Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

my cousin Neil Armstrong says you're full of shit.

You mean like stunt-wire mistakes? Already showed them to you.

It doesn't matter. Shills will come up with any explanation they can. We're not waiting for you to accept and admit that you're wrong. So disregard and go back to playing softball :P

Ignoring the fact that this is maybe the dumbest request you've made thus far, I'm not invested enough in this subject to take those actions.

All I'm doing is my small part, which is to tell people:

I'm a person with qualifications and experience in image manipulation/analysis, and I'm acknowledging that YES there are anomalies in the photos. NO you are not crazy for thinking that the photos don't look right, pay no attention to these old men who are pathologically invested in the official story to an absurd degree.

I will readily admit that the truth behind this mystery may be any number of things, but until the anomalies are actually ADDRESSED and not DISMISSED (as they have been up to this point), they will come up AGAIN and AGAIN.

LOL

HD says you need a "certified expert" to spot fakery. Another gem!

So what if my thought process of discovery, examination and then decision is documented as i go along?.. isnt that actually what science and research is all about?.. I see something, I consider all possibilities ie equipment, sneaker, work boot.. i deliberate, i examine real time examples like my husbands sneakers and work boots, then i come to the final conclusion that it is a work boot and not a sneaker.. this is what research is about.. and the fact that you make fun of it, shows you are not interested in the actual discovery of any kind of information or truth..

You have just been shown a boot print that is not a moon boot, yet now you want a mic boom, so if i get you a mic boom will you then ask for a camera... and if i show that will you then ask for the studio truck to be shown?

Its never ending... you joke about a one legged employee.. really? that was your investigative conclusion?.. there are many possible explanations for why only one print is visible..

now while I admit that yes, there have been things that are brought up and then made clear and do have rational explanations for, and that is good, that is part of the discovery, part of learning.. so why dont you come up with something to explain this..

btw nomuse, i asked you a question about the van allen belts a page or two back.. would appreciate your thoughts on it in case you missed it..

Ahh i see my mistake.. i meant a photo of the moon from earth with a 60mm wide angle.. my bad..

No one has offered any explanation for these two instances, and why there are differences with the video and the still shot of the same event... why?.. is it that this is part of the evidence no one wants to admit to ?

there is no such thing as a certified expert... experts used in court cases are simply people with many years experience in the given field.. and we all know that 'experts' in court can be bought and paid for..

To think there is a certification process for 'experts' shows just how ridiculous you are..

Or maybe he is being helped up by the other astronaut and partially assisted with the stiffness of the suit.

It was posted already quite a few pages back. shows how much they pay attention. Also easily found on youtube.

you have yet to prove anyone is paid to post here. All you have proven is you're an annoying troll. Good luck with that.

He's not an annoying troll, he's THE annoying troll.

The ground is not flat. Funny how you continued to ignore the rest of what he said. Of course you have your agenda.

I for one have yet to see any reason it was impossible. Maybe you have a different definition of the word then everybody else? Here's a clue: it doesn't mean "I can't figure it out so it must not have happened".

not to be confused with "I saw it on TV, so it must have happened."

You are SUCH a liar. I explained it days ago.

Is that one you? I'm operating from all the evidence is externally and internally consistent, the math works, the equipment was capable of the the job, not one single deathbed confession over 40 years, nobody who actually understands it doubts it, etc, etc, etc.

the ground in the two foot square around these prints is definately flat.. and besides, even if you take into account the soft spongy effect of the soil, it doesnt change the fact that the print is half the size of the boot.. no matter what you might like to fantasise about, this fact doesnt change.. it is not a distorted moon boot print. it is not equipment print, since none of the equipment taken with them has this kind of base shape.

I am, in the interests of getting to the bottom of this, open to your explanation of the ground and its inclination.. If you say the ground is not flat, can you demonstrate how it is not.. here is the original high res photo of the entire scene.. show me where the ground around the print is not flat.. now of course its not flat like marble, its soil, but as far as walking surface goes the variation in topsoil orientatioin would be microscopic...

I look forward to your explantion..

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

F.antastic
E.xpectations
A.mazing
R.evelations

F.or
E.ach
A.
R.oad

F.or
E.veryman
A.
R.eligion

F.ace
E.verybody
A.nd
R.ule

F.orget
E.verything
A.nd
R.emember

That

F.or
E.verything
A.
R.eason

Last Edited by Spittin'Cesium on 03/07/2012 06:46 PM

Im going to ignore youre blatantly rude accusation and move on to a clear explanation for those who might find themselves totally confused by your post.. why you mentioned apollo 11 is beyond me when we are talking about the apollo 16 mission, maybe it was a deliberate attempt to suggest that i was referencing two different instances.

You state: The flap is on the astronaut's side of the PLSS, not the top, but nontheless you CAN see the top of that flap in the video and it is anything but motionless.

Extremely confusing statement Astro. The flap that is showing in the still photo is the flap which is on top of the PLSS, not the side.. you can not see it flap in the video..

you mention being able to see a flap moving in the video but that it is the side flap why did you state this, no one is talking about a side flap except you..

here is a side by side that i took showing clearly at the exact moment at the height of his jump

[link to i496.photobucket.com]

You then say:

"Last, but not least, Persy outright lies when he says it was the top flap you see in the picture. It's the front flap just behind the astronaut's head."

