MOST OBVIOUS PROOF MOON LANDINGS FAKED

absolute tripe. the fact that the black space is obviously photoshopped to look like space is just a black empty void should tip you fools off. besides that, the earth is fucking flat.

pathetic.

thank you. morons, the lot of them.

Ask and you shall receive.

[link to lokishammer.dragon-rider.org]

The weather pattern comparison is at the very bottom of the page.

hubble is too close to take a pic of the flag on the moon , couldn,t focus it in

never happened.


The Skies the LIMIT

This is known as the "If I ran the zoo" argument - in other words, you simply state what you need have have considered the "obvious" course of action and then use its supposed lack as proof. It's a clear logical fallacy, as it makes no attempt to investigate why things were actually done the way they were, rather than the way you feel they should have been.

The video cameras were there so that the ground crews could coordinate the activities of the astronauts, they weren't there to take happy snaps. Also, the cameras were hardly 1080p quality, so please spare me any "but they would have looked great" statements.

You say that still images are not acceptable as they are "the easiest" to fake. Can you be more explicit about what it is about video that would make the same shots of the Earth in the photos impossible to use in the video?



Ah, but do you know that beyond all doubt, by having watched every single second of footage, or are you just assuming that because you've never seen it? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The fact is, there is indeed footage of the Earth taken by the LRV camera. In one mission in particular, it's just above the high gain antenna, and the camera tracks up the antenna and sees the Earth. I'm pretty sure there's also footage taken of the Earth after the LM has lifted off, leaving the camera to function for a while longer before being shut off.

Way to handwave and ignore the scientific facts there. Whether you find it "convenient" or not doesn't alter the laws of optical physics. Did you even go and look at the link Duncan provided? If you want an explanation of the principles behind the maths, go look at an article on Dawes' Limit. There's one on Wikipedia.

Great post O-P.



Its all true what you have noted. And yes the Earth would in fact seem 4 times larger then the moon as when we see it on Earth.



Don't forget that you can't see a horizon in any shot of the Apollo landings. Although the Moon is 4 times smaller then the Earth its still large enough to see for hundreds of miles and miles, producing a closer horizon at the curvature of the moon's sphere.



Good job, and keep up the good work.

What, including the bit about no video of Earth? Can you tell us why you are so certain in your confirmation? Because it's not true.



And it is. It's about two degrees across, or about the width of your thumb held at arm's length.



What on Earth are you talking about? To misquote Fawlty Towers, it's over there, between the land and the sky. You can see the horizon in probably a majority of the photos. This has got to be a joke, you can't be serious.

Here's a good picture of the fake moon shot.

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]


As you can see the earth seems about the same size we see the moon when it should be about four times the size. You gotta be kidding that you can't see this nor understand the point the O-P or I'm trying to get across.

I see a picture of the Earth, sure. I don't see the Moon next to it so we can compare sizes, funnily enough. What was the focal length of the lens? Where's the sense of scale? It's pretty obvious that for you "four times as large" translates to "as big as a beach ball", when that simply isn't the case. If you actually bother to look up the focal length of the camera and do some trigonometry (which your "hundreds of miles" comment makes me doubt you can), then the Moon is the exact size it's meant to be.

I just have to add - which is more likely, that this eeevil gubmint conspiracy that is sufficiently sophisticated to fool all the world's scientists, that can create sets that mimic vacuum and one sixth gravity, transmissions from the vicinity of the Moon, hundreds of kilos of rock samples that can't have originated from Earth and all the other exacting details, an organization packed to the gills with people who do space stuff as their daily job, makes such a basic booboo as making the Earth too small; or that several undereducated teenagers on a conspiracy site don't understand trigonometry?

Hey you must be stupid and not just acting. I was under the impression that you were but now I'm convinced you are simply dumb.


Look at this shot of the Moon taken right here on Earth, the top portion of that barn is the same size of the Apollo Lunar module.

[link to k53.pbase.com]


See, the same size the Earth was on the moon landing shot.

why does the flag wave and ripple when there is no wind on
the moon?

Sorry, OP. Lame is what this is. Maybe a desperate need for attention.

I know NASA people, and a couple of musician astronauts.
They really went to the moon. They really fly shuttles.
The ISS is real. UFO's are real.

See a shrink.

Try to take a picture of someone with the full moon directly behind them and see what happens. I'm not a photographer but know that it takes a certain amount of skill to take a picture of something/someone with a bright object in the immediate background.

How would you take a picture if a bright object (moon or earth) is in the background and you're afraid the pic will be washed out? Simple..change the angle of the picture so it is not in the frame (or directly behind the photographer so it will provide some natural illumination)

Just my 2 cents....like I said I'm not a photographer. I'm just drawing on past experience.

I'm not arguing the moon landing comment. To each his own

You know space cadets. The Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of the earth, thus, it would take 1/6th the fuel to lift of the Moon as it did the earth.



