Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1

Your analogy doesn't fit .

Let's say you are standing in an area of light grass. You can see BEYOND this area, because it is small enough to see past it. That area has a dark green color of grass, very distinct from the light grass. You go up to where light grass ends, and dark grass starts, and clearly can see it change when close up..

You need to understand this - the CHANGE is seen from close-up.

only if there was a hard outlined difference.. because then you would have a difference to compare it to.

the halo on the lunar surface is a gradual shift in refractive index not colour.

The 'halo' area of disturbed soil CHANGES to the outlying, undisturbed soil. That CHANGE is visible from the ground, while standing in the middle of the 'halo' area. That is proven with the Apollo surface images, which show the ground well beyond the area of 'disturbed' soil.

And they have images from many points, showing no change of surface, in reverse.

That is the point here.

you believe the edges of the halo are hardlined out, as if it goes white and then suddenly black.. it is a gradual change.. the closer you get the harder it will be to see the difference..

originally posted by: choos

only if there was a hard outlined difference.. because then you would have a difference to compare it to.

the halo on the lunar surface is a gradual shift in refractive index not colour.

It doesn't matter if the change is gradual, because the Apollo surface images I'm referring to show the whole region, from the LM 'halo' area, to the outlying area, beyond it. As you'll see below..

originally posted by: choos
you believe the edges of the halo are hardlined out, as if it goes white and then suddenly black.. it is a gradual change.. the closer you get the harder it will be to see the difference..

The entire 'halo' area is ~ 200 m long, and ~100 m along its width, as outlined in this image...



And the LM would be about mid-point within this 'halo'.

The 'halo' would extend ~ 50 m to ~ 100 m, out from the LM, which sits in (or near to) the center.


Here's one of many Apollo 15 surface images which show beyond the area where the 'halo' should be...



The surface is the same, going out from the LM, in all directions, in fact.

No "gradual" change, or ANY change, of the surface, is shown in ANY of the Apollo 15 surface images.

That proves the Apollo 15 LM is NOT on the moon. Which further proves Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon, at all.

originally posted by: turbonium1

It doesn't matter if the change is gradual, because the Apollo surface images I'm referring to show the whole region, from the LM 'halo' area, to the outlying area, beyond it. As you'll see below..

it does matter if the change is gradual..

you see what happens is that the further you are the gradual change takes up less space so that the edges can be easier to define.. if you stand on top of it the change is occuring over several metres.. yet if you are miles away the change occurs in a few millimetres.

The surface is the same, going out from the LM, in all directions, in fact.

its a change in refractive index.. and its a change of only a few %.. not to mention that in all directions you are looking at multiple angles ie. inconsistent

No "gradual" change, or ANY change, of the surface, is shown in ANY of the Apollo 15 surface images.

That proves the Apollo 15 LM is NOT on the moon. Which further proves Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon, at all.

its a gradual change in refractive index.. so its going to depend on the angle of incoming reflected sunlight, you are comparing viewing of lunar regolith at large changes in "viewing angles". from a few degrees from the horizon to at times 90 degrees to the horizon.

supposing what you say is right in every way (which it isnt), why would it prove ONLY Apollo 15 was not on the moon?? what about the others? did they decide to do the other missions for real except for 15?

Since the Apollo 15 LM (or any LM) never landed on the moon, it could not have caused a disturbance of lunar soil.

The only reason the scientists claimed it was a disturbance of lunar soil is because -

- they believed the Apollo 15 LM had landed at this exact same spot on the moon.
- that led them to theorize that the LM had created a disturbance of lunar soil as it landed on the moon.

They also had noticed similar 'disturbances' at the exact spots the other LM's were said to have landed.

I'm sure the scientists are very aware the Apollo surface images show no disturbances at all But if they said the 'halo' was not caused by the LM, it would mean they are actually saying that Apollo never landed men on the moon. So - just like every other scientist faced with such a dilemma (ie: with impossible Apollo radiation data, with impossible Apollo aluminum spacecraft in deep space) they simply IGNORED it!


The list of Apollo discrepancies known today, is certainly just the tip of the iceberg. Eventually, scientists will get to the point where they cannot simply ignore the Apollo 'elephant in the room', anymore. It is inevitable. And the truth shall set all the scientists free, once again, to try and tackle the overwhelming challenges of human space exploration, honestly. With no worries, about telling the truth, about the incredible problems they cannot yet resolve. Not for many years, or perhaps centuries, to come.

originally posted by: turbonium1

They also had noticed similar 'disturbances' at the exact spots the other LM's were said to have landed.

ahem they also noticed similar disturbances at the exact same spots of the surveyor and the luna probes..

i guess those must have been faked also because landing probes on the moon is impossible.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Since the Apollo 15 LM (or any LM) never landed on the moon, it could not have caused a disturbance of lunar soil.

