Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

Sure

You cut and paste the definition of obfuscate first though.

OK then, maybe you can explain exactly what in my reply is BS.

Maybe if you developed your reading skills a bit, you'd notice I never said we "knew all about the moon", just that we have a lot of information already, and a rover is unlikely to add much of value to that.

I also didn't imply that we needed to study mars "real soon", just that it's a much more interesting, and continually changing place, and a rover can return a lot of new and useful information.

And you still haven't answered the question as to what value you think a lunar rover would be. What exactly do you think it's going to tell us about the moon that we don't already know?

Oh, do you mean all the hoax-believers shilling their party line, parroting "facts" from other web sites without really understanding what they're talking about, or being able to take part in a rational discussion?

Yeah, that can be a pain, but we "debunkers" have learned to live with it...

“We don’t know why the near side of the Moon is different from the far side. In fact we know more about Mars than the Moon.”

~ David Lehman, project manager for GRAIL at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

[link to www.universetoday.com]





what a joke.

Oh please what? A photo taken a few minutes apart should show the sun as the same size regardless of angle, the lens was the same the camera was the same.. why would there be a difference? The lens flare would change due to the change in position of the photographer, but how does the sun change size if the equipment being used doesnt change?

I still am waiting on the blue reflection question to be answered. If someone has answered this prior to me joining the thread could you please direct me to the page of the reply ty.

Im still waiting on someone to show me where the shadow is on the duke photo.. and no menow, just saying its there isnt enough, because I can say I can see a beam in a photo or say I can see anything, saying it isnt evidence.. as you and your crew continually point out.

So based on the standards you guys have set, when someone 'shows' me where that shadow is/should be etc then I will judge the evidence for myself, until then i will continue to request it. Failure to produce the evidence consistantly however does nothing to support the 'for' cause.

While there are things that can be explained, ive noticed that the pro team consistantly ignore things that cant be and just gloss over them .. as in the above comment by nomuse and the continued prattling by menow about how she 'sees' it but wont provide any evidence of what she sees..

This is what is causing the tension. Pages and pages of avoidance on certain questions. When they are answered simply and clearly demonstrated, I concede to it.. its when they are ignored or flippantly brushed away that I take issue..

With regard to the solar flare issue, I posted a list of flares quite a while back that listed all the flares recorded during the 'moon visits' ... let me just say that all of them were earth directed or earth glancing as at the time they were recorded they were visually sighted as we didnt have the solar satellites we have now. All recorded flares through the 50's 60's and 70's were on the earth facing side of the sun as we had no way to visually detect solar flares from the other side.

Were all of these deadly? no.. but any solar flare earth directed is going to effect the moon.. and for nasa to say there were none, is simply a lie..

That's one person's opinion, and since he has a vested interest in a lunar mission, he might be just ever so slightly biased...

It also raises the interesting point that although we might not have sent a rover to the moon, but we've sent several other missions, all of which have returned a lot of useful information, most of which a rover would not have been able to provide.

So, tell me why you're so keen for us to send a limited range, limited capability surface rover instead of spending the limited funding on more productive missions, to the moon or to Mars...


Yes, you are indeed!!

yes, and it is my opinion you are a complete tool that will say anything in defense of your Nasa Priesthood.

Astro, I believe in the possibility that all these above mentioned people met 'untimely' deaths, i also believe in the possibility that they were just accidents.. the thing is that there are records of people in nasa's long infamous history that have spoken out against them and found themselves the victims of accidents.. coincidence? maybe, but then maybe not..

the first question isnt: 'were they offed to be silenced' the first question is: 'is it at all possible that they were offed to be silenced?'... the answer to that is always a yes.. of course its possible.. once you start with an open mind, the rest usually follows..

The pro nasa team call us a myriad of names for believing we didnt go to the moon.. yet when you start out from the point of 'is it possible they faked it?' and come up with a yes, and then look at the issues brought up from a point of view like that, the perspective changes.. when you look at something from a perspective of 'its not possible' then you can see nothing at all that might give rise to the truth because of the narrow perspective you are viewing it from..

