Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[meksar]

Well NASA has never been back to the moon since and they say Stanley Kubrick flimed and faked it for them, that is is enough for me to say no.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by meksar

Well NASA has never been back to the moon since and they say Stanley Kubrick flimed and faked it for them, that is is enough for me to say no.

So you believe the "they" who say it was a hoax, but never bother to question why "they" are so pathetically wrong. Typical HB - Kubrick my arse.

http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html
http://www.clavius.org/movies.html

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by ianw

I have always maintained they are satellite images passed off as apollo images, so its no surprise they are exact images.

They aren't exact bloody images and the satellites transfer this via radio signals - not even within a mile of the quality from the Kodachrome film from Apollo. Joker. But thanks for sharing your unsupported, incredibly impossible, contrary belief.

We're all still waiting for you to back up this bullshittery with a 2012 simple to do version of an Earth from the satellite images from LEO. The geostationary ones wouldn't work because they would always capture the same part of the Earth, Apollo doesn't.

You know full well that even with modern software and computers this could not be done invisibly, let alone to any high quality. Joker.

[meksar]

Originally Posted by truegroup

So you believe the "they" who say it was a hoax, but never bother to question why "they" are so pathetically wrong. Typical HB - Kubrick my arse.

http://www.clavius.org/bibkubrick.html
http://www.clavius.org/movies.html

Heres a good little tune for you

Masonic Moon - By The Elders Of Zion.

Masonic Moon - By The Elders Of Zion. - YouTube

Masonic Moon - By The Elders Of Zion. - YouTube

[bertl]

Originally Posted by meksar

Heres a good little tune for you

Masonic Moon - By The Elders Of Zion.

Masonic Moon - By The Elders Of Zion. - YouTube

What is this conspiracy propaganda?

[meksar]

You have to ask yourself why has NASA never been back to the moon if they really landed there in the first place?, watch Chris Everard's Secret Space films on youtube i actually agree with them for the most part.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by meksar

You have to ask yourself why has NASA never been back to the moon if they really landed there in the first place?, watch Chris Everard's Secret Space films on youtube i actually agree with them for the most part.

Kerrrist, are you for real? Chris Everard uses Apollo footage near the Moon to say there are UFOs!! He believes Apollo 11 saw a space serpent(it was a panel from the S-IVB).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...iqfcciqM#t=96s

[meksar]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Kerrrist, are you for real? Chris Everard uses Apollo footage near the Moon to say there are UFOs!! He believes Apollo 11 saw a space serpent(it was a panel from the S-IVB).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...iqfcciqM#t=96s

Like i said i agree with him for the most part.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by ianw

I have always maintained they are satellite images passed off as apollo images, so its no surprise they are exact images. You yourself have overlaid segments of satellite imagery onto the apollo ones and found them to be an exact match.
This is quite a feet considering the satellite would have a once in an eternity chance of sweeping over and capturing the unique never to be repeated image during its 48h scanning cycle of the globe.

Clueless. Your knee-jerk denial has no basis in reality,

You haven't always maintained that now have you, you have maintained a few different ideas as to how you think it was done. Who can forget your theory that Baja California was the Irish Sea.

Here's a definitive statement for you to get to grips with: the Apollo images are not derived from satellite images. It's a fact, deal with it. Those satellite images are in black and white. There are no colour ones in the Apollo era. The images are nothing like the same quality as the Apollo ones. In some cases video images were transmitted to Earth on live TV before the satellite photographs were actually available.

You obviously have't looked at the document I wrote or you'd realise how wrong you are. Go and read it. Prove any of it wrong.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76882844/C...cross-the-Moon

You have actually proved my point in your second part, although you get the time period wrong - daily satellite images are done, well, daily and the satellite passes over exactly the same point at the same time every day (unless it's geostationary in which case it doesn't change position at all). The weather patterns it captures are unique to that specific point in time. The fact that an Apollo image taken on the same day shows the same weather patterns demonstrates when it was taken. Duh!

[wwu777]

Check out this incredible 3.5 hour documentary called "What happened on the moon?" It features experts in photography and videography showing incontrovertible evidence that many of the photos and videos of the moon were clearly faked and had a second artificial light source - there's no way around it. Some whistleblowers are also mentioned, including one source that says that Apollo 15 Astronaut James Irwin was about to go public about the moon hoax before he suddenly collapsed of a heart attack.

After viewing this film objectively, there will be no doubt in your mind that the whole thing was a fake, lie and cover up.

Here are parts 1 and 2.

Dark Mission 1 - NASA Moon Hoax - Analysis of the Lunar Photography - YouTube

Dark Mission 1 - NASA Moon Hoax - Analysis of the Lunar Photography - YouTube

Dark Mission 2 & 3 - NASA Moon Hoax - Environmental Dangers & The Trouble with Rockets - YouTube

Dark Mission 2 & 3 - NASA Moon Hoax - Environmental Dangers & The Trouble with Rockets - YouTube

[bertl]

Say, wwu, is there anything new anywhere in these close to 4 hours of documentary? You know, something that hasn't been debunked already years ago?

