Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,438 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 649,770
Pageviews Today: 1,088,674Threads Today: 453Posts Today: 9,166
03:41 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?

 
Wayfaring Stranger

User ID: 76285781
Canada
02/10/2019 08:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
This person put out a new vid that clips the best points if somebody is missing the points that are questioned.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77354587
Australia
02/10/2019 09:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
The photographs that they said were taken on the moon, are all the proof one would ever need, to know it was all faked.

That is if people knew a bit more about photography.

Go find the National Geographic issue from December 1969 and check out the photo printed there. A very famous, well known image. Everybody's seen it.

Note there is no depth of field in that image. Which means the lens is wide open, or very close to wide open. Probably about f4.5 or f5.6. The film was 160ASA Ektachrome. The setting is supposedly in bright sunlight, since that is the only source of light they said they had.

Highest shutter speed on the old Blad was 1/500th of a second, so such a wide aperture would have way overexposed the film even at that speed --- but it didn't.

There's the proof right there and don't give me any shit about low angle of the Sun and so on.

There are quite a few other things about that image that are wrong too, but that lack of depth of field proves it's faked all by itself.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77354587


Are you talking about THE photo? As in this one: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

There's plenty of depth of field in the image, from the bottom of the photo to a little behind Aldrin. If it doesn't seem that way in the National Geographic version, it's because they cropped most of the foreground at the astronauts' feet.

And for everyone who says how could the photographs all be so perfectly framed, note that Neil Armstrong just barely avoids the duffer mistake of cutting off the top of his target's head. (Most published versions of this photograph add a whole lot of black at the top that isn't there in the original.)

(And if you're not talking about this photo, please describe the one you are referring to so I can try to track down the original and see what it looked like before National Geographic's photo editors got hold of it.)
 Quoting: ToSeek


I meant the cover photo of that issue. I should have mentioned that.

Yes the image is cropped in reasonably tight. That has no effect on the depth of field. If one googles images of that issue there are plenty of large scans to look at.

Depth of field is progressive. The wider the lens aperture, the more that becomes apparent.

There is only one plane of critical focus visible in that photo. That is just in front of the subject's boots. Anyone who studies it will see that. From there - the image starts to soften, so that even the astronaut is just out of critical focus - and it softens progressively as one looks deeper into the field.

When we talk about depth of field, it doesn't mean from the bottom to a little behind the subject. You're actually describing a shallow depth of field there.

An appropriate aperture for sunlit exposure would have rendered the scene sharply - well beyond the astronaut (without hotspots). That would be good depth of field.

The lens was wide open and would have blown the film out if that was a sunlit scene. No way around it I'm afraid.
Overgoverned

User ID: 52594113
United States
02/10/2019 09:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
This [link to archive.nationalgeographic.com (secure)] is the image that Australian Coward seems to feel has a shallow field of focus.

Shallow field of focus, indeed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4448622
United States
02/10/2019 10:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
This [link to archive.nationalgeographic.com (secure)] is the image that Australian Coward seems to feel has a shallow field of focus.

Shallow field of focus, indeed.
 Quoting: Overgoverned


...I'm still trying to find what's wrong with the rover shadow...
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/10/2019 11:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Why do hoaxies lie so fucking much?
Honestly, what wrong with you?
Your ignorance or denial of the evidence is irrelevant.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

ingnorance ?

[..]

But what I know and think doesn't affect you, in fact you don't even know me, so from where does your hostility originate?
 Quoting: Drone#6

You accuse people of crimes based on nothing but disinformation, ignorance, and assorted lies.
That's despicable, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You DO NOT get to take the moral high ground.

Perhaps when you are in a better mood you'll be able to provide some evidence of the Apollo mission?
 Quoting: Drone#6

The accuser has the burden of proof.
That would be you, Mr. ten-lies-per-paragraph.

NASA claims they landed on 6 different sites yet no one can prove it - could you be the one to do that?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Your delusions or denials are irrelevant.

Meanwhile in grown-up-land Men On The Moon is considered historical by all domain experts who studied the documentation.
Scientists, aerospace engineers, space historians, space journalists, etc., IOW people who actually know what they are talking about, consider it proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.

So if YOU want to prove it was faked than YOU will have to disproof all the evidence.
And clearly you are not even aware of the existence of at least 98% of that evidence, so fat luck with that.
book


Why do you think the Russians would blow the whistle? That is a rather naive viewpoint to post on a conspiracy forum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77353246

Propaganda coup of the century.
The Cold War was as much about winning the hearts and minds of the neutrals as it was a military stand-off.
Reputation is everything.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

Okay, let's say that Pravda ran a newspaper campaign in 1970 saying that the photographs of the landings are wrong because of the shadows, etc, and this proves they were fake. Would you have believed them?
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77358818

If it where true and the evidence proved it, of course.