And therein lies your problem - you have decided in advance what the answer is, no matter how much evidence is spoon-fed to you in nice bite-size chunks to demonstrate that you are wrong.

The only reason the scientists claimed it was a disturbance of lunar soil is because -

- they believed the Apollo 15 LM had landed at this exact same spot on the moon.
- that led them to theorize that the LM had created a disturbance of lunar soil as it landed on the moon.

No, they found a change in the surface reflectance consistent with an engine exhaust interacting with the lunar surface. You don't understand how science works.

They also had noticed similar 'disturbances' at the exact spots the other LM's were said to have landed.

Gee - why do suppose that is?

I'm sure the scientists are very aware the Apollo surface images show no disturbances at all

Now you are impugning the reputation of every scientist who has ever examined Apollo data - you are implying that they know Apollo didn't happen and are lying to cover it up. Got any proof that there are no such surface disturbances photographed by Japanese and Indian probes?

But if they said the 'halo' was not caused by the LM, it would mean they are actually saying that Apollo never landed men on the moon.

Why would they say that? It would be a lie.

So - just like every other scientist faced with such a dilemma (ie: with impossible Apollo radiation data, with impossible Apollo aluminum spacecraft in deep space) they simply IGNORED it!

Your failure to understand the data does not mean they are impossible. The scientists how do understand them are quite happy with them.

The list of Apollo discrepancies known today, is certainly just the tip of the iceberg. Eventually, scientists will get to the point where they cannot simply ignore the Apollo 'elephant in the room', anymore. It is inevitable. And the truth shall set all the scientists free, once again, to try and tackle the overwhelming challenges of human space exploration, honestly. With no worries, about telling the truth, about the incredible problems they cannot yet resolve. Not for many years, or perhaps centuries, to come.

There are no discrepancies in the Apollo record, just people who do not understand what they are looking at or who are deliberately lying about it to make themselves famous and maybe some money. Your grandiose statements will never compensate for your lack of knowledge.

originally posted by: choos

it does matter if the change is gradual..

you see what happens is that the further you are the gradual change takes up less space so that the edges can be easier to define.. if you stand on top of it the change is occuring over several metres.. yet if you are miles away the change occurs in a few millimetres.

its a change in refractive index.. and its a change of only a few %.. not to mention that in all directions you are looking at multiple angles ie. inconsistent

its a gradual change in refractive index.. so its going to depend on the angle of incoming reflected sunlight, you are comparing viewing of lunar regolith at large changes in "viewing angles". from a few degrees from the horizon to at times 90 degrees to the horizon.

supposing what you say is right in every way (which it isnt), why would it prove ONLY Apollo 15 was not on the moon?? what about the others? did they decide to do the other missions for real except for 15?

No. None of the Apollo missions landed men on the moon. The reason I'm talking only about Apollo 15 is to prevent going off the topic to discuss other missions, that's all.

As for angles of light, and "viewing angles"? No way.

This phenomenon does not exist in reality. Never has. Never will.

It is purely an invention of the Apollo-ites, like yourself, to try and excuse the problem. You pretend to explain it is based on 'science', when you know very well it is no such thing.

That is why I've challenged you to prove this 'phenomenon' exists in the real world. Show me a single example of this phenomenon here on Earth. I'd love to see it!

If you can't show any examples of it, as I suspect you won't, then it's up to you to actually do it yourself.
For instance, create an area similar to the 'halo', in some way. Of course, you will not be able to see it from the ground. You must only be able to see it from from, say, the top floor of a 50 story highrise, looking down on it!

And I don't care how you want to do it, or what materials you use, or what surface you want to change, or whatever...

I just want you to PROVE it to me, in any way, shape, or form.


If you cannot meet this challenge, then you must surely realize that this 'unique' phenomenon does not actually exist ... agreed?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Your failure to understand the data does not mean they are impossible. The scientists how do understand them are quite happy with them.

They do understand them, and they are probably quite happy in being able to ignore them, so completely!