[phrased eyebrow]

The screen shot on part two is nice and bright. Kind of like I would imagine it to be on the moon. Why wouldn't daylight be that bright on the moon? the surface is bright enough to be seen by naked eye on earth, a quarter million miles away. And it's already been established that it's too bright on the moon to be able to see the stars....

I suspect you have reams of info nobody will be bothered to read addressing this matter. So I'll just grant you the point and say, of course it only makes sense that we went (to the) moon.

[bertl]

Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow

The screen shot on part two is nice and bright. Kind of like I would imagine it to be on the moon. Why wouldn't daylight be that bright on the moon? the surface is bright enough to be seen by naked eye on earth, a quarter million miles away. And it's already been established that it's too bright on the moon to be able to see the stars....

Have you maybe considered the possibility that the camera's settings were tuned so that pictures would be properly exposed for the brightness of Lunar daytime?

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by bertl

Have you maybe considered the possibility that the cameras settings were tuned so that pictures would be properly exposed for the brightness of Lunar daytime?

He hasn't actually "considered" any of this in the technical sense where "considered" means "thought about for more zero seconds."

I have him/it on ignore. Tidies up the threads that way.

Try it.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow

The screen shot on part two is nice and bright. Kind of like I would imagine it to be on the moon. Why wouldn't daylight be that bright on the moon? the surface is bright enough to be seen by naked eye on earth, a quarter million miles away. And it's already been established that it's too bright on the moon to be able to see the stars....

I suspect you have reams of info I can't be bothered to read addressing this matter because they will prove me wrong. So I'll just grant you the point and say, of course it only makes sense that we went (to the) moon.

ftfy.

I've ignored the bit about not being able to see stars. There's a difference between seeing and photographing that, despite you saying you work with photography, you don't seem to get. Would you like references from photography websites or astronomy websites to ignore? Which particular field of expertise in the subject would you like to pretend doesn't exist?

Daylight is bright on the moon. The light you see from earth is nice and bright on the lunar surface too. Bright enough to need a tinted visor. The only difference on earth is the atmospheric scattering that sends it blue. Can you see stars in the daylight? Can you photograph stars next to the moon?



Any stars in there?

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by wwu777

Check out this incredible 3.5 hour documentary called "What happened on the moon?"

The seagull comes back for more spam. You drop in make a couple of posts then ignore all the replies. There seems to be a whole group of people who do this.

It features experts in photography and videography

None of whom doubt the missions. Here is the Kodak man talking with Patrick Moore about the exposure in shadow(video 1)...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/s...ions/apollo_16

direct link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/s...lo_16#p006glwc

showing incontrovertible evidence that many of the photos and videos of the moon were clearly faked and had a second artificial light source

No, really it doesn't. It shows exactly what we would expect.

there's no way around it.

Yes, really there is. The people making the film wanted to make money and told a few pork pies.

Some whistleblowers are also mentioned, including one source that says that Apollo 15 Astronaut James Irwin was about to go public about the moon hoax before he suddenly collapsed of a heart attack.

Not one iota of proof, not one single credible source.

After viewing this film objectively, there will be no doubt in your mind that the whole thing was a fake, lie and cover up.

You don't do that at all. You had a pre-conceived fix belief and used this pile of tosh to reinforce it. Just because you have the understanding of a fig about the Moon landings, doesn't mean everyone else does. Most people around here will buy it hook line and sinker, which is really quite sad.

Here are parts 1 and 2.

Someone actually could be bothered to wade through that rubbish and tear it to pieces - there is so much more to say, but this suffices....

Part1 of 8 - link to next page at the botttom.

I shall paste in the conclusion that film comes to:

"Some think it's highly likely that surrogate astronauts were actually sent to the Moon, while the named NASA astronauts were obliged to play out the role of space heroes, far nearer to home remaining in the relative safety of low Earth orbit. As actors in a drama, the named astronauts represented the greatest achievement of mankind whilst others unknown travelled beyond the confines of their home planet for the first time, to all intents and purposes naked before creation as we shall see in a moment."

So the film now presents its trump card - we went to the Moon, but faked the pics, images and the actual men who did it!

Epic Facepalm - YouTube

Epic Facepalm - YouTube

[phrased eyebrow]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

He hasn't actually "considered" any of this in the technical sense where "considered" means "thought about for more zero seconds."

I have him/it on ignore. Tidies up the threads that way.

Try it.

Put this on ignore. Start with ignoring the Apollo 13 part.

