NASA Moon Landing Hoax 100% Proof

If I went to the moon, one of the first pictures I would take is a photo of earth.

Are there any such photos?

I found one but the quality is shit.

If they have all these video feeds on the surface of the moon, why do none show the earth in the background? That would be the first thing I'd want to capture.

I asked that quote because YOU seemed to think that...

And yes, YOU said that your local radio station got 5-6 seconds delay when they converted to digital sound.
That was your proof.

Good morning.

but really thats all nasa here-say theres no evidence to support any of this that can be found..funny that in the 60s they have this miraculous material but even today they struggle to make any material composite that can withstand 3000 heat

[link to www.nytimes.com]

There are multiple photos as well as some video. The better question is, why don't you already know that?

The substance with the highest melting point that my search was able to find is Tantalum hafnium carbide, with a melting point of 4,488 K (4,215 degrees C). So no, there is no known substance that can withstand 5,000 degree heat.

[link to www.quora.com (secure)]

he has a degree in physics btw

Nothing I said made it seem I thought that. And I did NOT say they were converting to digital sound.

They took a picture of the earth from the moon proves they lied. Because during moon landing at moon's morning time, day light side of the earth is invisible from the moon.

Here's why.

If the sun is in 6 pm direction, earth is in the center of the clock, the morning moon will be in between 1.30 pm to 2.30 pm direction.

There is no way to see the day light side of the earth from the moon at that angle.

If I went to the moon, one of the first pictures I would take is a photo of earth.

Are there any such photos?

I found one but the quality is shit.

If they have all these video feeds on the surface of the moon, why do none show the earth in the background? That would be the first thing I'd want to capture.

You are definitely a FOS shill! I will not argue with a paid liar!

air is wasted with a SCUBA system.

The fact that they took a Buggy to the moon on the first mission is a laugh.

Such a waste of space. The thing is massive and pointless.

Just doesn't seem right.

Also how come the gravity is so strong? They can hardly jump off the ground?

5000 degrees is how hot it got on re-entry..stainless steel melts at under 2500, melts lol not just bends n buckles but melts, at 5000 it will vapourise especially if theres air pressure on it, would be like thermite..so theres no way possible that module could withstand that re-entry without even a bend or buckle in the metal..let alone the people inside, i know they will say tiles or some kind of heatshield but thats even more ridiculous because that will mean only more friction..its impossible for so many reasons and thats why they can never duplicate this hoax, they can never go there and no shill here can prove otherwise

but really thats all nasa here-say theres no evidence to support any of this that can be found..funny that in the 60s they have this miraculous material but even today they struggle to make any material composite that can withstand 3000 heat

If I went to the moon, one of the first pictures I would take is a photo of earth.

Are there any such photos?

So where is the link to this satellite image (like i asked)?

It would be interesting to read the description of it.

Otherwise it is not much of truth finding?

[link to www.skyandtelescope.com]

And it is not a satellite image,
which was the point.

"photographed from low orbit by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter"

Controlled by the same guys that supposedly faked the whole thing...

Listen to ANY conversation in ANY recording or video.

There is NO time delay.

It is cool that the astronauts were transparent during the first landing...

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

clearly its been faked, astro shill pretends like his been there but everything he says comes from a nasa' shill book, really his as dumb as dogshit

so true

You know this how exactly? You have a GCTA camera to compare what the moon looks like from earth at the same focal length? You're assuming that it is, you don't have any proof that it's any smaller than it should be. People usually over-estimate how large the moon will appear in photos they take of it. Same applies here. You think the earth should be bigger, but you haven't proven it should be.

Why don't you do this; measure the size of the high gain antenna and its distance from the camera. Find out the angular size of that object in the video and THEN compare to the size of the earth in the image to see if it's as large as it should be.

Let's assume this schematic is accurate:
[link to civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com (secure)]
The size of the outer edge of each high gain antenna petal is 30 pixels in that image, which according to the 225 pixel long 72" scale at the bottom means that they're 9.6 inches long. The lower right side petal seen in the video at 3:50 is therefore about 46.3" from the GCTA camera lens, though obviously this distance can vary a bit as the camera and antennas are pointed. At that distance though we get an angular size of 11.838 degrees for the edge of that petal. Using that angular size to roughly calibrate the view with earth at 3:50 I find that in a full-screen screenshot the petal is about 567 pixels long (from bar to bar between the petals), so the image scale is about 47.9 pixels per degree. Given an earth size in the image of 67 pixels, that means the earth is somewhere in the ballpark of 1.4 degrees diameter in the sky. That's within about half a degree of the expected value, and much larger than the moon is from the earth.

The major limitation of these approximations is that they assume the camera and antenna are both pointed straight ahead on the rover, which they clearly are not. For greater accuracy we need to model the actual orientation of the antenna and camera (which were fortunately both pointed in a known direction, earth). Basically, the GCTA camera on the starboard side of the rover is pointed at the back of the antenna on the port side. The antenna is pointed to the port and aft a bit on the rover in order to achieve the geometry seen, and this can be glimpsed in the shadow of the antenna when the camera pans down.

I drew a rough diagram of the true geometry of the camera to antenna in the lower left diagram of this picture:
The antenna is the red line, the antenna to mast of the GCTA is the blue line:
[link to h.dropcanvas.com]
The blue line is 95 pixels long, and at a scale of 3.167 pixels per inch, that works out to a distance to the antenna of about 30". That would imply the petal size should be closer to about 18 degrees. That would mean earth is about 2.1 degrees wide in the image.

That's actually a little larger than the expected value, but again these are approximate figures and for greater accuracy it would be necessary to model the entire scene in 3d to find the exact pointing direction of the antenna and camera. Nevertheless it's even closer to the expected value of about 1.9 degrees and pretty damn good considering the approximations made. Earth is definitely not too small in the video.

As you can see, you can't just "assume" that your personal expectations for what the images should look like are correct. You have to actually investigate these things in an unbiased and much more in-depth manner before jumping to conclusions like that, let alone stating them as if they were facts.

Because this is old news. Most of us know they never went to the moon.

Me thinks that someone who goes around on the Forum calling a mod a shill is the one who is not so smart...

93%?

[link to www.publicpolicypolling.com] (PDF- Document)

Page 2 - Q7

Oops.

.

Fake.

Can you do a pool here at glp about fake landing and 911?

The usual answer from conspiracy tards when something don't agree with their conspiracytardism.



GLP is a conspiracy forum. Of course polls on such a forum will bring higher results that may mislead conspiracy tards into believing that they are significant.
Unfortunately GLP is not the USA, it's not representative for the general meaning in the USA.

.

5* for OP
great compilation, thanks
.

So you believe moon landing is real?

I DO believe that they landed a box made of cardboard and tin foil and the moon and flew it back to earth. The TV told me so.

I would get into this and trust it to take me to the moon:

[link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]

Truth should come out. Do you like truth?

Fake one fake all. NASA lied about moon lading for sure.

Shadow under moon buggy and lander and dancer are facts.