Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: Ove38

Of course the stone found in northwest Africa didn't "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" A more believable explanation would be, that both stones originated from somewhere else, one fell on Earth the other one on the Moon.

Did you think what you wrote before you wrote it? I ask because what you wrote does not seem to make any sense.

How is what you said in any way more sensible than both rocks originating from the same general location on the Moon?

Because our contributor just doesn't get it, here is a pan of Plum and Buster crater compared with a compilation of frames from the live TV broadcast showing the same location. I've drawn a couple of arrows to help show that the craters are visible in each:



You can make out Big Muley in both.

Here is the LRO view of the same craters (right) as well as Chandrayaan's view (left) to prove the LRO isn't making it up. The same craters are identified.



Bu all means find a pre-Apollo image with those craters in them, and by all means provide a critique of the scientific analyses of the rock.

You can find more discussion of Apollo 16's surface imagery here

onebigmonkey.com...

a reply to: Ove38

What you think something looks like and what it is are two different things. There us no insulation foil missing. The panel where there is apparently no insulation is where the LRV is stowed. The foil is behind it.

www.collectspace.com...

What creates disbelief in Apollo is ignorance. Ignorance and a lack of ability to think independently.

And just in case he doesn't believe that, here is Apollo 15's LRV deployment where you can see the same panels as in the Apollo 16 undocking.



Here's the difference between us:

I originally posted that the 'missing' foil was just down to camera angle, which I believed it was. Then I looked again and realised I wasn't right, so I did some more research and found a more reasonable (and correct) explanation for it.

What I didn't do was continue to insist I was right even when the evidence said I wasn't and make up some complete nonsense to cover up my mistake.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
big muley is proof

100% proof

it's too big to pick up with a probe, it must have been a human

big muley

You don't think it could be from Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa ?

new.meteoris.de...

of course not, I posted a picture of charlie duke picking it up. it's all in the post

Well, I posted a link saying that a stone found at Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa "may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" Wouldn't that be Charlie Duke's flight ? What a marvelous coincidence !? You don't smell something fishy here do you ?

new.meteoris.de...

no.

now onto the baysinger and kaminsky observations. what do you make of those ?

Nasa's fake Moon Dirt

Gaint Leap Failure...

Everyone knows Stanley Kubrick faked Nixon's "China visit" in Los Angeles' Chinatown, right?

a reply to: Misinformation

Where's the link? Where's the rest of the article? Why are you hiding it?

Where does the article say they didn't go to the moon? Did you forget to link to the live TV broadcast, complete with live shots of Earth, where they discovered the orange soil?

a reply to: Misinformation

So what? You expect them to use lunar surface material for something other than geological study? Of course they'll use simulant for testing purposes, it's way cheaper and does the same job.

Surveys have shown that the LEM size doesn't measure up.

" NASA aren’t reliable self-reporters of their measurements. There is a several inch fudge factor if you let NASA do the reporting themselves,”

originally posted by: Misinformation
Surveys have shown that the LEM size doesn't measure up.

" NASA aren’t reliable self-reporters of their measurements. There is a several inch fudge factor if you let NASA do the reporting themselves,”

lets turn the tables.

I would like you to explain how the hoax was perpetrated. i want video, photos, dates, places, times and evidence

please understand I am not talking about debunking the NASA footage, I mean show me the hoax footage. show me the evidence. if it was filmed in a hollywood basement.....

where was it filmed, what is your proof ?
when was is filmed, what is your proof ?
how was it filmed, what is your proof ?

originally posted by: Misinformation
Surveys have shown that the LEM size doesn't measure up.

you didnt put the link to your claimed survey..

that leads one to believe you have posted deliberate hoax information..

i wonder what would happen if one searches for your quote and finds that its actually in reference to global temperatures and you have deliberately changed it to make it look like they are reffering to the LEM?? would that constitute to posting deliberate hoax information?

originally posted by: choos
why??

if some individual like edward snowden was brave enough to do what he did and run and still be alive today why cant millions of experts?

It's not impossible that someone could speak out someday, as Snowden did...

Do you think this means someone would have spoken out on Apollo being a hoax, because Snowden spoke out, then?

Not so...

originally posted by: choos
are you saying they use LEO radiation to work out how to protect astronauts against GCR's??

so in a sense you are saying that you acknowledge that GCR's regularly and easily penetrate well into the LEO (which they do) and penetrate into the the aluminum hull of the ISS??

You don't get the problem here...

If Apollo really did send humans to the moon and back, on 9 missions in total, then we'd already know about the environment, the radiation and its effects on humans...

To measure the radiation on each and every mission, then say it's not used because we are exclusively talking about 'long-term' missions, is total nonsense...

No excuse, here..

originally posted by: choos
or you know, a long term mission like a mission to mars needs a thorough study and studying short term missions for a trip to mars is like one step forward two steps back sort of method.. but you are the expert here ofcourse no one should ever doubt your opinions.

You think it's only about long-term missions, if they talk about only long-term missions - and that's such a crock!

They point out long-term missions as being more hazardous to humans than shorter ones - no sh__ !!.

They DO NOT exclude any other missions, as I've told you, over and over again, ad nauseum.

No data was shown in the paper, only crude 'guess-timates'.

You find data from another source, to 'replace' it, and let's all move along now, folks!


