Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

Technically, the Space Shuttle can't even make it off the ground.

"You ignore the answers a lot, too. Not even ask for clarification...just pass right over them" nomuse

Nomuse, I only ignore the insults and smart ass comments or the comments that are so lame as to be laughable.. at no time i have ignored a comment that was constructive or addressed the issue i raised.. and if i did it was purely accidently due to the fast pace of this thread, i do try to go back to the last page i read and start from there and address new posts.. of course once again, im not perfect and infallable, so yes i guess maybe there is a post or two ive missed, and as i said before, if i missed one please tell me and i will appologise and comment..

"Sometimes this is because a different photo of the same scene or the same effect illuminates what may be unclear in the original. Or do you still think every picture is an absolute and unambiguous recording of reality?" nomuse

Oh ok so you are allowed to do it, but when i show two sequencial pictures im told im not allowed to compare two different pictures... wow thats so fair and unbiased.. go for you!

"I may be confusing you with another AC...it is hard getting continuity in a conversation when many are identified only by a strictly temporary 8-digit numeric. One would think this forum would advance enough for everyone, including those who are not current members, to put in a simple name by which they might be known by...." nomuse

I will from now on put my initials at the end of my posts if this will help you keep track of them..

"I don't care about your conclusions.

I care about your methods. If you are going to use obviously wrong facts, and apply them badly, well, these same facts and this same sloppy methodology is what you will be using to interact with the technical world we live in; what you will use to order in stores, to act upon during emergencies, to vote upon when such things are brought before the voting public.

A dislike for and misunderstanding of science stretches far enough to cut budgets for research, stifle innovation in business, lead children away from science classes, shut down museums, etc." nomuse

If you care about the methods then why not correct my method instead of being a smart ass or insulting me and not addressing my questions? Why not say, I can see how you would think that but in fact you should be doing a b c .. not b c a which it looks like you have done to come to the conclusion you did... that would be so much more helpful and takes the exact same time to post as a derogatory comment and unhelpful "next"

LD

And not only that, there wasn't enough battery power for the cheese, and their dacron didn't have a tight enough weave to illuminate the instruments!

That is to say, what? You are aware that radio communication FAR precedes electronic computers, right?

Unless you think they were using Samsung digital phones to call home?

lol... you moran...

how skilled someone is at visual performance is aesthetic opinion. who cares if someone doesn't understand how difficult or technical a certain motion is.

THEY STILL UNDERSTAND WHEN SOMETHING MIRACULOUS OR UNNATURAL HAS OCCURRED. ESPECIALLY INVOLVING HUMANS.

THAT'S WHY IT HAS BEEN SO UNIVERSALLY DIFFICULT TO CREATE REALISTIC HUMAN CGI CHARACTERS. BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS AN INNATE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE A FAKE HUMAN OR FAKE HUMAN MOTION. WE ARE TOO USED TO ALL THE SUBTLETIES OF THE HUMAN BODY, HOW IT LOOKS, AND HOW IT MOVES.



You are spewing complete BS when you try and convince people there is nothing abnormal about that video.

You can not explain it, nor will you try.

All you can say is "you're imagining things"

Very shill-like behavior if you ask me.

Your personal clip has suspect provenance. I watched a clip from NASA's site.

Your selected frame proves nothing...this is exactly the argument, that the frame is wrongly selected.

I've seen a proper comparison done. I don't need to see it revisited unless the new attempt is more carefully done and of greater accuracy.

I don't accept your assumptions. Therefor your exercise is meaningless.

I do not need to "paint in where I think the shadow should be" because I do not believe the shadow should be. I see an astronaut landing in dust and throwing a shower of it. I don't see any reason to expect this presents a perfect viewing surface in which to see a narrow shadow.

I also see the goal posts are on wheels. The first posting of this picture was "There are no shadows!!!" Now there are shadows, but one of them isn't exactly like you expect it to be?

What's next, that you expect the shadow to be a subtly different shade of grey than it is? Those goalposts are already in motion and I don't fancy chasing them down the length of the field.

Once again you have proven you didnt read my post and you didnt look at the pictures linked.. the photo of the shadow, was not of YOUNG.. it was of DUKE who didnt JUMP.. so no DUST should be flying.. wow and you call me incompetent?

Then how about you link me what you deem to be a proper comparison, and some one other than that clavius site, for like you have an aversion to the aulis site, i can not stand it.. just a personal thing, im sure there are many more experts out there who have done comparisons..

AC...11980848





my man.

Woman!

Oh and just so nomuse doesnt accuse me of skipping or ignoring posts here is my response to his "show me photos of the sun from the moon, eva or roll bla bla bla'

How about you do your own research, ive seen them, they are easily accessbile from here
[link to www.apolloarchive.com]

at least I will provide you for the link for you to do your own research..

you're awsome. women who know their shit are sexy.

