Jump to content

Fake Moon Landings


SovereigntyOfMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

You keep putting up photographs which are completely dissimilar to the NASA one in question. Yours are showing different angles, that is all, and there's no issue.

 

I laughed when I read this comment. The pictures from me showing angles almost up to 135 degrees and the NASA lunar picture with a crater showing similar. You say they are not similar - big joke. 

 

5 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

 No shadows are almost in opposing directions. I don't know what you're trying to prove but it's getting tedious.

 

NASA image has not opposite directions, distant rocks have shadows flattened with perspective. Same as this image above.

 

5 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

 Evidently you don't like that the NASA photograph has raised questions by way of its exposure and the multiple shadow directions. Time to move on.

 

Evidently for real is you do not like being proved you are wrong. Yes, please move on - because you still have not offered explanations for how you claim lunar image is made. You specify more than one light but single shadows means that is wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rupert knows everything 🤭

 

You have not proved me wrong. Evidently you think you have.

 

 

22 hours ago, Doctor What said:

 

NASA image has not opposite directions, distant rocks have shadows flattened with perspective.

 

Funny! But that is what you choose to believe. Others choose to believe differently. This is not the right medium for validating self-worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Rupert knows everything 🤭

 

No you don't, you haven't understood how shadows and cameras look.

 

16 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

You have not proved me wrong. Evidently you think you have.

 

It seems no arguments reach you. Not my fault or problem.

 

16 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Funny! But that is what you choose to believe. Others choose to believe differently. This is not the right medium for validating self-worth.

 

I am confused how you think the picture is made in 1969 on a photograph. Why don't you explain? My pictures shows how undulating and distance with wide angle lens changes view. If you choose to not understand simple stuff - choose it.

You said you moved on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2021 at 10:49 PM, Doctor What said:

 

Your concern is of no matter. Burden lies with people who claim this hoax. NASA has provided nearly 400kg of rocks been examined by world's many geology experts.  Golf was not played and this is very silly claim of argument by incredulity. Shepard took club head attached to geology handle plus golf balls. Not big deal.

 

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia

  

 

This is very ludicrous and false statement.

 

 

No this again is simply not true.

 

Apollo 11 landing from PDI to Touchdown - YouTube

Apollo 11 Landing Profile - YouTube

 

 

You are copying other people claims like sheep. There is no dust under lander and rocket exhaust entrainment sends dust local, at hundreds of feet a second. More suspicious would be dust on landing pads.

 

 

I have not any interest  in what you think it looks like. what should this look like, then explain how you have experience to say so. 

 

 

It would be much more than your very poor copied ramblings to prove space travel is a lie. Possibly you think hundreds of thousand scientists are all stupid because you on the David Icke forum know all about it.

 

 

It would help if you looked at the images that I posted with the mega link. Also for moon rocks look at Jarrah White's videos on moon rocks. They are completely debunked. 

 

The Landing pads and the whole craft in the Hasselblad images look pristine, they are not covered in dust as we would expect. 

 

1) the landing pads and the lander is not covered in dust. 

2) the "engine" that they used in the lander, which was able to lift them off from the planet after landing (haha), did not leave any dust displacement marks in the ground under the lander. 

 

 

 

5864_n.jpg

5872_n.jpg

5918_n.jpg

Edited by SimonTV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

What about the fact that the lander's outer "tinfoil" protection was held together with a type of sellotape. I am sure it was a very very special NASA sellotape hahaha 😂

5922_n.jpg

 

That's been answered many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

 

It would help if you looked at the images that I posted with the mega link. Also for moon rocks look at Jarrah White's videos on moon rocks. They are completely debunked. 

 

The Landing pads and the whole craft in the Hasselblad images look pristine, they are not covered in dust as we would expect. 

 

1) the landing pads and the lander is not covered in dust. 

2) the "engine" that they used in the lander, which was able to lift them off from the planet after landing (haha), did not leave any dust displacement marks in the ground under the lander. 

 

 

 

5864_n.jpg

5872_n.jpg

5918_n.jpg

 

Original photos sources would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SimonTV said:

It would help if you looked at the images that I posted with the mega link.

 

 

No it would help if you went onto the internet to see your copied claims are all answered everywhere.

 

18 hours ago, SimonTV said:

Also for moon rocks look at Jarrah White's videos on moon rocks. They are completely debunked. 

 

 

Yes, they are completely debunked😆

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2keGTQ8NvY86WyeUHGGweQ

 

18 hours ago, SimonTV said:

The Landing pads and the whole craft in the Hasselblad images look pristine, they are not covered in dust as we would expect. 

 

 

Who is we? I expected a engine with 1000-10,000 lbs of thrust to move everything hundreds of metres. More suspicious is if pads are having dust on them. This is debunked copied claim - not your own thoughts.

 

 

18 hours ago, SimonTV said:

2) the "engine" that they used in the lander, which was able to lift them off from the planet after landing (haha), did not leave any dust displacement marks in the ground under the lander. 

 

You are not very accurate in these claims. The engine for taking off is a different one to landing engine. And of course your second copied claim is 20 years old and debunked everywhere you look on the internet.

