The Video that shows 100% Man DID NOT land on the Moon

Click here for more information.

reply to post by wmd_2008


no not like that, i don`t even see any streaks, but i do see footprints in a pretty deep pile of dust, directly next to the pad. dust that can make a print like that and have a berm like that should have huge gouges in it from the landing thrusters. speaking of berms if a person can make a berm like that next to his footprint then there certainly should be big berms next the pads of the lander. i`m assuming the lander weighs a lot more than a person so the pads should be buried pretty good in the dust and have very obvious berms.


edit; in fact that dust with the footprints in it shouldn`t even be there that close to the lander and almost directly under the thruster.

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

OK wanna use that photo...look at the landing pad and how clean it is? Must have been a perfect soft landing not to sink any in the dust.

What am I dealing with here look at this then stfu

berms and pad

OH AND YOU CAN SEE THE BENT SENSOR PROBE AND STREAKS is that good enough for you

Originally posted by Tardacus
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

no not like that, i don`t even see any streaks, but i do see footprints in a pretty deep pile of dust, directly next to the pad. dust that can make a print like that and have a berm like that should have huge gouges in it from the landing thrusters. speaking of berms if a person can make a berm like that next to his footprint then there certainly should be big berms next the pads of the lander. i`m assuming the lander weighs a lot more than a person so the pads should be buried pretty good in the dust and have very obvious berms.


edit; in fact that dust with the footprints in it shouldn`t even be there that close to the lander and almost directly under the thruster.

edit on 4-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

The layer of dust wasn't thick you can see streaks(bottom left of that image) and the bent sensor probe on the other image shows the hard surface just a couple of inches under the dust!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Someone went buy and noticed that the landing pad was too clean and threw some token dirt on it.

reply to post by wmd_2008


but enough dust to leave a footprint???hmmmnm

reply to post by wmd_2008


now thats what i would expect to see, i have no problem with that photo. It`s the photos that show no berms,the photos that show the pad sitting on top of the dust, the photos that show not a single pebble or bit of dust in the bowl shaped pads that i have a problem with.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


To the OP, so you implying that all moon craters are the same size?
Hmm i must have taken different astronomy lessons...

Originally posted by rickymouse
Man didn't land on the moon? Those guys must have been Reptilians than. They could have been Vegans also, they are a different breed.

Vegans? Do they not eat meat?

At 3.20 the lander is at 210/220 ft not 400ft, they actually say so in the countdown. They are continually manoeuvring, both turning and still moving laterally, so the same perspective is never held, while the Moon is peppered with craters from gigantic to miniscule. You are kidding yourself. So, if no Moon landings, who took the whole Earth picture from DEEP space at the time of Apollo 11? we know it is real, it matches up exactly with an early NOAA satellite picture taken on the same day in NEO showing but a portion of the Earth, there is no ambiguity.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Or the light source is a very large distance away say 93,000,000 miles so the light is parallel when it arrives at the moon!!!

what?? that doesn`t explain anything. the sun is relatively the same distance from the moon as it is from the earth. hold your finger up in front of the window, now move your finger back and forth across the window,and observe the shadow that it is casting on the far wall, is the shadow moving?

The shadow is from part of the craft and it is moving relative to the surface of the moon but not the window as its part of the lander

what?!
it doesn`t matter that it`s attached to the craft,when the light source changes position the shadow will change position.

The only 2 explainations for why that shadow does not change position on the window are:
1) the light source that is creating the shadow is attached to the craft or
2) the craft is not deviating even an inch in any direction from the light source throughout it`s entire descent and landing.

Has this been posted yet? Mythbusters reflecting a photon pulse at the reflector and getting a spike when they hit Apollo 15's reflector plate.



Image of the reflector plate.