Or say they said they had additional secret information proving the landings were faked. Would you believe the Russians if they said they had secret information?
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77358818

Of course not, unavailable evidence isn't evidence.
It's just another because-I-say-so.

No, the Cold War was not about "winning the hearts and minds of the neutrals" . Study book about international banking and the link between gov't and big corporations.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77358818

Using a conspiracy theory to try to support another conspiracy theory is circular.

In not-insane-land trying to fake Apollo would be treasonously stupid.
Stupid because nobody can guarantee success, and it has to be successful for decades.
And treasonous because such inevitable failure would be a major setback for the war effort.

are too many inconsistencies, and I don't think you can get around them.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77349227

You need to prove that they are actually inconsistencies, and not things you merely misunderstand.

There used to be a €50,000 award for any scientifically valid proof for any fakery.
Few taker, no winners.
The professional hoax-mongers never even bother to apply, they know they're full off it.
book


Anyone who thinks they landed on the moon as laid out by nasa is a mind controlled moron. You are sad little things with no ability to reason. It's deeply pathetic how the indoctrination works on so many of you.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76638891

The rest of that paragraph implies that you have no idea what the ability to reason involves.
"If you believe X you are stupid" is NOT a rational argument.
It doesn't prove anything other than that you clearly have no rational arguments or relevant facts to make a point.
It tells us you are all hot air and no evidence.

Like the good wittle hoaxie you are...
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Neil WeakLegs
User ID: 77363570
United States
02/11/2019 12:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
....

Meanwhile in grown-up-land Men On The Moon is considered historical by all domain experts who studied the documentation.
Scientists, aerospace engineers, space historians, space journalists, etc., IOW people who actually know what they are talking about, consider it proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.
....
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


In other words, people who would lose their job if they disputed the official story.
DGN  (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 76673672
United States
02/11/2019 12:18 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
It seems NASA finally agreed to confess the hoax and came forward, give them respect for manning up. One can only live other men's lies for so long, and shouldn't have to bare their burden, neither should the Apollo astronauts, they were military obeying orders.


Last Edited by DGN on 02/11/2019 12:20 AM
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/11/2019 05:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Why do hoaxies lie so fucking much?
Honestly, what wrong with you?
Your ignorance or denial of the evidence is irrelevant.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

ingnorance ?

[..]

But what I know and think doesn't affect you, in fact you don't even know me, so from where does your hostility originate?
 Quoting: Drone#6

You accuse people of crimes based on nothing but disinformation, ignorance, and assorted lies.
That's despicable, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You DO NOT get to take the moral high ground.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


I didn't take the moral high ground, you gave it to me. What crimes and what people? You mean Iraq and the WMDs? Why don't you try addressing some of the discussion points instead of pointless faux outrage? I think we'd all find that rather more useful.

Perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why none of the moon rocks, even the gnarly big ones like 'Shadow Rock' in Apollo 16 have any dust on them?

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

I'm interested in your opinion on this puzzle.

Last Edited by Drone#6 on 02/11/2019 05:32 AM
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/11/2019 06:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
The photographs that they said were taken on the moon, are all the proof one would ever need, to know it was all faked.

That is if people knew a bit more about photography.

Go find the National Geographic issue from December 1969 and check out the photo printed there. A very famous, well known image. Everybody's seen it.

Note there is no depth of field in that image. Which means the lens is wide open, or very close to wide open. Probably about f4.5 or f5.6. The film was 160ASA Ektachrome. The setting is supposedly in bright sunlight, since that is the only source of light they said they had.

Highest shutter speed on the old Blad was 1/500th of a second, so such a wide aperture would have way overexposed the film even at that speed --- but it didn't.

There's the proof right there and don't give me any shit about low angle of the Sun and so on.

There are quite a few other things about that image that are wrong too, but that lack of depth of field proves it's faked all by itself.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77354587


Are you talking about THE photo? As in this one: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

There's plenty of depth of field in the image, from the bottom of the photo to a little behind Aldrin. If it doesn't seem that way in the National Geographic version, it's because they cropped most of the foreground at the astronauts' feet.

And for everyone who says how could the photographs all be so perfectly framed, note that Neil Armstrong just barely avoids the duffer mistake of cutting off the top of his target's head. (Most published versions of this photograph add a whole lot of black at the top that isn't there in the original.)

(And if you're not talking about this photo, please describe the one you are referring to so I can try to track down the original and see what it looked like before National Geographic's photo editors got hold of it.)
 Quoting: ToSeek


I think that must be the one. The rocks are fuzzy in the background, but there are many issues with that photo:

1) No dust on the rocks, the damp grey sand they are standing on at MGM has been prepared but as usual they forgot a few millions years of dust.

2. There's a lens flare from the top left: why? (use photoshop to see this)

3. The horizon is shorter than a baseball field behind the man. The horizon is shorter than a baseball field in the image of the visor reflection too. Where did the rest of the moon go? How come they managed to find it again in Apollo 16?

