Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

blah blah blah, so your answer is that the blueprints were not important enough to hold onto which is ridiculous. and then you go on to compare blueprints of one of the most historical machines ever made to a W-9 form. thanks for the attempts at comedy.

Are you SURE they didn't? I'll bet they did because I KNOW they did. The total field of view is different on the two pictures. In each case the Earth takes up 2 degrees as it should.

If it were a light source it would be on the ground between the two them. Do you see it there? No, the only thing in the way, exactly where it should be, is the camera attached to the chest of the astronaut in the picture. It isn't my problem if you don't want to see it.
[link to i398.photobucket.com]

Now do you understand what it feels like to be treated like a twat?

This is what you do ALL the time.

I just wanted you to experience it, it doesn't feel cool huh?

Anyone can play with words, you're an expert at it, but fortunately there a few of us here who can, see through your machinations.

You want respect, and intelligent response to your postings, earn it like the rest of us. Your the one that is making a fool of yourself, adhering to the Gospel of NASA here. Start to engage people here properly with some respect, and humility and honesty, and help us understand things we do not, rather than resort to ridicule.

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.


Just to understand,

This : [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Was taken with a wide a angle lens

And this:


[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Was taken with the 70 mm ??

Is that a correct interpretation of what you saying ??

You know they did? ok so tell me which photo was taken with which camera then... time to put your money where your mouth is

OK, fair point I agree, not entirely as looking at the angle of the camera, one would have to experiment to reproduce it, but it does not explain the intense light illumination, of the astronauts (his left) left side of the helmet, or the PLSS, where is that light coming from? Thank you for link btw.

Just to understand,

This : [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Was taken with a wide a angle lens

And this:


[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Was taken with the 70 mm ??

Is that a correct interpretation of what you saying ??


I don't remember the specific lenses so I will not commit to one or the other but I KNOW they were different.

I wonder if the Background music was edited in by the crew while on the moon ( spare time to kill) or later ...hmmm ?
The voice of the narrator is quite appropiate as well, cowboyish type. Good choice !!

Just to understand,

This : [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Was taken with a wide a angle lens

And this:


[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Was taken with the 70 mm ??

Is that a correct interpretation of what you saying ??


two of the photos i was referring to were actually both taken from the command module..

I do realise the two above that you have listed were taken with different cameras.. however, as much as i can research the lenses were the same so no focal length issue.

reflected from the surface

Notice how not one single believer has addressed the pole with no boot prints around it photo.. im waiting that explanation with excitment..

notice also how none of them have addressed the sun photo issue either...

I love how they just pick and choose what they want to address...

I'll try and track down a Hi Res of this image...the convex shape of the visor could be showing the reflection of the camera, I concede completely, thank you very much for pointing that out. Sometimes we can't see for looking eh! lol...^^

I don't remember the specific lenses so I will not commit to one or the other but I KNOW they were different.

I don't remember the specific lenses so I will not commit to one or the other but I KNOW they were different.


I understand. Of course they are different it seems to me that, if so, one was taken with a wide , 20 mm type and the other would have to be at least a 150 mm, from my photographic knowledge.. Anyway That certainly means that such lenses were on board..I guess. It should be in the photography equipment info I suppose.

Those were serious? I assumed the pole pic was zoomed in and the few prints that were visible were close enough. Can you prove they weren't?
As for the sun, that was the one at the top of the LM right? I don't think the whole disk of the sun is visible. Most of what you see is lens flare and glare from dust on the lens.

That's an interesting one, though I can already guess the response. It will be the same as the response to the "no tracks behind the rover" photo: dust was kicked up afterwards and obscured the tracks/footprints. And then new footprints were made over the re-settled dust.

Though judging from the photos I consider this to be highly unlikely, it is still not completely impossible and so the attack dogs will cling to it until their dying day.

But that's the problem with this whole debate: People who question the story are still intellectually honest and will acknowledge when something is in fact within the realm of possibility, even if it is unlikely. Sadly I've witnessed very little intellectual honesty on the other side.

"What would Earth look like in the sky if you were standing on the Moon? Well, picture how big the Moon looks in the sky when you see it at night, and then look at the image of the Moon above. See how big Earth is in the image? Well, that's how much bigger Earth would appear, compared to the Moon that you're already familiar with. It'd be enormous! Also, due to Earth's much larger size and brightness, Earth would appear fifty times as bright as the Moon would from Earth. Try to imagine all this the next time you're outside at night looking up at the Moon in frustration when you've given up trying to remember where you parked your car."


[link to www.coolsciencefacts.com]

I am having some difficulty with conceptualising standing on the moon and looking at earth, hence trawling through Google to find a non NASA source of data which is proving much more difficult to find than you'd imagine.

I found the above.

Which 'kinda' sits comfortable with my personal 'thinking' on this matter, which is very much at odds with so many NASA images we have been shown, where the earth looks smaller than the moon viewed from earth in many images I have seen.

Any help please to resolve this.