[link to www.solcomhouse.com]

1/6th the fuel tanks. Get out here.

What was the focal length of the lens? You obviously understand nothing about photography. Images taken with different focal lengths will have very different apparent sizes.You can't just point to one photo, about which you provide no details as to focal length, film size, or any other details, and assume that the same proportions will hold true for every single other photo taken with a completely different camera.

Uh, no, it doesn't scale linearly. Try looking up "rocket equation". Basically, you have to have enough fuel to lift the fuel you haven't burned yet. It's an exponential relationship, not a linear one. You need way less than one sixth of the fuel.

Hey stupid why didn't they apply your rocket science to Apollo 11 right here on earth at the launching? They would have needed less fuel according to your logic. Don't quit your day job.

No, you can 'get out here'.

Can't take the truth ? I didn't discuss technology with them. They were fans & friends of our band.

Hey dummy they used a 70-mm Hasselblad Lunar Surface Superwide-Angle Cameras. Resulting pictures would look life size. Like the pictures they took.

For more info. look into a movie called "Paper Moon". They bring up dozens of valid points that need to be explored and explained - like the door on the lander being SMALLER than the life support packs that the astronauts supposedly wore on the surface. So how did they get out? Did they just hold their breath until they could put it on?

How about that cool dunebuggy rover? Where was that stashed? It's huge! And why does the sand shooting out from the tires look exactly like sand on the desert shooting off of car tires. Wouldn't low gravity and lack of atmosphere shoot that stuff like 100 yards into the air?

The computing power was less than my wristwatch for crying out loud! Nobody is going to convince me that they flew hundreds of thousands of miles, through the Van Allen Belt entered into the moon's gravitational field and controlled a landing all using a Texas Instruments calculator

Nope, not buying it. How about the space suits? How were they able to fully pressurize a space suit in the vacuum of space and control the internal temperature when it had a swing of hundreds of degrees depending on sun exposure versus shade!? AND still be able to move around when the thing was fully pressurized - it would've looked like a giant balloon!

Obviously our space program is valuable enough to cost us billions upon billions of dollars - so much so that they built the international space station for Christ's sake. Now, if we went to the moon nearly FORTY years ago - wouldn't they have put that thing ON the MOON!?!? Nope - it also floats in orbit BELOW the Van Allen Belt.

What are you talking about? You can't just arbitrarily reduce the amount of fuel and still get to where you want to go!

Looked up the rocket equation yet? It tells you how much fuel you need in order to be able to get to where you want to go (or more precisely, to go as fast as you need to go). This is really basic stuff as far as rockets go. Do you really think that all the scientists who have ever studied the subject, as well as the countless amateurs around the world who do it as a hobby, don't understand this?

Oh look, you can use Google.

What do you mean by "life size"? A photo of an astronaut isn't as big as the astronaut himself, so "life size" obviously means something different where you come from.

Now you've looked up the focal length, explain what it means. If you want to really impress me, find out how far apart the crosshairs (or "fiducials") on the photos are, the size of the film, and thus calculate the angular size of the Moon. Do you think nobody has done this before? What do you think they found?

Well, I'm not arguing, but if the earth is 4X the mass it won't look four times as big from the moon. Ot would have to be about 12X as big to LOOK 4X the size.

This has to be the most laughable hoax claim ever. There are pictures of the astronauts coming out through the hatch. Also, if the hoax was as wel coordinated as the hoaxists claim, don't you think that's the sort of thing they'd notice? If the LM is just a stage prop, they could make it whatever size they wanted to, so why would they mess up something this basic?



And yet it folded down into a really, really small package. Again, there are photos of it being stashed in its storage bay on the Descent stage. Like these:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
[link to i204.photobucket.com]
[link to i204.photobucket.com]



Uh..no. Want to do the sums to back up that bit of handwaving?



So? What computer intensive tasks do you think they needed to do during the landing? Be specific.



Oh dear, you were.

What computing tasks need to be carried out to go through the Van Allen belts? Why do you think that the serious number crunching for the orbital insertion needed to be done on the spacecraft instead of on mainframes on Earth with the results uploaded to the spacecraft? Why do you thin kthe landing was completely controlled by the computer rather than the hightly trained test pilots?



Uh huh. So I'm guessing you think all the spacewalks carried out at the International Space Station are also faked, right? There's a shuttle launch tomorrow, there will be at least four EVAs during the mission. Are they all going to be faked because they look like balloons and are going through temperature variations?



Oh man, that's dumb. How much fuel do you think it would take to launch the whole thing into lunar orbit? You are embarrassing yourself.

Van Allen Belt. Impenetrable and fatal to man.

Barls is a shill. His presence on each moon hoax thread is the best evidence.

There would be no need to defend this hoax if it were all on the up and up.

No one has been to the moon, and no one is going there anytime soon. That is the reality.