It is not in the paper - no dice!

a reply to: choos

originally posted by : choos

originally posted by: Misinformation
Surveys have shown that the LEM size doesn't measure up.

you didnt put the link to your claimed survey..

that leads one to believe you have posted deliberate hoax information..

i wonder what would happen if one searches for your quote and finds that its actually in reference to global temperatures and you have deliberately changed it to make it look like they are reffering to the LEM?? would that constitute to posting deliberate hoax information?

The only thing I can think of that s/he may be referring to is a guy who took the LRO images of the landing site and footprints and compared the pixel size of a scaled down picture of a rover. Apparently it's too big (or too small, I don't remember). You can see 4 legs or "points" on the lander in the NASA image, but it's not as clear as you would expect. Which is weird because we have satellite pics of places on earth that are extremely detailed, I mean you can see a car easily, and these are higher up than the LRO is from the Moon and in addition to that looking through atmosphere. These are just a few points the guy made. It's a Richard Hall interview, it's on YouTube. Just search his name plus Moon Hoax. I'm not sure if the section on the LRO imagery is in part 1 or part 2. I'm not on either side truly. I really want to believe we went, I think we did. I am pretty off-put by some of their image manipulation though.

a reply to: Brildenlanch

Which is weird because we have satellite pics of places on earth that are extremely detailed, I mean you can see a car easily, and these are higher up than the LRO is from the Moon and in addition to that looking through atmosphere

Not really. Unless you are talking about Google Earth, which uses aerial (from airplanes) photography for that "extremely detailed" imagery.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Brildenlanch

Which is weird because we have satellite pics of places on earth that are extremely detailed, I mean you can see a car easily, and these are higher up than the LRO is from the Moon and in addition to that looking through atmosphere

Not really. Unless you are talking about Google Earth, which uses aerial (from airplanes) photography for that "extremely detailed" imagery.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually I'm referring to Geoeye. Check it out, pretty amazing stuff.

www.satimagingcorp.com...

originally posted by: turbonium1

It's not impossible that someone could speak out someday, as Snowden did...

Do you think this means someone would have spoken out on Apollo being a hoax, because Snowden spoke out, then?

Not so...

im sure with something as big as this.. more than one would have, it should have been a certainty..
you are talking about scientists and engineers that have nothing to do with the program afterall.. you are the one claiming that they all can see the data and can tell its fake yet they all are silent about it even though they have nothing to do with it.

You don't get the problem here...

If Apollo really did send humans to the moon and back, on 9 missions in total, then we'd already know about the environment, the radiation and its effects on humans...

To measure the radiation on each and every mission, then say it's not used because we are exclusively talking about 'long-term' missions, is total nonsense...

No excuse, here..

thats not the problem.. that is YOUR OPINION.. the problem with your opinion is that GCR's were low enough to not be a concern for the 2 weeks they spent in deep space..

another problem with your opinion was that you claimed they had to extrapolate data obtained from LEO.. how did they get GCR data from LEO? it sounds like you are saying GCR's regularly penetrate the ALUMINIUM hull of the ISS.

You think it's only about long-term missions, if they talk about only long-term missions - and that's such a crock!

They point out long-term missions as being more hazardous to humans than shorter ones - no sh__ !!.

case closed.. thank you for finally admitting it.

They DO NOT exclude any other missions, as I've told you, over and over again, ad nauseum.

No data was shown in the paper, only crude 'guess-timates'.

of which you just claimed that the data was from LEO right??

You find data from another source, to 'replace' it, and let's all move along now, folks!

It is not in the paper - no dice!

another source?? the numbers i have been quoting from are from the article you originally posted..

the numbers which say that in order to bring exposure to GCR's down to acceptable ANNUAL limits would require about 40-50g/cm^2 of aluminium.. your own article says that, i just cant remember the exact number.

a reply to: Brildenlanch

I mean you can see a car easily, and these are higher up than the LRO is from the Moon and in addition to that looking through atmosphere.

the thing about this is that, everyone is familiar with the general shape of a car..
the edges of the car maybe fuzzy looking and all but we can still make out the general shape, but unless you are quite knowledgable you cant make out the make or model.

originally posted by: Brildenlanch
a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Brildenlanch

Which is weird because we have satellite pics of places on earth that are extremely detailed, I mean you can see a car easily, and these are higher up than the LRO is from the Moon and in addition to that looking through atmosphere

Not really. Unless you are talking about Google Earth, which uses aerial (from airplanes) photography for that "extremely detailed" imagery.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually I'm referring to Geoeye. Check it out, pretty amazing stuff.

www.satimagingcorp.com...

You didn't bother with the link, did you?

Yes. Geoeye can give us 0.5 meter resolution. We get a bit better from LROC.
www.landinfo.com...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Nope. There is a wealth of data from beyond LEO, including the Apollo data, but also including Soviet probes, pre-Apollo probes and probes from many other countries since Apollo. Your lack of ability to find any of it that supports your argument is where you fail.

The "wealth of data" was completely ignored, in their own research papers.

Why would they ignore it, then?

Because they know it is NOT 'genuine' data, obviously...


Look at any other recent documents on the issue, if you wish....


Apollo data is virtually ignored in every one of their papers, or put in a footnote, at very most...!!


This data - if genuine - would be FUNDAMENTAL to these research papers....


For sure.