Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

the rover's shadow is likely on the other side of the ridge. The sun is NOT reflecting in the visor. It looks more like the astronaut's camera.

By the way, the size of the sun on a reflection is not a single size. It depends on focal length of the camera, curvature of the reflecting surface, Whether that surface is clean/dirty, or scratched.

I'm sure Hollander could give you the best evidence he's got - A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 from Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, where curators discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.
I'm positive this would be one of the best proof.


Yes indeed, ha ha that a classic ;)

I'm sure Hollander could give you the best evidence he's got - A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 from Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, where curators discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.
I'm positive this would be one of the best proof.

The rock was NOT given by the astronauts, but by an ambassador. It was given to a retired prime minister when the Dutch royal family at the time got nothing. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It was loose and not packaged in anything. The accompanying card did NOT identify it as a Moon rock. NASA didn't give out ANY samples that year. The retired prime minister was said by his family to be hard of hearing.
All the available evidence points to a misunderstanding on the part of the prime minister.

Open the pod bay doors...

Ok i used to be a hand printer
this is a person who takes negative/positives and produces a hand printed colour/B+W print
im sure far better printers were used than myself but if i was asked to print some of the negatives here i would as a matter of course "dodge"out darkend areas
that is i would use my hands/or maybe a round piece of card with a paper clip(like a lolly pop)
if you ensure its a long exposure and move quickly you can lighten the dark areas without leaving a trace by dodging out the light in that area
along with other techniques im sure the originals were enhanced as a matter of course,no self respecting printer wouldnt imo

this was all done before photoshop was even imagined but it dont make the photos fake

Ok i used to be a hand printer
this is a person who takes negative/positives and produces a hand printed colour/B+W print
im sure far better printers were used than myself but if i was asked to print some of the negatives here i would as a matter of course "dodge"out darkend areas
that is i would use my hands/or maybe a round piece of card with a paper clip(like a lolly pop)
if you ensure its a long exposure and move quickly you can lighten the dark areas without leaving a trace by dodging out the light in that area
along with other techniques im sure the originals were enhanced as a matter of course,no self respecting printer wouldnt imo

this was all done before photoshop was even imagined but it dont make the photos fake

I never stated it was the sun reflecting in the visor, what I stated is that the reflection one can see, is what you should expect to see if it were the sun, I mentioned that as there are many NASA images showing refections of the sun in visors that are 3-4 inches in diameter on the visors, which are of course a total fail.

What I am pointing out is the fact that there is in fact a bright source of reflection within the visor in the RIGHT hand side of the visor, when in fact the sun is to the LEFT of the astronaut within the picture, and no I do not agree that reflection in the visor is from the camera.

Look at the shadow cast by the astronaut, it's fair to say it is correct, look at the shadow of the vehicle, the shadow is there, very short, and even slightly at a very different angle. The LV & Astronaut could not have been illuminated by the sun, because we know the sun was low on the horizon, which checks out pretty well with the shadow of the astronaut, I cannot argue that, but I can argue that the same sun at the same time, within the same still, would cause the LV to have shadows in the exact same direction of the astronaut, and not be so short as they are. The light source was slightly behind and above the LV within this image.

This does not account for the reflection within the visor of course. Thats a pretty intense reflection is it not? There is evidence of quite a strong reflected light, or even source of secondary light on the right hand side, you could what we use in photography, just white boards to reflect light from the main source to use a fill in light to hi-light shadows, but this image shows the right hand side of the astronaut quite brightly lit in the shadow side, and again we have to deal where is that light source emanating from to reflect within the visor.

Double post hence Edit.....

Last Edited by ZIPUX on 03/04/2012 05:38 PM

I look in on GLP from time to time to see whether the psychos have come up with any new delusions. They never do...but they never drop any of the old ones either.

This is a great photo and an awesome example of the fakery.. if the astronauts placed this pole in the ground the boot prints would be there, they would closer and they would be toe facing to the pole, unless of course they had inspector gadget arms and inserted the pole into the ground side on.. oh yeah, thats what they did.. wow nasa's technology is fantastic isnt it, to give astronauts extendable arms..




This is something they can not debunk, we know there is no atmosphere and we know they didnt have special lenses or diffusers or special effects camera's etc.. there is no camera in the world that can give you the effect of atmosphere when there is none..

Not only do they have no idea about photography in a zero atmosphere environment but their ridiculous answers only prove further that we didnt put a man on the moon.. the photos of the moon from orbit are most definately real, but taken by unmanned craft..