4. The 'sun' spotlight is illuminating the scene behind the man and the scene in the reflection like a big spotlight. In Apollo 16 they found a real sun so all the photos show an evenly lit desert, rather than the cramped MGM Borehamwood soundstage we see here. This is a big problem for all the MGM studio photos.

5. I'm not convinced the shadow in the visor matches the shadow on the ground although the point is debatable. It certainly looks wrong. It goes to the left on the ground.

6. There's thick dust right next to the landing pad, which also has no sign of dragging or digging in. It looks like the lander was placed there by the studio gantry crane rather than the result of Neil's first ever landing (and the LEM's first even landing). We're told 'the dust got everywhere' yet here it appears to behave exactly like damp sand.

7. Buzz (or whoever the actor is) also appears to be suspiciously well front lit - too much for the light reflection from the photographer.

8. The perfect (and I mean PERFECT) exposure first time and perfect focus of the subject, together with the perfect framing. At this stage of the mission Neil and Buzz would still be practicing walking, not taking unbracketed shots of cameras with no viewfinder or exposure meter. Given the vacuum the contrasts of light will be huge, the sun landing on the side of 'Buzz' will be stronger than the African midday sun: very bright.

Etc.
Neil WeakLegs
User ID: 77364332
United States
02/11/2019 07:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
....
I think that must be the one. The rocks are fuzzy in the background, but there are many issues with that photo:

1) No dust on the rocks, the damp grey sand they are standing on at MGM has been prepared but as usual they forgot a few millions years of dust.

2. There's a lens flare from the top left: why? (use photoshop to see this)

3. The horizon is shorter than a baseball field behind the man. The horizon is shorter than a baseball field in the image of the visor reflection too. Where did the rest of the moon go? How come they managed to find it again in Apollo 16?

4. The 'sun' spotlight is illuminating the scene behind the man and the scene in the reflection like a big spotlight. In Apollo 16 they found a real sun so all the photos show an evenly lit desert, rather than the cramped MGM Borehamwood soundstage we see here. This is a big problem for all the MGM studio photos.

5. I'm not convinced the shadow in the visor matches the shadow on the ground although the point is debatable. It certainly looks wrong. It goes to the left on the ground.

6. There's thick dust right next to the landing pad, which also has no sign of dragging or digging in. It looks like the lander was placed there by the studio gantry crane rather than the result of Neil's first ever landing (and the LEM's first even landing). We're told 'the dust got everywhere' yet here it appears to behave exactly like damp sand.

7. Buzz (or whoever the actor is) also appears to be suspiciously well front lit - too much for the light reflection from the photographer.

8. The perfect (and I mean PERFECT) exposure first time and perfect focus of the subject, together with the perfect framing. At this stage of the mission Neil and Buzz would still be practicing walking, not taking unbracketed shots of cameras with no viewfinder or exposure meter. Given the vacuum the contrasts of light will be huge, the sun landing on the side of 'Buzz' will be stronger than the African midday sun: very bright.

Etc.
 Quoting: Drone#6


It's not just the lighting/shadows/focus issues. It's the subject, the content itself.

I have not researched it deeply but there is a guy on YouTube who zooms into the detail of the equipment shown on the photos, and compares it to the published diagrams and other photos of the alleged same equipment.

For example, a certain piece of equipment is in the form of a cabinet with racks. The diagram and factory photo shows components on the racks, but the "Moon Landing" photo shows no components.

(The components were not removable on the mission.)

The implication is that the cabinet shown in the "Moon Landing" photo was empty, as if it was only used as a prop in the background, without the intent that it be actually used or viewed in detail.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/12/2019 04:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
....

Meanwhile in grown-up-land Men On The Moon is considered historical by all domain experts who studied the documentation.
Scientists, aerospace engineers, space historians, space journalists, etc., IOW people who actually know what they are talking about, consider it proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.
....
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


In other words, people who would lose their job if they disputed the official story.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77363570

Any evidence of any case of somebody being fired for expressing doubt about Apollo?
Or is this just your kneejerk paranoia talking?

You're grasping at any straw you can think of to handwave away the evidence.
Meanwhile what we need from you is positive evidence.
Actual verifiable facts hat prove that something was faked.
Unless you present something like that you're just another flat-earther, denying unassailable truth.
book


Why do hoaxies lie so fucking much?
Honestly, what wrong with you?
Your ignorance or denial of the evidence is irrelevant.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

ingnorance ?

[..]

But what I know and think doesn't affect you, in fact you don't even know me, so from where does your hostility originate?
 Quoting: Drone#6

You accuse people of crimes based on nothing but disinformation, ignorance, and assorted lies.
That's despicable, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You DO NOT get to take the moral high ground.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

I didn't take the moral high ground, you gave it to me. What crimes and what people?
 Quoting: Drone#6

The crime of faking Apollo, and the people you accuse of such.