Unlike you, I don't make baseless claims about others without supporting evidence.

No, but you do sound jealous for some reason. I don't think I know it all, but I do know some things, and it appears that I know more than you and it has nothing to do with the size of my telescope.

I know I'm right because I've done the research and I back up what I say with facts and evidence.

Again, you prove that I know more than you do.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Of course I do, see the posts above, I already thoroughly addressed this issue in the thread. Not only do I know more about it than you do, but you couldn't even be bothered to search the thread before making a long-debunked claim.

Now just for nomuse so he can comment without actually having to look at the things ive referenced or know what im even talking about ..

Discovery: There are 4 sequencial photos of Duke and Young, two of young jumping and saluting, and two of duke standing and saluting.. in the first two of Young jumping and saluting, you can clearly see the ground in front of him and line of the flag pole shadow. There is 95% of this shadow unbroken on undisturbed ground..

The next two photos of Duke standing, not jumping, so no dust displacement here, are in the same spot that young was standing, here you can see an extra couple of boot prints which were made by Young. If you look at the foreground in front of Duke, there is a broken section of shadow, now in my example photos i did include another section to the left of the photo, a short section, and after some consideration and just for the believers, i will give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that maybe this small part could be hidden by a newly displaced mound of moon dust so lets not deal with that small section but concetrate on the large section in front of Duke..

Method: if you follow the line of the shadow from either side in, you will see that it should be lying across an undisturbed part of the soil in front of duke, how do i know its undisturbed, because in the photo of young, there is a small rock on the ground that can be used to reference the piece of ground in question, this small rock is still visible in the photo of duke, so the ground has obviously not been disturbed or this small rock would not still be there..

Conclusion: does this prove we didnt go to the moon? NO.. does it suggest possible manipulation of photos? I say yes.. if anyone can show using the same method that I have in the linked photo where there is a shadow, following the line of the shadow, I will happily concede that I was mistaken..

orignals:

1st photo: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

2nd photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

3rd photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

4th photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

my working out so the teacher can see where i draw my conclusions from:
[link to i496.photobucket.com]

So you admit to selectively choosing a frame when the astronaut was at the apex of his jump with the flap was in fact the front flap and the camera was BEHIND the astronaut and on the ground. You are such a dishonest liar.

Sorry, not buying your horseshit, you already lost all credibility with me.

They do match, you lied about what they contained. No shit you can't see the front flap from behind when the astronaut is high up, but you can see it when he's closer to the ground and it's clearly loose and flapping. It's completely consistent with the photograph taken from the opposite side. You lied about what it showed, this matter is settled.

No, there isn't. The only thing that's obvious is that you are dishonest. You've completely lost your credibility with me.

I was going enquire about the lack of sun visor in the film and photos but figured i would be accused of just skipping to the next point before my previous one was resolved so im keeping that one and a couple of others in check till the current ones are resolved..

For the entertainment.


Oooh...

So you only want to talk to people who already agree with you.
Like a clubhouse, not a discussion forum.

If you want to be a peddler of bullshit, in public, expect to be called out.


Apparently 'help' means not disagreeing with you.


They go to educational boards.
You know, the Education Forum, JREF, BAUT, there are dozens of 'm.

_____________________________________________________________​__________


The non-current Space Shuttle was designed to be able to lift 30 tonne loads in to LEO, and just that.
It did that, rather uneconomically


No.
A Saturn V stack can make it*.
It, unlike the Space Shuttle, was designed to make it.

*Or rather get a couple of dozen tonnes into Lunar orbit.


Wut.

Yet another moran who thinks that his lack of understanding reflects on anything but himself.

_____________________________________________________________​__________


Self-portrait?


"Known" things are things that have been proven to be true.

If you think you can proof it, PROOF it.
Just saying it is something is the logical fallacy known as proof by assertion which, of course, isn't proof at all.


Others disagree.

So WITHOUT EVIDENCE where does that leave you?
As yet another internet blowhard with an unevidenced opinion.


Others disagree.

So WITHOUT EVIDENCE where does that leave you?
As yet another internet blowhard with an unevidenced opinion.


I'm not the one people in RL make fun off.

You're an intellectual feather weight, with delusions of relevance.
A town's fool, a court jester, a chewtoy...


Talk to Congress, they hold the purse.
They not only decide how much money NASA gets, but also where to spend it on.
They pretty much try to micromanage it.

Which might be one of the reason NASA these days kind of sucks.


Appeal to ridicule is also, in fact, NOT an argument.