Why do you think they would totally ignore Apollo data? That is the real question...

originally posted by: turbonium1

No. None of the Apollo missions landed men on the moon. The reason I'm talking only about Apollo 15 is to prevent going off the topic to discuss other missions, that's all.

As for angles of light, and "viewing angles"? No way.

This phenomenon does not exist in reality. Never has. Never will.

absolutely ridiculous..

look at any picture showing any mountains in the background.. actually ill make it easier for you


you see that "little hill" in the background.. why is it brighter than the "hill" in front of it??

if what you say that viewing angles are complete BS than they should be at exactly the same brightness..

or maybe you dont know how shadows work?

there are also pictures from the LRO showing how the lunar surface looks like during different periods of the lunar day and showing how the "colour" of the lunar surface changes.. i just cant be bothered finding it right now.. according to you, since this "viewing angle" is complete BS every LRO image regardless of time during the lunar day they should all be the same "colour"..

When the Constellation program began, they were told to incorporate 'heritage' technology as much as possible, to 'return' men to the moon.

'Heritage' technology is really Apollo technology, of course...

The technology that landed men on the moon, 40 years earlier, was going to ensure the success of Constellation's manned moon landings!

Or, so they thought, anyway.


Do you know what happened, after that?

They dropped the Apollo 'heritage' technology like a dirty shirt, because they soon found out it was crap. They could never get to the moon with it, in a million years.

That's why they tried to develop new technologies, which COULD actually land men on the moon.

a reply to: turbonium1

oh what happened to your keep on topic rant??

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Your failure to understand the data does not mean they are impossible. The scientists how do understand them are quite happy with them.

They do understand them, and they are probably quite happy in being able to ignore them, so completely!

Why do you think they would totally ignore Apollo data? That is the real question...

Prove they are ignoring Apollo data. Provide some evidence for this, or admit you made it up.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No. None of the Apollo missions landed men on the moon. The reason I'm talking only about Apollo 15 is to prevent going off the topic to discuss other missions, that's all.

So you don't want to discuss the same feature observed in Apollo 12, or the comments by Jack Schmitt in Apollo 17:

117:16:46 Schmitt: (To Houston) There's very clear sweeping of the surface by the descent plume out, oh, about 10 meters. No, 15 meters.

Or the photos of discoloured ground under the engine bells of other missions?

No, you just want to ignore research not by NASA but by two other independent space agencies, both of which also saw ground disturbed by human activity.

As for angles of light, and "viewing angles"? No way.

This phenomenon does not exist in reality. Never has. Never will.

It is purely an invention of the Apollo-ites, like yourself, to try and excuse the problem. You pretend to explain it is based on 'science', when you know very well it is no such thing.

That is why I've challenged you to prove this 'phenomenon' exists in the real world. Show me a single example of this phenomenon here on Earth. I'd love to see it!

No. You've challenged it for one reason and one reason alone, because you think it can't be found.

If you can't show any examples of it, as I suspect you won't, then it's up to you to actually do it yourself.
For instance, create an area similar to the 'halo', in some way. Of course, you will not be able to see it from the ground. You must only be able to see it from from, say, the top floor of a 50 story highrise, looking down on it!

And I don't care how you want to do it, or what materials you use, or what surface you want to change, or whatever...

I just want you to PROVE it to me, in any way, shape, or form.


If you cannot meet this challenge, then you must surely realize that this 'unique' phenomenon does not actually exist ... agreed?

No. It does exist, you just refuse to admit it. Just like it exists in these images from Mars:

astroengine.com...

What you need to do is prove that the data form the moon are wrong - that there is no change in surface reflectance as demonstrated by Japan and India. You should be able to do that, right?

Meanwhile, you can tell me what this is:

originally posted by: turbonium1
As for angles of light, and "viewing angles"? No way.

This phenomenon does not exist in reality. Never has. Never will.

explain why the areas circled in red are darker than the areas circled in black..

if this "unique" phenomenon is made up BS like you say it is, they should all be exactly the same brightness..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Your failure to understand the data does not mean they are impossible. The scientists how do understand them are quite happy with them.

They do understand them, and they are probably quite happy in being able to ignore them, so completely!

Why do you think they would totally ignore Apollo data? That is the real question...

Prove they are ignoring Apollo data. Provide some evidence for this, or admit you made it up.

I've already shown their documents which ignore Apollo's data, but I can re-post them, as a refresher...soon as I can find them, as it's been awhile since it came up....