You mean Iraq and the WMDs?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Ad hominem is falacious for a reason.

Why don't you try addressing some of the discussion points instead of pointless faux outrage? I think we'd all find that rather more useful.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Everything you brought of were incorrect statements.
Only actual facts can be used in evidence.

YOU need evidence to support YOUR accusations.
Until you do all your assertions will be rejected.

(And no, "there's a guy on youtube" is not evidence.)

Perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why none of the moon rocks, even the gnarly big ones like 'Shadow Rock' in Apollo 16 have any dust on them?

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

I'm interested in your opinion on this puzzle.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Do your own homework.
If YOU think something is relevant than YOU will have to make a case.

Stop being a bore and learn something that is real rather than confabulated by hoaxmongers.
A discussion about your fantasies would be useless.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 07:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
....

Meanwhile in grown-up-land Men On The Moon is considered historical by all domain experts who studied the documentation.
Scientists, aerospace engineers, space historians, space journalists, etc., IOW people who actually know what they are talking about, consider it proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.
....
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


In other words, people who would lose their job if they disputed the official story.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77363570

Any evidence of any case of somebody being fired for expressing doubt about Apollo?
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


It's a real problem for scientists in all fields when they stop believing the narrative, even in a DOD arena like NASA. We all know this (including you) so why pretend?

Perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why none of the moon rocks, even the gnarly big ones like 'Shadow Rock' in Apollo 16 have any dust on them?

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

I'm interested in your opinion on this puzzle.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Do your own homework.
If YOU think something is relevant than YOU will have to make a case.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Yes I have done the homework and made the case, as you missed it (thanks for letting me know!) here it is again:

Apollo 16, photos of Shadow rock! Simple proof of fakery:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
Note the incorrent shadows on the LHS (far side, wheel + antenna) of the buggy.
Also note the thick dust shown by footprints and tyre tracks.

Shadow Rock, note the texture and cracks on both up and down facing slopes indicating it is free from dust on top.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With Astronaut checking out the shadow
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With stick and then also an astronaut leaning up against it (note: more proof that it is dust free!)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

As the dust all around the rock is UNDISTURBED the rock must have arrived FIRST, then the dust came like snow.
The dust gradually accumulated over MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years to get there....
....so why is there NO dust on top of the rock? Why is there NONE in the nooks and crannies?
....Why is there dust under the overhang, shadow area? How did it get there?

The only possible explanation for this rock being clean is WEATHERING that washed and/or blew the dust off the rock.
As the moon is in a hard vacuum there is only one conclusion: Therefore this photo was taken on EARTH.
Neil WeakLegs
User ID: 77367691
United States
02/12/2019 07:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
....

Meanwhile in grown-up-land Men On The Moon is considered historical by all domain experts who studied the documentation.
Scientists, aerospace engineers, space historians, space journalists, etc., IOW people who actually know what they are talking about, consider it proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.
....
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


In other words, people who would lose their job if they disputed the official story.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77363570

Any evidence of any case of somebody being fired for expressing doubt about Apollo?
Or is this just your kneejerk paranoia talking?

You're grasping at any straw you can think of to handwave away the evidence.
Meanwhile what we need from you is positive evidence.
Actual verifiable facts hat prove that something was faked.
Unless you present something like that you're just another flat-earther, denying unassailable truth.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD



"Any evidence of any case of somebody being fired for expressing doubt about Apollo?
Or is this just your kneejerk paranoia talking?"

Really? In the very same two sentences which you claim there is no bias against an employee who doubts the Apollo Landings as seen on TV, you show your bias against such employees, calling them paranoid.

"Actual verifiable facts hat prove that something was faked."

How about the empty racks in the cabinets, showing that the scene thus photographed was staged with props?

"you're just another flat-earther"

I am not a Flat Earther, and I have no problem with the possibility with the United States landing on the Moon, in a way other than what was shown on TV.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77367675
Thailand
02/12/2019 07:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Shouldn't they have gradually lifted the model to simulate rocket thrust rather than blowing it up with explosives, and throw some dust under it?


 Quoting: DGN


Lunar gravity is 1/5 that of Earths. That means falling objects accelerate 5 times slower than Earth's (take 5 times as long to reach the same speed). Watch the moon buggy vids and look at the dust plumes. Notice how quickly the dust falls to the moon's surface once it reaches its apogee.

Either NASA is lying or Isaac Newton...

If you think I'm full of shit, just go to YouTube and play a juggling video at 1/4 speed. On the moon they would fall even slower!

The best lies have some truth in them. The Apollo missions were tracked my hostile radar so we know they orbited the Moon. But there is no way they landed on the Moon with an untested lander, stayed a few days and then launched and magically aligned themselves perfectly with the orbiter's trajectory so they could dock. Even if the stuff was designed to function, the odds of pulling it off would be less than 10% and the USA would not be crazy enough to even try such a stunt.

