Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

how did they switch between 6.5 and 8.0 nomuse? Ive been looking at the pics of the camera, is that what the numbers around the outside of the lens are?

What was the ASA/ISO of the film being used?

Don't worry, it must have been around 160ASA.

WHAT points?

You can spare the time to get all huffy, but you can't spare the time to re-post, or even synopsize?

I just went back two pages and I'm not grasping which point or points you think absolutely has to be addressed.

I don't know -- I'm not an expert on 1970's still cameras. I barely remember what the f ring looked like on my beloved old Minolta SLR.

All I can say is there is reference to a "tab" being added to make it easier to manipulate.

I don't know. I read part of a pdf but the films listed were for all missions, not just Apollo surface use.

I am not the NASA PAO. Why are you asking me these things?

Ok thanks... maybe Astro will know..

before and after shots included.. fyi.. of course i checked the before and afters...

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Nomuse, while you are online, i have a quick clairfication about the flight path and the van allen belts.. i believe it was you that said they avoided them on their flight path, which from the donut shape of them basically means they left earth orbit from the south pole based on the flat drawing of it i was able to find.. however im looking at apollo 11 photos of the earth and if they are real, they went right the way around the earth.. now wouldnt this take them right through the middle of the most deadliest radiation bands?.. and since they extend over 50,000 kms out into space, it would be pretty hard to avoid them unless you kinda flew down and then back up toward the moon.. and if thats the case how did they know when to "dip" back up to the moon so to speak..

I know you said they travelled through a relatively thin part of the belt but what about the 2nd belt, and how did they know how to plot through that?

Yes and my first computer had 3MB of RAM and cost $2,000, with the advances in technology what they used to get to the moon should be dirt cheap by now. So using that information a program that cost $250 Billion should now be a breeze at $2.5Billion.

Usually, the more you repeat something, the cheaper it gets, not more expensive..

NASA 2012 could have been , solar powered , remote control rovers are parked on hills overlooking the apollo landing sites with HD webcams streaming 24/7 for scientfic and historic value ????

Not even one webcam anywhere close = NASA FAIL !!!

Welcome to Shill-City everyone!

What do you mean? We have those blurry, distant, Google-Earth quality LRO photographs! Not bad for having 40 years to get a peak at the "landing site" huh?

Why bother?
What makes you think you'll be the one that will proof the Massive EvilGubmint™ Conspiracy when thousands have failed over the decades?
You? The one who thinks that dust falls because it is stopped by the air?
You can't even find an obscure website.

But for anyone else: [link to www.mondlandung.net]


Since you already disbelieve so many real things, why would I care that you disbelieve one more?


Since you demonstrated a cognitive bias the size of Antarctica why should I waste my breath?
If you wanted to get educated you'd had gone to an educational site.
You came here to find confirmation of your preconceived notions.
You're not actually listening to the constructive comments anyway.

Nobody owns you anything.
You are responsible for your education.
You are responsible for the validity of your claims.


As if you didn't already.


So how many pound-force of rocket thrust does a gigabyte of RAM produce?

Nice example of wild speculation based on complete ignorance, we should make you honorary Hoaxie of the Month

What part of twisted and distorted do you not understand? What part of could be an impression from something else they had do you not understand (or just want to ignore)?
How do you know the terrain is the same in the two prints you are trying to compare? The upper print with the supposedly longer arc appears to be tilted toward the camera while the lower print appears to be tilted away. Have you bothered to consider how that might affect your measurements?

Funny how you think just one pic on either side is sufficient.

Sure computers are cheaper but that was only a small part of the expense of Apollo. Most of the calculations were done on large mainframes or sliderules anyway. The Apollo Guidance Computer was used for guidance (acted on number fed into it) and didn't really do heavy calculations.
Rocket tech is largely the same and still expensive as hell.

What's supposed to be so special about one astronaut obviouslly helping the other up? Do you not see the one that has fallen with his arm on the other?

well the strange thing In the first part of the vid,

IS that if you note the guy that has tripped
note how his left leg/knee and ass.. is lifted up and slightly slightly away
from the other "A-nut"

did they have big magnets push them slightly away from each other ;)

or maybe that must be gods helping hand then or possible invisible aliens helping out ;) LOL

I'll help you with some more naturalistic responses. If you want to shill for Nasa, this is important.

Here's an example:

"Hey, that does look kinda weird. I've never seen anyone try and stand up while simultaneously lifting one leg in the air. But maybe there's a reason for it?"


or...


"Hey, that does look kinda weird. The standing astronaut does not seem to be burdened even slightly by the fallen astronaut's weight. But maybe there's a reason for it."

or...

"Hey, that does look kinda weird. The astronauts mass appears to move upwards ahead of his leg. And instead of his foot pushing off the ground, his toes actually drag forward as he's righting himself. But maybe there is a reason for it."




See? This way you come across as a regular person. Then you can spam all sorts of scientific facts that show how there is nothing abnormal about this video.

Remember, even though the Astronaut Suit's weight burdens them from jumping high, it can become exceedingly light and burden-free if you need it to corroborate your specific argument in defense of Nasa. It's the power of science!



However, if you just come out of the gate and say "LOOKS NORMAL TO ME, DUM DEE DUM" Then you just reveal yourself as a shill or total idiot.

Hope that helped!

This video is Excellent !!
It gave me a rare opportunity to understand the ingenuity of the whole operation . The Lunar Rover is a tremendous piece of engineering ( 8 million a piece) Theres also a close view on how hole drillers to collect data worked and stuff like that.
Astronauts seemed confident and well trained.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Worth your time !!

It seems they eventually removed the fenders while on the moon. I did not like that part of the design. IMO It looked a little shabby for an 8 million vehicle
[link to www.youtube.com]

It seems their driving was a bit reckless though. With all them tubes, cameras , expensive equipment and stuff

Niiice, now show us the real deal - UNPACKING the shit out there ON the Moon. Video please [link to www.udel.edu]

I bet many would love to see this procedure

[link to www.youtube.com]

I can think of only 2 possible explanations why someone wouldn't be able to find that video.
One of them is not looking.

There's also a video of the procedure shown in your picture.

[link to www.youtube.com]


Considering the attention span of the average GLPer, they might not.
Deploying the LRV was a rather lengthy procedure.



[link to www.youtube.com]

for those of you unaware, no paid Apollo proponent will make any effort to actually engage me on the science, They cry to the mods to have me banned. You couldn't fill a thimble with all of their brains combined.

Have a nice day

Thanks a lot.
Oh by the way what's that explosion of light at 0:54 sec. behind the LEM and the reflection on the sand/dust?


[link to www.youtube.com]
It needs at least three guys, while the wheels don't jump out like on the other video. Or is it because there is vacum (cleaner)

One of the most damning and obvious lies is that to shed as much weight as possible, the astronauts threw everything they didn't need out of the ascent stage before liftoff, yet Armstrong's moon landing suit hangs proudly in the Smithsonian institution.

Isn't it time to admit that Apollo was fraud? Why spend millions of dollars on propaganda to shore up a lie that has outlived it's purpose in the first place?

Why alienate American citizens by attacking them for pointing out this lie?
Why does NASA do nothing but LIE to the people who finance their operations?

^- an upset nasa employee.