We have many many photos of the sun from the space station, every single one of them, including photos of the astronauts with the reflection of the sun in their visors, and in every single one with no exception, the sun's rays effect is strikingly pointed and star like.. why because thats what happens when you take a picture of it in zero atmosphere..

The great point about the sun photo is that it is solid evidence .. and to prove it even further here is a photo from apollo 11, in earth orbit just after take off..

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Note there is some reflection from the window, however more importantly note the crisp pointed 'rays' of the sun (yes ive heard a photographer speaking of the technical term for this, but as im not copying and pasting i cant recall the term right now, however the name for it is less important than the actual event)

This above photo was taken above our atmosphere, in orbit.. a photo of the sun from apollo in zero atmosphere.. every photo of the sun from the moon should look like this also.. do they? No..


Lets also go back to the size of the earth in the photos.. apollo 11 took a series of shots as they came over the earth facing side of the moon from the command module.. here is the first one of them.. notice the size of the earth from the command module.. this size will not change in the few hours they were on the moon.. right?.. because the earth doesnt rotate around the moon .. right?.. yes youre right..

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Ok.. so beautiful shot.. breathtaking.. now.. remember the size of the earth from the command module as you look at this next picture taken in the next 30 mins as the Lunar Module is released from the command module.. taken from the cockpit of the command module..

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Notice anything strange there?.. can you see the earth?.. No?... let me point it out... its that teeny weeny little dot just above the front of the LM... wow how'd it get so tiny? only half an hour before the earth was in all its magnificent glory coming into view as the command module rounded the top edge of the moon and onto its earth facing front.. how can that be?

.. the earth obviously dosent move that quickly and it certainly doesnt move away from the moon as its traversing our solar system.. the photo is taken from roughly the same place in orbit.. so how did the earth get so little in such a short time.. its magic i tell ya!!

Here is that photo of the LM on the ground again.. here we go again with the little earth.. lets just deal with the size issue here for now, because the position is also wrong, but that should be obvious to anyone lol

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

where only, what? an hour ago, the earth looked 50 times bigger..

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

wonder how the earth does that.. or better yet.. wonder what kind of magical cameras they had to make this happen..

sorry about the above post not having my comment attached.. i was laughing so hard at the bolded comment i couldnt control my fingers..

Did a believer just give us proof of the fraudulent nature of the photo? I think so.. "its not the sun reflecting in his visor"... dead right buddy, its a secondary light source.. well golly gosh how can that be if they are on the moon?... Oh you say its the camera reflecting in his visor.. the hasselbalds had flashes did they?.. hmm no.. so couldnt be the flash.. so how else do you suggest the 'camera' was reflecting in his visor? ..

I never stated it was the sun reflecting in the visor, what I stated is that the reflection one can see, is what you should expect to see if it were the sun, I mentioned that as there are many NASA images showing refections of the sun in visors that are 3-4 inches in diameter on the visors, which are of course a total fail.

What I am pointing out is the fact that there is in fact a bright source of reflection within the visor in the RIGHT hand side of the visor, when in fact the sun is to the LEFT of the astronaut within the picture, and no I do not agree that reflection in the visor is from the camera.

Look at the shadow cast by the astronaut, it's fair to say it is correct, look at the shadow of the vehicle, the shadow is there, very short, and even slightly at a very different angle. The LV & Astronaut could not have been illuminated by the sun, because we know the sun was low on the horizon, which checks out pretty well with the shadow of the astronaut, I cannot argue that, but I can argue that the same sun at the same time, within the same still, would cause the LV to have shadows in the exact same direction of the astronaut, and not be so short as they are. The light source was slightly behind and above the LV within this image.

This does not account for the reflection within the visor of course. Thats a pretty intense reflection is it not? There is evidence of quite a strong reflected light, or even source of secondary light on the right hand side, you could what we use in photography, just white boards to reflect light from the main source to use a fill in light to hi-light shadows, but this image shows the right hand side of the astronaut quite brightly lit in the shadow side, and again we have to deal where is that light source emanating from to reflect within the visor.

And the point of this most amazing insightful comment of yours?

Taking a lunar vehicle was quite a challange I guess.. Does any of you know what was the purpose of such an - I would say - risky/expensive/difficult undertaking ... .?? Travel around...rock collection ..??