Remember technology progresses incrementally through cycles of design, test, failure, and redesign... Landing in a untestable environment, relaunching, and redocking is a EXPONENTIAL leap!

Well the good news if Elon Musk lets go of his dream to go to Mars, he could become the first man to step on the Moon, Lol.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/12/2019 09:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
....
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

Really? In the very same two sentences which you claim there is no bias against an employee who doubts the Apollo Landings as seen on TV, you show your bias against such employees, calling them paranoid.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77367691

What employees?
Produce your witnesses.

How about the empty racks in the cabinets, showing that the scene thus photographed was staged with props?
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77367691

Produce your evidence.
So far we merely have ASSertions.

What can be ASSerted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I am not a Flat Earther
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77367691

You might as well be, just as ignorant and suffering from knee-jerk denialism.
book


Lunar gravity is 1/5 that of Earths. That means falling objects accelerate 5 times slower than Earth's (take 5 times as long to reach the same speed). Watch the moon buggy vids and look at the dust plumes. Notice how quickly the dust falls to the moon's surface once it reaches its apogee.
 Quoting: Thai Coward 77367675

How did you measure this and how did you validate your method.

Are you sure you're not confused about what you are looking at, after all it is impossible to see individual particles.

But there is no way they landed on the Moon with an untested lander, stayed a few days and then launched and magically aligned themselves perfectly with the orbiter's trajectory so they could dock. Even if the stuff was designed to function, the odds of pulling it off would be less than 10% and the USA would not be crazy enough to even try such a stunt.
 Quoting: Thai Coward 77367675

Personal opinion.
Personal opinion is NOT evidence.

Remember technology progresses incrementally through cycles of design, test, failure, and redesign... Landing in a untestable environment, relaunching, and redocking is a EXPONENTIAL leap!
 Quoting: Thai Coward 77367675

IOW you've never heard of the Surveyor programme, or Gemini, or all the other stuff done in preparation.

Ignorance is not evidence.

In short, hoaxies don't understand the concept of evidence, or proving something.
Which might explain why they have been unable to prove anything of relevance in half a century.

The simpler explanation is of course that they are wrong.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Philly Special

User ID: 48696927
United States
02/12/2019 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
I get the feeling that even if all the people who say the moon landings were faked were actually taken to the moon on a rocket, and taken to Apollo 11's landing site, and walked around and saw for themselves that it actually happened, they would still say that it was faked.

They would claim that NASA went there secretly in the 80's or 90's and planted all the evidence. Or they would say that they were drugged and taken to an elaborate sound stage that simulated the gravity of the moon, or something even more retarded that I can't even dream of.

One thing has been proven to me time and time again. The "mountains of evidence" showing it was all faked is nothing more than cherry picked anomolies (many with perfectly reasonable explanations), which when piled together SEEM to be a lot of evidence, but isn't a hill of beans as compared to the actual evidence proving they did land on the moon.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 11:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Really? In the very same two sentences which you claim there is no bias against an employee who doubts the Apollo Landings as seen on TV, you show your bias against such employees, calling them paranoid.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77367691

What employees?
Produce your witnesses.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


You know we're all reading this thread? We can all read what you wrote and how you refer to anyone who fails to believe paranoid.

Would you employ someone who rejected the fake moon landings?

You insult people because you don't know enough to argue the points.


When asked about the missing moon dust on the rocks you avoid the subject, throw in some insults and call me a liar, I wonder if that type of behaviour has a name?
Why are you so afraid of the subject?
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 11:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
I get the feeling that even if all the people who say the moon landings were faked were actually taken to the moon on a rocket, and taken to Apollo 11's landing site, and walked around and saw for themselves that it actually happened, they would still say that it was faked.

They would claim that NASA went there secretly in the 80's or 90's and planted all the evidence. Or they would say that they were drugged and taken to an elaborate sound stage that simulated the gravity of the moon, or something even more retarded that I can't even dream of.

One thing has been proven to me time and time again. The "mountains of evidence" showing it was all faked is nothing more than cherry picked anomolies (many with perfectly reasonable explanations), which when piled together SEEM to be a lot of evidence, but isn't a hill of beans as compared to the actual evidence proving they did land on the moon.
 Quoting: Philly Special


Have you got any evidence that they went?

I have some that they didn't:

Apollo 16, photos of Shadow rock! Simple proof of fakery:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
Note the incorrent shadows on the LHS (far side, wheel + antenna) of the buggy.
Also note the thick dust shown by footprints and tyre tracks.