Last Edited by ZIPUX on 03/04/2012 07:28 PM

I have just found a detailed list of the photos, and what lenses were used when each one was taken.. might i say at the outset, many many photos of the earth that are listed as being taken, are not available for public viewing.. im wondering why..

Im mature enough to agree that the focal length issue is real, and where i find myself corrected, i will stand by it and admit it..

i am trying to go through this 200 page document to match up photos used with the varying lenses and match them up.. it is quite possible that I have made an error in some of the photos and that different lenses were used and so some of my examples will of course then be incorrect..

as always i want the truth, and when im wrong, im wrong.. its simple and not hard to admit..

photography mistakes aside, it still does not address the issues we bring up within the photos.. the lack of dust on the LM, the lack of foot prints around the pole, the alternate light sources, the position of the earth, in the moons sky, i realise at this point i will have to do more indepth correlating to address the focal length issue and make sure i have my facts straight in relation to size, which i will do..

Which 'kinda' sits comfortable with my personal 'thinking' on this matter, which is very much at odds with so many NASA images we have been shown, where the earth looks smaller than the moon viewed from earth in many images I have seen.

Any help please to resolve this.


The known fact is that the moon is a qurter the size of the earth.
Like this
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

This was supposedly taken from Apollo
The problem that I have is that the proportion in that photo would be correct if it was taken by a " normal" lens but, and this is a big problem, this photo was supposedly taken with a telephoto lens. The only telephoto carried in that mission was a 500 mm attached to a Hasselblad camera. If so the earth should look much , much bigger.
Very confusing

The Camera expert at Hasselblad who made their gear could not explain this,
he actually tought it looked just like a separate flash,
this guy knows his shit and should know dont you think ;)

this is pretty funny,
look how the astronaut suddenly gets "lifted up" from behind ,, hmm LOL

That's funny. I see the other one helping him up and the one trying to get up with his left arm on the other.

I would think reflected light would look a lot like a fill flash. Doesn't mean the flash was there. Plenty of evidence for reflected light though.

No the pole pic was not zoomed in... so care to explain how they errected it with out getting close enough nor even facing it?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and use another picture of the sun.. a full shot one, so you can be absolutely sure that it is fake..

this is a full sun shot...

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

sun should look like this... lens flare and all

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

The known fact is that the moon is a qurter the size of the earth.
Like this
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

This was supposedly taken from Apollo
The problem that I have is that the proportion in that photo would be correct if it was taken by a " normal" lens but, and this is a big problem, this photo was supposedly taken with a telephoto lens. The only telephoto carried in that mission was a 500 mm attached to a Hasselblad camera. If so the earth should look much , much bigger.
Very confusing


According to the document ive just found, this above picture taken from the command module was taken with a 250mm lens.. not sure how that matches up .. but that is what this photo analysis document says

The known fact is that the moon is a qurter the size of the earth.
Like this
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

This was supposedly taken from Apollo
The problem that I have is that the proportion in that photo would be correct if it was taken by a " normal" lens but, and this is a big problem, this photo was supposedly taken with a telephoto lens. The only telephoto carried in that mission was a 500 mm attached to a Hasselblad camera. If so the earth should look much , much bigger.
Very confusing


..lol...yh...I agree



Hmm, that is one image I have difficulty with, you know the one where they take it from a low angle near the LM, Earth looks really tiny within the image.

Been fortunate to have been in some places on Earth 100's of miles from any artificial light sources, and various locations on Earth, where the moon can look so huge and clear, you feel you could reach out and touch it.

Surely standing on the moon looking towards Earth it would look friggin enormous, the distance would be the same obviously, but surely it would be, well the known facts:

Mean Diameter in KM's

Earth 12,742
Moon 3,476

The Earth is 3.7 times larger in diameter than the moon.

I understand that if you take a photograph with a 20mm lens for example, then the Earth would appear to look small in some of the images we have been shown.

I go along with the link/info I posted earlier, which stated from the Moon, Earth would look enormous, 3.7 times more enormous to be precise. There is no image I have seen to date taken by NASA that demonstrates this.


I don't know why the post is not correct, checked it here now and it looks fine but not displayed properly.....soz....

Last Edited by ZIPUX on 03/04/2012 08:08 PM

This particular camera carried by the astronauts on the LM has brought up some questions for me..

If the chest mounted hasselbald was designed with a trigger action so as to make it simple to use because of the astronauts gloves and the inability to use them with fine motor skills prevent by the bulk of the pressurised suits, then how could they manage to operate this camera..

70-mm Hasselblad Lunar Surface Superwide-Angle Cameras. These cameras, which were carried aboard the lunar module, were operated manually for the shutter and film advance.

If they were supposedly only used within the LM then i guess that would work with their gloves off.. but if this camera was used outside.. how would they manually operate the shutter and film advance with such bulky gloves?

Zoomed in as in they physically had the camera closer. It looked to me like the footprints were close enough.

Why should that pic be fake? Was there or was there not dust on the moon that could have gotten onto the lens and affected the way it looks?