1.Well the still frame is of him at the top of his jump, so to compare it with the same moment of film is what a comparison is, isnt it? correct me if Im wrong but I thought that was the point of comparing the two, to compare two totally different moments would not be comparing them would it? so how else do you suggest I compare the top of the jump in the still photo to the top of the jump in the film without pausing it on the frame of the top of the jump?

what is inconsistant Astro is your ability to follow along.. if you look at the PLSS design, you will see that there is a back flap that clips on top of the front flap, for this front flap to be flapping, the back flap must be unfastened too..

now this little fact makes it even more obvious the two events did not happen at the same time, because you can clearly see the top back flap is not moving either, based on the measurements of both these pieces of material,and based on the fact that while at the bottom of his jump he is bent forward so the front top flap would be even more hidden than when erect and at the point of his jump, one can conclude that the shots were taken at different times..

I did include a second post to appologise for not including the back flap situation in the original post because of things going on here at home..

I am not lying and I will happily use any video you deem worthy to do the same observation on and conclude that I will come up with the same conclusion.. if you can offer any insight at all as to how the front top flap moves when the back top flap is secured over it, I will be happy to hear it..

The question is whether or not the video shows the same event as the photo. It does. The video camera can't see the flap at the apex of the jump BECAUSE THE ASTRONAUT IS HIGH ABOVE THE CAMERA AND THE CAMERA IS BEHIND HIM AND IT'S THE FRONT FLAP!

so busted astro.. taking a quote from a completely different post and attributing it to this one... who is the liar now eh?

This was the quote i made about the film and the jump and the PLSS malfunction, my claim for this particular instance is not manipulation, but that its taken at a different time than the film.. the photo i referred to as being manipulated, was the one of duke, not young... gee keep up
Astro!

Oh cutting off my quotes now.. what you dont want to address the issue of the fact that the front flap cant move while the back flap is attached?... why do you that? Im wondering why you cut off half of what is said and dont address the entire post... its very distracting and a little bit distrubing astro.. are you trying to confuse people or are you just not able to address all the points raised and have to stick to just one little bit of the over all picture?

That assumes the back flap has secured the front flap, which it clearly has not. You are a liar, you are not to be trusted, get it? I see right through you.

Horse shit you liar. That was from the same post.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

your little mate clavius would disagree with you astro.. his little pic illustrates nicely how the back one covers the front one

[link to www.clavius.org]

quite clearly the back flap overlaps and covers the top front one.. isnt it?

or do you need this from nasa perhaps to convince you?

[link to www.myspacemuseum.com]

or maybe this close up where i think its pretty obvious the back top flap is covering the front one dont you?

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]



and here we are again with his little flap up.. he is a norty little astronaut isnt he!

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

As far as I remember he does not accept Youtube videos as relevant ones, or ...?

However, I haven't seen the explanation how come that wheels POP-out like baloons on the "Moon" but needs three engineers to pull those out and fix, two to pull the cord (+ five to ten just to watch them struggling) and one to laugh.

OMG you are intellectually challenged... hun.. sweety.. let me take this slow so you totally comprehend it.. here is the quote i made.. now look at the actual pic this time:

"And here is another shot of the same event that i have compared.. comparing the two photos of both astronauts saluting the flag, there is obvious manipulation of the photo.. now does this prove they didnt go to the moon... NO.. but does it prove that they manipulated photos.. i think yes.. the question is WHY .. what were they hiding if they needed to rub out the shadow in this way.. maybe it was that one legged employee hopping around on the set again? [link to i496.photobucket.com] "

You see where i say.. AND HERE IS ANOTHER SHOT OF THE SAME EVENT, the manipulation i speak of in this quote is in relation to shadow missing of the photo i actually linked, not the salute jump photo... two different instances my dear.. two different aspects of the same event..

If you and nomuse actually clicked on the links and looked at what I referenced when i posted you would not now be being shown for the fool that you are!

One photo shows it was taken at another time.. Young Photo.

The other photo shows it was manipulated... Duke Photo

Once again slowly just for you darlin...

Two

Different

Photos

Of

The

Same

Event

Two

Different

Conclusions

One

Taken

At

A

Different

Time

One

Manipulated


Caught up now... good boy!!!.. :)

here it is working link

[link to i496.photobucket.com]

I'm well aware of that, you just said "taking a quote from a completely different post" I DID NOTHING OF THE SORT, IT WAS FROM THE SAME DAMN POST, AS WAS THE PHOTO YOU LINKED TO WHICH DOES NOT SHOW ANY SIGN OF MANIPULATION! YOU ARE A LIAR, I AM DONE WITH YOU!

why.. cant keep up with me?.. wow.. im so disappointed you are giving up so easily astro, and without even commenting about your little flap issue..

Oh My GOD!