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
As for angles of light, and "viewing angles"? No way.

This phenomenon does not exist in reality. Never has. Never will.

explain why the areas circled in red are darker than the areas circled in black..

if this "unique" phenomenon is made up BS like you say it is, they should all be exactly the same brightness..

That's not your 'phenomenon', for one thing.....

What you said was that this area is seen/imaged only from orbit, and not on the ground, because of angle of light, etc.

That's your challenge, as I told you before...

Your images of lighting angles don't support your argument, in any way...

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's not your 'phenomenon', for one thing.....

What you said was that this area is seen/imaged only from orbit, and not on the ground, because of angle of light, etc.

oh really? you think the angles from the images taken from the surface are the same as those taken from the LRO??


p.s. why can everybody see a visible difference in the surveyor crater when comparing before and after images of the surveyor 3 and apollo 12 landings? why does the crater become more reflective?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Your failure to understand the data does not mean they are impossible. The scientists how do understand them are quite happy with them.

They do understand them, and they are probably quite happy in being able to ignore them, so completely!

Why do you think they would totally ignore Apollo data? That is the real question...

Prove they are ignoring Apollo data. Provide some evidence for this, or admit you made it up.

I've already shown their documents which ignore Apollo's data, but I can re-post them, as a refresher...soon as I can find them, as it's been awhile since it came up....

No you haven't.

What you will have shown are documents you claim ignore Apollo data but do nothing of the sort.

Don't bother doing that, identify the feature in the photo I posted above.

Then go and research the Corona satellite programme and make your claim again about the impossibility of resolving small details from orbit.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

So you don't want to discuss the same feature observed in Apollo 12, or the comments by Jack Schmitt in Apollo 17:

117:16:46 Schmitt: (To Houston) There's very clear sweeping of the surface by the descent plume out, oh, about 10 meters. No, 15 meters.

Or the photos of discoloured ground under the engine bells of other missions?

No, you just want to ignore research not by NASA but by two other independent space agencies, both of which also saw ground disturbed by human activity.


No. It does exist, you just refuse to admit it. Just like it exists in these images from Mars:

astroengine.com...

What you need to do is prove that the data form the moon are wrong - that there is no change in surface reflectance as demonstrated by Japan and India. You should be able to do that, right?

You still need to prove your own claims!

Your claim is that images show details of landing sites, with footpaths, and tire tracks. They all match up perfectly to Apollo footpaths, and tire tracks, left on the lunar surface during their missions. And, other nations have taken images which match up perfectly to the NASA images.

But when it does NOT match to Apollo landing sites, to begin with, all you do is make up a 'phenomenon' that doesn't exist, as if it's reality! As if it's an established fact or something!

You cannot show a single example of this 'phenomenon' exists, in reality.

You cannot create, or describe how to create, this 'phenomenon' on Earth, in any way, shape, or form. To prove it exists, we must be able to duplicate it.

This phenomenon is simply a fantasy, created out of nothing, to 'refute' the truth, no matter what it takes, to not admit failure..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

So you don't want to discuss the same feature observed in Apollo 12, or the comments by Jack Schmitt in Apollo 17:

117:16:46 Schmitt: (To Houston) There's very clear sweeping of the surface by the descent plume out, oh, about 10 meters. No, 15 meters.

Or the photos of discoloured ground under the engine bells of other missions?

No, you just want to ignore research not by NASA but by two other independent space agencies, both of which also saw ground disturbed by human activity.


No. It does exist, you just refuse to admit it. Just like it exists in these images from Mars:

astroengine.com...

What you need to do is prove that the data form the moon are wrong - that there is no change in surface reflectance as demonstrated by Japan and India. You should be able to do that, right?

You still need to prove your own claims!

Your claim is that images show details of landing sites, with footpaths, and tire tracks. They all match up perfectly to Apollo footpaths, and tire tracks, left on the lunar surface during their missions. And, other nations have taken images which match up perfectly to the NASA images.

But when it does NOT match to Apollo landing sites, to begin with, all you do is make up a 'phenomenon' that doesn't exist, as if it's reality! As if it's an established fact or something!

You cannot show a single example of this 'phenomenon' exists, in reality.

You cannot create, or describe how to create, this 'phenomenon' on Earth, in any way, shape, or form. To prove it exists, we must be able to duplicate it.

This phenomenon is simply a fantasy, created out of nothing, to 'refute' the truth, no matter what it takes, to not admit failure..