First of all, David Lehman did not say that. You lied. Maria Zuber, the PI on GRAIL, said that. Secondly, the quote is in reference to the interior of the moon which is not something you send a rover to study. Even mars may be getting a mission to study its interior though:
[link to www.smartplanet.com] )

I see, so maybe spaceflight is just a big hoax then.

Incredible claims require incredible proof.

The anti nasa team calls me a myriad of names for believing we did go to the moon.

I looked at the evidence with an open mind and found it to be false. In fact, it was my wake-up call that conspiracies I had previously believed in and thought to be real, Roswell and the JFK assassination in particular, were probably bullshit as well. I didn't have as subject-specific knowledge on those incidents, but I knew I had been fed what I knew by the same kind of conspiracy theorists who were now trying to bullshit me about the moon landing. You're right about one thing, the moon hoax theory changed my perspective.

I refuse to believe you're so ignorant you don't see how the LM partially eclipses the sun in the second photo whereas it's next to the sun but not blocking it in the first photo. No one should even have to explain this to you. Your "evidence" is such obvious bullcrap that even you find yourself retreating from it time and time again. The thing is, it's so easily dispelled I don't even think you actually believe it to be worthy of merit, you're just throwing shit at the wall to see what would stick as having some kind of plausibility with lay people.

But you are both doing the exact same thing to determine the opposite result... how does that make a good argument?

You can use the photo to prove your point, but AC cant use the photo to prove theirs?.. thats a tad hypocritical isnt it?

You have used these same photos to state your claims of why they are REAL.. so why can someone not use these photos to state their claim as to why they are not.. its such a blatant double standard that in its own right we could almost put it in the evidence pile for the against team..

If the photos are good enough for your determinations, then they are good enough for anyone elses..

Astro, correct me if im wrong, but if i have a ball that is 100cms in diameter and take a photo of it and then use that exact same 100cm diameter ball to take a second photo with part of it eclipsed by a structure, is the ball still not the same size? If i halve it, I would still have the same length of arc on the visible side in the second photo that i had in the first only now i only see half of it..

Your explanation would work if the left side of the 'sun' as we look at the pictures was the same size as the previous one.. blocking out half the sun by a structure doesnt reduce its over all size last time i checked..

And i would be interested in knowing what your thoughts are on how we get halo's around the sun without an atmosphere to photograph it through.. would you suggest they are all lens flare halos?

I would also be interested in your answers to the other questions i put in the post such as why there is blue reflection on the windows. And since you were very nice in explaining and showing me the depth issue with that other photo, if you could do the same for the shadow in the duke photo I would be grateful to see it..

No, we're not. Quote me or nomuse where either one of us made a statement about the relative amount of exposure needed to "fill in the LM like that." Go on, do it. What I said quite explicitly is that film does not give a linear response to light, you simply cannot make such a judgement the way the poster was attempting to. What I showed is that there was plenty of brightly lit lunar surface within the LM's line of sight regardless of its own shadow. If you want to suggest that it wasn't enough to illuminate the LM that much you're going to have to a hell of a lot more than make a bare assed assumption based on a jpeg scan of a piece of film. It's not up to us to determine the opposite result, it's up to YOUR side to prove the claim that it WAS NOT enough.

No, they're not. The claim being made is in no way to similar to anything I said. Apples and oranges.

Perhaps you might have used 'foreground' or 'background' or 'middle ground' and we would all know where in the frame you meant. I know where you meant, but couldn't quite believe you would mean that. Picky.

So, Astro? Looks like you're sticking to the explanation that the surrounding landscape is enough to light up the shadow side of the LM.

Do you think there is any possibility that your contention is wrong? Do you see no way that it could be otherwise?

"Incredible claims require incredible proof."

Tell me about it...NASA shill...ffs man...get real.....^^

Yes you are....^^

Not in the photo it's not. Now it's smaller since it's eclipsed by a structure. Seriously, I shouldn't even have to say this. I can't tell what your motivation is, but I can't believe you're ignorant enough to believe what you're saying.