There is something else I havent heard anyone explain... the issue of the dust upon landing.. now.. here is the photo of one of the legs of the LM

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Clean, crisp, beautiful in all its tinfoil glory.. but wait a minute..where is the moon dust all over it from landing? 10,000 pounds of downward thrust from that little rocket on the underneath of the LM and it didnt blow up one spec of dust?.. really?.. wow.. i want to go live on the moon where I dont ever have to dust again...

This is in direct contradiction to their little vid of the landing.. well it isnt actually when you realise that in the film it wasnt dust being kicked up at all but a lame ass attempt at special effects... but lets just go with the believers for a second.. the film of the landing shows 'dust' being blown everywhere as they descend down to the surface... so there is 'evidence' the dust was kicked up .. so what happened? armstrong jumped out and gave it a quick vac and clean before he took the photo... now i could stretch my belief meter if there was even a spec of dust on these legs.. but after a landing, on a dusty surface,there is no trace of dust on the LM... come on .. you people dont really expect us to believe that do you?... lets remember also we see the lunar rover in future missions quite dusty and dirty.. just from driving around.. not to mention a full rocket thrust in all its wonderment landing on the surface of the moon... lets hear nomuses answer for that lmao

That's ok about the posting above, GLP has been playing up a bit today I notice.

...& yup I do think you're correct, the guy must be a moron lol.....what an idiot...

Which case?

Since you didn't apparently read my complete post, I'll repeat -- the MAJORITY of the specific comments I have made refer to general science and do not require NASA for anything.

You want to spin it differently? Then come up with a "case" that you think was only and can only be answered by considering some NASA document as gospel.

Different focal length. In each case the Earth takes up 2 degrees as it should. The difference is that the cameras had different sizes on the field of view.

Why did you change the sense of my response?

Were you unable to address the reality of what I said, and had to make up a lie about what I said?

The paperwork isn't arbitrary. The point at which you have "enough" paperwork is arbitrary.

I said "arbitrary list." You subsisted "arbitrary," connecting the verb to the wrong subject. Real honest of you.

Although it is clear where that point is for you: at whatever depth of paperwork you believe (however erroneously) no-one is able to provide you.

No, it is the camera of the astronaut in the picture. He has a camera attached to and sticking out from his chest. Do you really not see that? There is no secondary lighting. If there were they would be multiple shadows on each object.

I still say the reflection in the visor is of the astronaut's own camera. The same astronaut in the picture. The camera is attached to his chest and sticking out quite a bit. It is seen in his own visor due to the highly curved glass. The shadow of the rover is simply affected by and hidden by terrain.

...gosh the 'Neil popped out to do some quick dusting/vac'....really made me laugh....thanks ...don't often to get a laugh on this thread lol.,.....

...but yeah of course it's beyond ....belief...who with a sane mind could conclude not a spec of dust after experiencing the blast of 10,000 pounds of thrust, from a rocket burning Hydrazine & Nitrogen Tetroxide, which must have if occurred, thrown up a huge amount of material. Afterwards though all the dust was still there, none of it as you have pointed out on the feet of the 'flying bedstead' as I affectionately refer it as, but still there for Neil and Buzz to leave footprints in. What a joke.

[link to www.youtube.com]

This rover was quite a vehicle , unlike the LM rockets it shed moon dust, it jumps, and runs like a 4 wheel drive . They werent even afraid of a rollover
Amazing stuff !!

You can think it could have been a Clanger .....

[link to www.google.co.uk]

...... that popped up and took a picture hence the light in the visor, it doesn't make it true, although more probable than the camera being the cause of the intense bright refection in the visor.....that is a secondary light source .....ask 'nomuse' he's an expert in knowing where these reflected light sources emanate from, 'apparently.


FYI: Secondary light sources can be fill in light, much lower intensity that main light source which would burn out faint secondary shadows.

And .. have we been to the Mars, ähm, Moon?

70-mm Hasselblad Electric Camera. This camera, which was carried aboard the command module, featured a motor-drive mechanism, powered by two nickel-cadmium batteries, that advanced the film and cocked the shutter whenever the camera was activated.

This was the camera they used to take both shots.. now explain your focal length theory...

What is focal length?. Very simply, it is the distance from the lens to the film, when focused on a subject at infinity. In other words, focal length equals image distance for a far subject. To focus on something closer than infinity, the lens is moved farther away from the film. This is why most lenses get longer when you turn the focusing ring.

You need to change the lens to change the focal length.. this didnt happen with the above camera..

Dodging a photo does not create specular highlights. So unfortunately, your theory does not apply in this case.