Shadow Rock, note the texture and cracks on both up and down facing slopes indicating it is free from dust on top.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With Astronaut checking out the shadow
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With stick and then also an astronaut leaning up against it (note: dust free!)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

As the dust all around the rock is UNDISTURBED the rock must have arrived FIRST, then the dust came like snow.
The dust gradually accumulated over MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years to get there....
....so why is there NO dust on top of the rock? Why is there NONE in the nooks and crannies?
....Why is there dust under the overhang, shadow area? How did it get there?

The only possible explanation for this rock being clean is WEATHERING that washed and/or blew the dust off the rock.
As the moon is in a hard vacuum there is only one conclusion: This photo was taken on EARTH.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 11:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Lunar gravity is 1/5 that of Earths. That means falling objects accelerate 5 times slower than Earth's (take 5 times as long to reach the same speed). Watch the moon buggy vids and look at the dust plumes. Notice how quickly the dust falls to the moon's surface once it reaches its apogee.

Either NASA is lying or Isaac Newton...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77367675

1/5 or 1/6g? Yes, it's even worse LOL. Your point is valid, but there's more. See how the buggy accelerates, brakes and corners? On a fine dust with skinny tyres too!
Then think about how much grip those tyres would have in 1/6g where the mass remains the same, it should be skidding around like it was on an ice rink!
But there's more, they bolted it only one side of the LEM with no discussion or documentation about rebalancing the LM, the the extra weight of the LRV + counterbalance.
But there's EVEN more! They used a winch system tested in 1G to lower a rover that would have been an easy lift on 1/6g. There's a video from NASA showing the astronauts wasting a solid 20 minutes playing with the winch system...

But there is no way they landed on the Moon with an untested lander, stayed a few days and then launched and magically aligned themselves perfectly with the orbiter's trajectory so they could dock. Even if the stuff was designed to function, the odds of pulling it off would be less than 10% and the USA would not be crazy enough to even try such a stunt.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77367675


Agreed, the total lack of testing of the LEM was eye opening. They also let it sit at some random angle for 2 days in the blazing sun on one side only, then casually walked in and had a perfect blastoff? And not a word about one side being warmer than the other!

Would the explosive bolts have even functioned in those temperatures?

The whole story is bizarre.
ToSeek

User ID: 74712409
United States
02/12/2019 12:12 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
The photographs that they said were taken on the moon, are all the proof one would ever need, to know it was all faked.

That is if people knew a bit more about photography.

Go find the National Geographic issue from December 1969 and check out the photo printed there. A very famous, well known image. Everybody's seen it.

Note there is no depth of field in that image. Which means the lens is wide open, or very close to wide open. Probably about f4.5 or f5.6. The film was 160ASA Ektachrome. The setting is supposedly in bright sunlight, since that is the only source of light they said they had.

Highest shutter speed on the old Blad was 1/500th of a second, so such a wide aperture would have way overexposed the film even at that speed --- but it didn't.

There's the proof right there and don't give me any shit about low angle of the Sun and so on.

There are quite a few other things about that image that are wrong too, but that lack of depth of field proves it's faked all by itself.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77354587


Are you talking about THE photo? As in this one: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

There's plenty of depth of field in the image, from the bottom of the photo to a little behind Aldrin. If it doesn't seem that way in the National Geographic version, it's because they cropped most of the foreground at the astronauts' feet.

And for everyone who says how could the photographs all be so perfectly framed, note that Neil Armstrong just barely avoids the duffer mistake of cutting off the top of his target's head. (Most published versions of this photograph add a whole lot of black at the top that isn't there in the original.)

(And if you're not talking about this photo, please describe the one you are referring to so I can try to track down the original and see what it looked like before National Geographic's photo editors got hold of it.)
 Quoting: ToSeek


I meant the cover photo of that issue. I should have mentioned that.

Yes the image is cropped in reasonably tight. That has no effect on the depth of field. If one googles images of that issue there are plenty of large scans to look at.

Depth of field is progressive. The wider the lens aperture, the more that becomes apparent.

There is only one plane of critical focus visible in that photo. That is just in front of the subject's boots. Anyone who studies it will see that. From there - the image starts to soften, so that even the astronaut is just out of critical focus - and it softens progressively as one looks deeper into the field.

When we talk about depth of field, it doesn't mean from the bottom to a little behind the subject. You're actually describing a shallow depth of field there.

An appropriate aperture for sunlit exposure would have rendered the scene sharply - well beyond the astronaut (without hotspots). That would be good depth of field.

The lens was wide open and would have blown the film out if that was a sunlit scene. No way around it I'm afraid.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77354587


I might pass these comments along to some folks who know more about photography than I do, but what occurs to me first are two points:

1. There's no atmosphere on the Moon. On a sunlit day on Earth you're going to get a lot of light from atmospheric scattering. There's none of that on the Moon.

2. The lunar surface has an albedo of 0.12, about the same as worn asphalt.

So all in all if you're going to duplicate this scene on Earth, you can't do it in the daytime. You'd need to do it at night in an old parking lot with a bright point source off to one side.