Ok, maybe you are ignorant enough. Amazing, simply amazing. I wasn't aware such ignorance existed. The size of the sun in the image is not showing you, nor is it caused by, the sun's physical size. It's dramatically over-exposed, the size of it in the image is only a function of just how over-exposed it is. As an example, here is the star Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky:

Now here is Sirius with the exact same camera, telescope, and focal length, but properly exposed:

The only difference between the two is how over-exposed it is or isn't.

Yes, of course they are. It's dramatically over-exposed, there WILL be internal reflections in the lens system that cause "halos." The halo you see in the above image of Sirius is not caused by the atmosphere, it's caused by it being over-exposed.

Prove it.

One just has to read through the thread, of which I have followed with interest. You have proved time and again that you are lying in the face off adversity, spewing out NASA BS like a good lackey you are, good boy, hope they give you your sweeties.

Yes, LD you're correct, but it's expedient for him to cast aspersions on the image processing and handling. As if that makes any real difference to the general tonal relationships of the original subject.

In any case, it's a well exposed transparency, given the conditions. That is obvious. It hasn't been pushed. The scan is a fairly good one too. As a compressed JPEG it looks pretty good.

Notice he won't actually say what it could be, just mumble a lot of technical sounding terms in an attempt to cast doubt.

I see, so you can't prove it. Then it's not me who's lying, it's you who are lying about me.

So let me get this right Astro, because Ive never studied photography and Im asking questions that any first week photography student would ask, Im ignorant? I turn up to Astro's school of photography and in the first week get called ignorant because I dont know anything about exposure or over exposure or difuse lighting or reflective lighting? Thats a damn joke Astro.. and actually quite insulting..

I guess if i showed you a photo of a ballerina executing a grand battement en cloche and then asked you what it was, and you didnt know without googling it, I could call you ignorant too. Because really, who doesnt know what a grand battement en cloche is?..

I am trying to learn something here, and your egotistical pissing contest is starting to wear on my normally very patient nerves..


Loose the "im so great i know everything' attitude astro and consider that some of us just want to learn and are not here to piss in your pond..

Oh, I can make that judgement Astro. You didn't show anything that would prove the surrounding surface could provide enough illumination to fill in the shadow side at all. You just stated that it could. That's not 'showing' anything at all.

You still stickin' to that lie, Astro?

Oh and Astro, stop cutting off my freaking quotes and use the whole sentances... god its really starting to piss me off.. if you want to quote me, then quote me, but use the whole damn thing, IN CONTEXT

I told you what it is, it's the bright lunar surface all around the lander. As I explained to you, you can't make the assumptions you're blatantly making, film does not give a linear response to light the way modern CCDs do. Rather than correct your own mistake, now you're doubling down on it and seeking to circle the wagons with others who are just as ignorant of photography as you.

AstoNUT, now fuck off, your NOT clever and NOT funny, and NO ONE believes your horse crap here, you're fighting a battle that is lost.

Man on the moon 40 friggin years ago, get real. We couldn't do it NOW, let alone all those years ago, you friggin for real or what?

What a certifiable moron, an you expect us to take you seriously?

Hmm, NO.

It's not a lie, nor is it up to me to prove that the surrounding surface could provide enough illumination (though if you want to see an excellent example of how it IS enough, just watch the mythbusters episode on the moon landing - and no, that indirect illumination they created was not due to there being an atmosphere in the room - the spaces involved on the model were far too small for atmospheric dispersion to be a factor). The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Wow, trying to silence the opposition, how very revealing of how insecure you really are.

Not that I agree with you, but I wouldn't care even if no one believed me. See, I'm not here to "shill," nor am I here to be popular. I am here to learn every claim that can come at me with regards to things like the moon landing hoax so that I know how to debunk it on the spot, and for that I am thankful for all the help you and your friends have provided. Additionally, you're doing an excellent job showcasing how hollow your side really is.

No, I expect you to continue doing exactly what you're doing.