've explained to you. They reflect in very different ways, which is why you can't compare them.

You must realize that the lunar surface is rough, at the molecular level, while the lake is a smooth surface, at the molecular level...yes?

We have several images taken from lunar orbit which show the (supposed) Blast Zones, right?

What were the angles of sunlight, being directed at the lunar surface, during the time they took those images?

Your argument is based on angle of sunlight, yet you can't even hope to support it....

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: CB328
I just looked up the escape velocity of the moon and if my math is right 2.4 kilometers per second equals about 5000 miles per hour that the lander would have to get up to to escape the moon en.wikipedia.org...

Then they would have to fire more fuel to slow down to 2000 miles per hour for redocking with the capsule in orbit. Add that to the fuel they used to slow down and position for landing and that's probably to much fuel for that lander to carry.

That is not exactly exact science now is it. Its a bit useless to first sit there and say "they went exactly this many miles per hour for this and exactly this many miles per hours to do that" and then lazily conclude that they probably did not have enough fuel.

Apollo's 'science' is mostly garbage, sorry to say.

Real technology/methods, compared to fake technology/methods...

A real technology will always hold up, after years, or centuries, the same way...

A fake technology cannot hold up, after years, or centuries. Because it never even existed, at all.


To have it replaced with new technology is very common, as we progress, of course....

But the old, outdated technology always exists, no matter how old, or how primitive it looks to us, years later


This was their plan for a 'return' moon landing. Use the same technology Apollo used, or as much of it as possible, anyhow.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Shamrock6

Your argument is moot.

Look how many presidents and high security agents went in and out of the white house in the last hundred years, FBI, NSA, CIA agents, all with high level compromising data....Thousands of people are keeping secrets right now.

Secrets yes, but there are not thousands keeping one and the same secret at the same time (compartmentalization and all) and for 60 years at the same time and spanning the globe and expanding over to other countries who also developed space programs in the meantime.

About 30 or 40 people knew the actual plans, I'd say...

But thousands? Not a chance...

a reply to: turbonium1

the problem is - that if only " 30 to 40 people " are " aware of the plan " then :

all subvivisions of the plan were infact viable - and there was no reason to actually fake it

as an example :

all the elements of the saturn 5 launch system were viable - and tested to the specification needed for a live moon mission

your " maximum 40 person secret cabal " cannot control an enterprise the size of the appollo missions when they are the only people that know its fake

your " logic " - is as ever hillarious - thanks for the laugh - i need it today