Originally Posted by wwu777

Dark Mission 1 - NASA Moon Hoax - Analysis of the Lunar Photography - YouTube

Dark Mission 2 & 3 - NASA Moon Hoax - Environmental Dangers & The Trouble with Rockets - YouTube

I can see where you're frustrated.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow

Put this on ignore. Start with ignoring the Apollo 13 part.

I can see where you're frustrated.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co...ed-part-4.html

Minute 87-89 Percy suggests that the photograph of the damaged Apollo 13 CSM is identical to one where the cover is removed on another photograph. Irrelevant really what he thinks, the Odyssey photograph shows damage. Another daft contention. Ronnie Stronge makes an assertion that "many experts" claim, such an explosion would throw the craft "way off course". Hogwash. Who are these "many experts" and where are their computations?

We now have Mary Bennett and her "dance through space" speech, where she tells us that the Apollo 13 craft was scheduled to land in darkness, because it was just barely emerging from the terminator when the craft was over 19,000 miles on its way back to Earth. She says that Apollo 13 had just left Lunar orbit whilst it was still dark.

Let's examine this. Firstly, Apollo 13 never went into orbit!! She has the audacity to tell us how anybody with "rudimentary knowledge of astronomy or an ephemeris" could check this, but makes such a basic, bad error. The craft went around the Moon on a free-return-trajectory. This means it did not fire retro to slow its speed to acquire orbit, but was on a speed and course that took it around the Moon far quicker than normal.

This means it hit 19,000 miles away from the Moon barely before it would have even performed one orbital rotation! Apollo 13 was scheduled to be in lunar orbit for 26 hours prior to landing. The actual sunrise terminator moves some 13 degrees in longitude between lunar orbital insertion and the landing.

Mary Bennett - epic fail.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co...ed-part-5.html

Continuing Disk 1 of 2
Minute 89-91 More from Ronnie Stronge telling us about all the Apollo 13 anomalies found(already debunked), and concluding that "something is very wrong with this mission and the Apollo space program in general". This is just bare assertion aimed at influencing the viewer, and uses the reinforcing technique of all the "evidence" presented. He says "we certainly have to conclude that the official data concerning this mission is unreliable"! Unbelievable bunkum. They have not presented one single tenable fact to conclude this.

Stronge just spouts more bare assertions about it being designed as a "rescue mission" and that Apollo 13 never left LEO. Ignoring the fact that the craft would be clearly visible to the world, radio signals would now disappear with each 90 minute orbit and every single ground station tracking the craft would see this.

Minute 91-93 Mary "epic fail" Bennett now comes up with top grade bunkum. She highlights inconsistencies with Apollo 13. No, not the NASA mission, the Hollywood movie! Yes, she really does think that a dramatized account should be 100% accurate and proves that Apollo 13 the mission would have done the same thing. I really cannot emphasize enough, quite how stupid this is.

There are quite a few more errors on the Apollo 13 movie, that could have padded out this joke of a film even more:-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/goofs


Minute 93-94 Continuing with more Bennett nonsense. She now theorises whether the reason the landing site "that never was", took its name from the 16th century Venetian monk Fra Mauro, was because he was the instigator of a "map that never was".

Well firstly, we have already shown the landing site in darkness contention was complete bunkum, and the program presents no evidence to this non-sequitur link about fake maps. Secondly it was the 15th century, a minor point, but indicative of the level of research made. She represents herself as an academic, yet makes so many glaring mistakes and unsupported statements.

Direct quote from her "yet no trace of his map has ever been found":-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Mauro_map

I simply have to do a full quote on what this daft woman says next:-

"This adventure in mind mapping raises important questions concerning the links, between representation and imagination and even the nature of reality itself......we wonder what the Fra Mauro site symbolised for those in the know at NASA"

Stink it up, and you call that evidence?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio.../landing_site/

The landing site selected for Apollo 14 was in the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater, with the primary objective of sampling material excavated by the Imbrium impact.

I can see where he is frustrated at the blinkered troll, who will respond to this with a troll-one-liner or will ignore it. You can't respond to it with direct counter argument can you? No, thought not.

[truegroup]

Another angle on this so called irrefutable film. Here are a couple of clear examples of 100% deception by the maker of that film. If anybody cares to dispute this, make your case, but as usual the impending deafening silence will suffice...

Apollo 16 jump - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt - YouTube

Apollo 16 jump - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt - YouTube

Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt - YouTube

Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt - YouTube

Backdrops and corrupt hoax film makers - YouTube

Backdrops and corrupt hoax film makers - YouTube

[bertl]

Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow

Put this on ignore. Start with ignoring the Apollo 13 part.



I can see where you're frustrated.

Hey, so I noticed you completely ignored any response to your question. I was wondering whether you will be getting back to that or admit defeat there. This is probably where A_G's frustration comes from too: your complete inability to communicate effectively on even a basic level.