Originally posted by smurfy
They are continually manoeuvring, both turning and still moving laterally,

and yet the shadow on the window never changes position,it never moves up, down, left or right. The only plausable explaination for that is that the object and the light source that is creating the shadow are attached to the lander.
did they have lights on the landers?i don`t know.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


It is unlikely that man has actually landed on the moon all things considered, but mostly because of the ultra thin metal walls of the craft could not have protected the astronauts travelling through the Van Allen Belt which was at it's most intense in 1969. But even if they found a way through it, the footage is most CERTAINLY fake. any Kodak film would have been instantly destroyed beyond recognition by the radiation, not only in the belt, but also from exposure to the radiation on the moon's suface. Just so we're clear... filming on the moon IS NOT POSSIBLE.

reply to post by morethanyou


This really funny.. I have a uncle here in Connecticut, a Engineer that worked for a company that made all the space suits, Even when I was a kid he told me how much engineering and cost went into these space suits.

SO! Why would NASA spend all this money to fake a moon landing.
They could have saved millions for a fake.
Those millions today would probably be a Billion today!
He also worked with the astronauts to instruct them about the suits.

Next thing I will probably tell me how the world could have won W2 without the US... especially the Austrians.. I have heard this before how the US did nothing for them...Remember Leyte Gulf !

Originally posted by nighthawk1954
reply to post by morethanyou

 

This really funny.. I have a uncle here in Connecticut, a Engineer that worked for a company that made all the space suits, Even when I was a kid he told me how much engineering and cost went into these space suits.

SO! Why would NASA spend all this money to fake a moon landing.
They could have saved millions for a fake.
Those millions today would probably be a Billion today!
He also worked with the astronauts to instruct them about the suits.

Next thing I will probably tell me how the world could have won W2 without the US... especially the Austrians.. I have heard this before how the US did nothing for them...Remember Leyte Gulf !

maybe those NASA folks were just using those spacesuits for a little role playing in the bedroom?

seriously though they needed spacesuits to go into space to do their little earth orbiting missions,but having spacesuits don`t equal landing on the moon.

reply to post by mrshakabuku


I call this bull#. Why? Because russian probes that were orbiting the moon, must have gone through van allen's belts, yet they could register a small video clips. According to your theory they couldn't achieve that. And those probes weren't super-armored against radiation, they were made of thin aluminum.

And about radiation doses, they aren't that harmfull as depicted, surely they aren't deadly, but it made its impact on astronauts. Later on they developed flashes in their eyes
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by mrshakabuku
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

It is unlikely that man has actually landed on the moon all things considered, but mostly because of the ultra thin metal walls of the craft could not have protected the astronauts travelling through the Van Allen Belt which was at it's most intense in 1969. But even if they found a way through it, the footage is most CERTAINLY fake. any Kodak film would have been instantly destroyed beyond recognition by the radiation, not only in the belt, but also from exposure to the radiation on the moon's suface. Just so we're clear... filming on the moon IS NOT POSSIBLE.

edit on 4-9-2012 by mrshakabuku because: spelling correction

I`ve often thought the same thing but i never delved into looking into it. even low levels of X-ray radiation will expose camera film like the film used in 1969. Thats why at airports they use to tell you not to take cameras through the x-ray scanners.
I`m assuming that x-ray radiation created by solar flares would be enough to expose the film that they would have taken into space.

Someone else said it best in another one of the 100 moon hoax threads that popped up after Armstrong's death. If you really believe that we spent millions of dollars to dick around in space and fake a moon landing why is it so hard to believe we were there AND lied to? Evidence of landing is there, such as in my above post and video but 4 minutes is too far past the attention span of some people. The footage isn't all that convincing but the remains on the surface are. You should be asking yourself what REALLY happened on the surface and not IF we went.

Many years ago I was returning from a trip to Florida into New Yorks Kennedy Airport. It had been raining all day. I was seated at the window watching as we approach the airport. Kennedy in right on the coast. There are wet lands surrounding the airport. As we landed I was looking at the water and thinking about all the little lakes and tributaries that lead to the ocean even in the middle of a metropolis like NYC. Well as we landed I was looking at the lights that lined the runway and waiting for that BUMP thats says your wheels are on the ground. I never felt the bump but apparently we had already touched down, the street lights I was looking at were really only 6 inches high and the lakes I thought I was looking at were puddles. This really happened. It was just a trick of prespective that made me think I was high up looking down on lakes when I was really on the ground looking at puddles. The illusion only held until I looked at the horizon. If I had looked out instead of looking down I would have realized that we were already landed.