If I get further input from more knowledgeable folks, I'll try to let you know, but I daresay they'll say something similar to what I said.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/12/2019 02:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Really? In the very same two sentences which you claim there is no bias against an employee who doubts the Apollo Landings as seen on TV, you show your bias against such employees, calling them paranoid.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77367691

What employees?
Produce your witnesses.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

You know we're all reading this thread? We can all read what you wrote and how you refer to anyone who fails to believe paranoid.
 Quoting: Drone#6

No, just you.

Most are just and ignorant and gullible.
Good wittle conspirasheep.

Would you employ someone who rejected the fake moon landings?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Certainly not for a technical job.
Don't what ignorant idjits for that.

You insult people because you don't know enough to argue the points.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Points. There were points?
But you're not getting to any points, you just spout falsehoods and insinuations.
There's nothing of substance.

When asked about the missing moon dust on the rocks you avoid the subject,
 Quoting: Drone#6

YOU need to make YOUR point.
YOU need to prove YOUR claim.

The only thing we need to do is sit back and point and laugh. After all we've got history and the facts on our side.

Lazy bast'rd.

throw in some insults and call me a liar, I wonder if that type of behaviour has a name?
 Quoting: Drone#6

You ARE despicable and you ARE a liar.
But that's besides my point.

My point is that hoaxies don't know any real facts about Apollo, don't know how to think logically, and believe any ol' nonsense the hoax-peddlers want them to.
They're conspirasheep.
The proof of that? Every single hoax thread on the internet.

Why are you so afraid of the subject?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Why are you playing rhetorical games.

The only thing you need to do is prove your claims.
You can't and you won't.

Nelsonhaha49823
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Blah insult blah
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


The only thing you need to do is prove your claims.
You can't and you won't.

 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Except I can and I have. It's in the thread so I don't see what you gain by denying it. Here it is again for your convenience:

Apollo 16, photos of Shadow rock! Simple proof of fakery:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
Note the incorrent shadows on the LHS (far side, wheel + antenna) of the buggy.
Also note the thick dust shown by footprints and tyre tracks.

Shadow Rock, note the texture and cracks on both up and down facing slopes indicating it is free from dust on top.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With Astronaut checking out the shadow
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With stick and then also an astronaut leaning up against it (note: dust free!)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

As the dust all around the rock is UNDISTURBED the rock must have arrived FIRST, then the dust came like snow.
The dust gradually accumulated over MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years to get there....
....so why is there NO dust on top of the rock? Why is there NONE in the nooks and crannies?
....Why is there dust under the overhang, shadow area? How did it get there?

Here's another rock with the same problem in Apollo 17:
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

The only possible explanation for this rock being clean is WEATHERING that washed and/or blew the dust off the rock.
As the moon is in a hard vacuum there is only one conclusion: This photo was taken on EARTH.
Neil WeakLegs
User ID: 77368175
United States
02/12/2019 02:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Really? In the very same two sentences which you claim there is no bias against an employee who doubts the Apollo Landings as seen on TV, you show your bias against such employees, calling them paranoid.
 Quoting: Neil WeakLegs 77367691

What employees?
Produce your witnesses.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

You know we're all reading this thread? We can all read what you wrote and how you refer to anyone who fails to believe paranoid.
 Quoting: Drone#6

No, just you.

Most are just and ignorant and gullible.
Good wittle conspirasheep.

Would you employ someone who rejected the fake moon landings?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Certainly not for a technical job.
Don't what ignorant idjits for that.

You insult people because you don't know enough to argue the points.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Points. There were points?
But you're not getting to any points, you just spout falsehoods and insinuations.
There's nothing of substance.

When asked about the missing moon dust on the rocks you avoid the subject,
 Quoting: Drone#6

YOU need to make YOUR point.
YOU need to prove YOUR claim.

The only thing we need to do is sit back and point and laugh. After all we've got history and the facts on our side.

Lazy bast'rd.

throw in some insults and call me a liar, I wonder if that type of behaviour has a name?
 Quoting: Drone#6

You ARE despicable and you ARE a liar.
But that's besides my point.

My point is that hoaxies don't know any real facts about Apollo, don't know how to think logically, and believe any ol' nonsense the hoax-peddlers want them to.
They're conspirasheep.
The proof of that? Every single hoax thread on the internet.

Why are you so afraid of the subject?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Why are you playing rhetorical games.

The only thing you need to do is prove your claims.
You can't and you won't.

:Nelsonhaha49823:
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


"My point is that hoaxies don't know any real facts about Apollo, don't know how to think logically, ..." (and other similar remarks)

I suggest that you develop a better method of arguing your point. An appeal to authority or attempts at bullying are not going to convince your opponents who are more informed on these issues.