Astro, i know it might be difficult to understand but the top flap IS the front flap hun... there are 3 flaps on the PLSS cover, one coming from each side and one coming from the front.. all cliping into place on the top of the PLSS..

Your attempt at confusing the reader is astonishing and i can not believe you would even attempt it..

So just so Astro is not confused lets restate our observation..

In the video of duke and young jumping up to salute the flag, you can not see evidence of the Front Top Flap lifting into the air as he hits the peak of his jump and begins to drop... in the still shot of him performing the same jump, taken at the exact same moment you CAN see the Front Top Flap lifting into the air as he hits the peak of his jump and begins to drop...

This can not be possible if the still was taken at the same time as the video as NASA claims..

in this video of the jump slowed down to 1 frame per second, you can see something moving as Young hits the ground on completion of his jump.. this shows that obviously something on his plss was loose and unsecured, however, if the movement we see is the PLSS Front Top Flap, moving at the bottom of the jump, it would also occur at the top in the video. You would see some indication of it being lifted, and given the measurement of the Front Top Flap, it would be, in my humble opinion, unmissible.

[link to www.youtube.com]

important pic.. PLSS

[link to www.myspacemuseum.com]

Or maybe stuff just looks a little odd in 1/6 gravity? NAAAAHHH!!!! Couldn't be THAT! HAS to be a massive conspiracy!! Heh.. never a dull moment. Thanks for all the yuks!

You call THAT a wire mistake?

(Besides the fact that it doesn't work as a wire...the movement is all wrong).

The typical wire mistake is a visible wire. Not a single flash. When you see a wire, you see a wire. The whole length of it. On Broadway, is particularly obvious.

Or then there are wire stunts gone wrong -- there's a famous video clip going around with an early cue during a production of Peter Pan; instead of flying Pan in through the window, they yanked Wendy out of her bed...and into the set wall.

Or there are the church productions (apparently there's some typical christmas pageant that requires this) in which a young person is spilled from an inadequate harness and dumped thirty feet.

The entire scenario as described by the deniers, from how they think flying technology works, to how they think it is integrated into a production, to how mishaps that are captured on film is handled, is ludicrous and wrong-headed.

It isn't just the space sciences the deniers are ignorant about.

Now why is that above picture important? and why is this, from our freinds at clavius important..

[link to www.clavius.org]

because it shows that the front top flap of the PLSS is covered by the one at the rear..

Yes i was a little vague, in my previous post, and am guilty of not including this, due to some distractions here at home caused me to rush through it.. but if you follow the trail of clues you find that in order for the top front flap in the still to be lifted up, then the covering top back flap that comes from the back must also be open.. which in the video it clearly isnt.. nor in the still..

There is a method to my madness, sometimes its just not apparent lmao..

Anomalies, schmanomalies.

Don't stand around going "I'm an expert." State specifically, concisely, and completely what it is that you find wrong. Find specific examples. Show where in those examples the artifact you claim exists. Provide an alternative explanation, and show how it has superior explanatory power.

You said no one had addressed it. You lied.

No, look at the actual post, I was commenting on a moon hoax video. THEY jumped missions freely and quickly, I simply gave a running commentary which happened to include your claim.

You liar, I clearly showed that it was the front flap, not the top flap.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Front flap, NOT top flap.

Yes, you can, but since it's the front flap not the top flap you can only see the very top of the flap flapping just above the PLSS.

That's because you're lying about which flap it is.

[link to i319.photobucket.com]
It's the front flap, and it is barely visible. You chose a frame where it wasn't, how very truthful of you.

No, the top flap is NOT the front flap you liar.
[link to www.clavius.org]
What Clavius calls the rear flap is what I'm calling the top flap. Percy and you claim that is that flap that is loose, it's not, it's the front flap. You are liars and not to be trusted.

Last Edited by Astromut on 03/07/2012 07:39 PM

without touching him. LOL

Why is "EVA boot" not in that list?




Why does it have the same tread width and spacing of an EVA boot? Why does it have the same depth as an EVA boot print? What effort have you made to find any boots from the period that have a similar tread pattern?



I knew this was too subtle for the denialists. I am not asking for an expanding list. Nor am I asking for something "better" or "bigger" than a boot print.

I am asking for typical gaffs observed in all films.

There are gaffs, such as reflection of crew and equipment, that occur commonly. The kind of gaffs the denialists claim to have found do not typically occur in films.

This is the problem of the positive alternative again. You are not showing evidence FOR a movie set. You are only showing evidence AGAINST it being on the Moon. You haven't made any progress towards a reasonable alternative.





I've got a GREAT one; dust was kicked over some of the prints during the coming and going, and some were partially obscured by someone stepping on them.






Substitute, "Almost all." And could the reason why not every single iota of every single claim have been addressed is that the deniers keep coming up with new ones? It takes only a minute to type out "Where were the stars?" It takes a lot longer than that to explain Dynamic Range 101.



Case in point!




Actually, I have a really good question about the VARB.

NASA: "There are these invisible belts of deadly radiation around the Earth."

Denier: "Cool!"

NASA: "Here is a table of the energies and fluxes of same."

Denier: "Lying scum! They aren't anything like that!"



Do you see the problem?

Liar.

I answered, pages ago.

Jack's still frame is not at the same instant as the Hassie pic.

The Hassie is not located in the same spot as the video camera.

What more do you need? They aren't identical times or angles; why should they look identical?