You may also want to reconsider your motivation for your extreme dedication for defending NASA.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77368121
Poland
02/12/2019 02:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
...


None of your previous posts answer my question.

What evidence would allow *you* to tacitly conclude that the Apollo missions happened, pretty much as reported? Any you can even *imagine?* If so, can you name it?

If the answer is that no evidence will convince you, just say so.
 Quoting: 74444


Still avoiding this, eh?

Sigh.
 Quoting: 74444


Seeing all the Rovers and landing frames actually on the moon, not the stage.
 Quoting: DGN


15 seconds later:

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

[link to astrobob.areavoices.com]

I like everyone expected to see the astroNuts jump 10' up and throw things six times higher they they really could.
 Quoting: DGN


Your unrealistic expectations and failure to grasp basic physics is not NASA's fault.
 Quoting: 74444

These pics show nothing and would be extremely easy to photoshop

Even I could put those rover tracks in GIMP in probably under 1 hour with pretty good quality.

Need better high-resolution pics than that to consider it "proof".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77368121
Poland
02/12/2019 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
Why does NASA need "at least 20 years" to go to the moon "again"?

What is the technical problem to build the exact same lunar module using BLUEPRINTS from the last module.

It has already been done before and it worked every time.

What's the problem?

They did it in 5 years in 1960's. Why can't they do it now?
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 02:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
15 seconds later:

[link to astrobob.areavoices.com]

 Quoting: 74444

These pics show nothing and would be extremely easy to photoshop

Even I could put those rover tracks in GIMP in probably under 1 hour with pretty good quality.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77368121


In fact the second link proves the hoax, ironic really.

See the dark rectangle they call the flag?
The shadow is formed by the nylon material.

It's a cheap nylon flag that for 50 years has been sitting in a hard vacuum with unfiltered light, infrared, UV, Xrays and solar wind particles + micrometeorites and cosmic rays, with some secondary radiation thrown in. Then each month it's alternately baked and frozen. For half a century.

The flag would have disintegrated decades ago. Therefore the LRO is simply CGI mapped onto the LRO dataset as it entered the NASA complex. With that glaring mistake LOL.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77368121
Poland
02/12/2019 03:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
15 seconds later:

[link to astrobob.areavoices.com]

 Quoting: 74444

These pics show nothing and would be extremely easy to photoshop

Even I could put those rover tracks in GIMP in probably under 1 hour with pretty good quality.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77368121


In fact the second link proves the hoax, ironic really.

See the dark rectangle they call the flag?
The shadow is formed by the nylon material.

It's a cheap nylon flag that for 50 years has been sitting in a hard vacuum with unfiltered light, infrared, UV, Xrays and solar wind particles + micrometeorites and cosmic rays, with some secondary radiation thrown in. Then each month it's alternately baked and frozen. For half a century.

The flag would have disintegrated decades ago. Therefore the LRO is simply CGI mapped onto the LRO dataset as it entered the NASA complex. With that glaring mistake LOL.
 Quoting: Drone#6

They also tried too hard with the "astronaut footprints"

These look like they are 2 feet deep and 1 foot wide judging by their shadow and when compared to the moon buggy tracks.

The moon buggy is heavier, it carries both the weight of the astronaut and itself, it should leave marks at least as visible as the astronaut footprints.

I doubt those footprints would be visible at all from an altitude of 25 km.
zepa

User ID: 77352021
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 03:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
I worked in a photo lab for years,developing and printing negatives/positives from just about the exact same camera

The perfectly cropped images would have been the work of a skilled hand printer
The depth of field and exposure would have been pre determined just about,so its possible

What is totally impossible is how the film has no signs of being exposed to radiation
Not a single frame
Un processed film is very sensitive to radiation

Not a sinlge frame has any kind of fogging typical of being exposed to radiation

I doubt its possible to go to the moon and back,and spend hours in a small box on the moon and not result in any fogging what so ever


Its just not possible

Unless they kept the film in a lead box the whole time and got lucky on the surface of the moon for just about hours at a time,every single time they went
zepa

User ID: 77352021
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 03:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
If they did go they probably found the film was totally wrecked once they processed it
Panicked and decided to fake them out of embarrassment

Or maybe they went in something they didnt want you too see and had to fake the craft used

Either is more likely than the film not being exposed to radiation
zepa

User ID: 77352021
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 03:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
This is almost exactly what that film was held in,on the moon surface for hours

Hasselblad A12 Type IV Magazine Film Back with Dark Slide Holder

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


And thats ignoring all of the radiation while they traveled

Such as this

Scientists believed that the strange flashes were being called by cosmic rays hitting the astronauts.

Cosmic rays are defined as “a highly energetic atomic nucleus or other particle travelling through space at a speed approaching that of light.”

Fake news/nasa-astronauts-flashing-lights-moon/


Somehow not one of those particles came into contact with a single frame on any mission