 

18 hours ago, SimonTV said:

 

 

 

Jarrah White has made many stupid videos - 10 years have gone by since they have all been debunked by many people.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2keGTQ8NvY86WyeUHGGweQ

 

I have a wonder about which things you think are not debunked. I can answer for you if you ask.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SimonTV said:

What about the fact that the lander's outer "tinfoil" protection was held together with a type of sellotape. I am sure it was a very very special NASA sellotape hahaha 😂

5922_n.jpg

 

This is called Appeal to Incredulity. The foil is called Kapton and aluminised Mylar and tape is not sellotape.

 

Apollo 11 Kapton Foil – Apollo11Space

Mylar and the moon (dupontteijinfilms.com)

 

All debunked for very long time, not for young people who do not wish to look on the internet for proper answers. Lightweight heat and mini meteorite protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

No it would help if you went onto the internet to see your copied claims are all answered everywhere.

 

 

 

Yes, they are completely debunked😆

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2keGTQ8NvY86WyeUHGGweQ

 

 

Who is we? I expected a engine with 1000-10,000 lbs of thrust to move everything hundreds of metres. More suspicious is if pads are having dust on them. This is debunked copied claim - not your own thoughts.

 

 

 

You are not very accurate in these claims. The engine for taking off is a different one to landing engine. And of course your second copied claim is 20 years old and debunked everywhere you look on the internet.

 

 

Jarrah White has made many stupid videos - 10 years have gone by since they have all been debunked by many people.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2keGTQ8NvY86WyeUHGGweQ

 

I have a wonder about which things you think are not debunked. I can answer for you if you ask.

 

 

NASA is debunked.

 

Apollo was not a technological feat, it was a technological miracle. 

 

Look at how many failed attempts it took space X to land a rocket on earth. You expect me (and everyone else) to believe that NASA's lander managed to do it first time in a different gravity and then managed to leave no dust creators in the process. Even the video that you presented of the Apollo 11 lander stabilised footage clearly shows dust being displaced, of course this video came out decades later, the original one that was aired live on TV, did not include that footage. Which way is it? Does the dust move or doesn't it move? make up your mind NASA fraud proponents. 

Edited by SimonTV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

This is called Appeal to Incredulity. The foil is called Kapton and aluminised Mylar and tape is not sellotape.

 

Apollo 11 Kapton Foil – Apollo11Space

Mylar and the moon (dupontteijinfilms.com)

 

All debunked for very long time, not for young people who do not wish to look on the internet for proper answers. Lightweight heat and mini meteorite protection.

 

I told you, very very special NASA sellotape, and very very special NASA foil. They realy are complete geniuses at NASA they amaze me with their technological prowess. 

 

Nasa fraud proponents always have an answer for everything, their technique is usually come with some over convoluted technical answer, hoping the person is unable to refute it. The problem refuting NASA is that their claims are so preposterous and yet technically conceivable at the same time. When the argument is about something that is near impossible to reproduce. Basically I could make up a whole scientifically plausible story about visiting the closest solar system and then just keep "debunking" any arguments that point out the preposterous nature of my claim with technical jargon and explanations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

NASA is debunked. Apollo was not a technological feat, it was a technological miracle. 

 

Apollo was technological feat with very much money and people. 

 

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

Look at how many failed attempts it took space X to land a rocket on earth. 

 

Space X is landing very large rocket in high gravity with vertical narrow rocket. This is very difficult to do.

 

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

You expect me (and everyone else) to believe that NASA's lander managed to do it first time in a different gravity and then managed to leave no dust creators in the process

 

No, I am not expecting this from you. Everyone else is free to make their own observations and not your place to make claims for them. There is scouring marks under Lunar Module as seen on picture.

 

There is also very obvious flaw with what you have copied. NASA has released pictures under LM and Armstrong is talking of it early on moonwalk. This is not making any sense if this is faked, as NASA simply makes a crater. Or much better does not release images! One thing that is important is no atmosphere, no winds. Slower falling from low gravity.

 

MSC (AV) - Astronaut Armstrong Training in the LLTV (June 16, 1969) - YouTube

 

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

Even the video that you presented of the Apollo 11 lander stabilised footage clearly shows dust being displaced

 

Yes, this is correct. Very fast displacement, hundreds of metres per second. Sends all the dust long way beyond the lander.

 

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

of course this video came out decades later,

 

No, this is not correct. Firstly is not a video, it is recorded on cine camera called DAC. On official moonwalk footage VHS is released soon after first VHS and Betamax recorders are on sale and box set includes all cine camera films.

 

 

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

the original one that was aired live on TV, did not include that footage. 

 

For very good reason. The landings and takeoffs are recorded on Cine camera for development after landing back on Earth. So it is not even possible for this to be seen live.

 

2 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

Which way is it? Does the dust move or doesn't it move? make up your mind NASA fraud proponents. 

 

Your comment makes nonsense. There was no landing video of live landing. The astronauts fixed camera and were busy with landing. Your confusion is your own problem, I would urge you to go and research correctly, but I have doubts you will ever do such a thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

I told you, very very special NASA sellotape, and very very special NASA foil. They realy are complete geniuses at NASA they amaze me with their technological prowess. 

 

This is the result of research and lots of money. It is also nothing to do with NASA, every part of Apollo is designed with sub contractors not NASA. You don't know much about any of it.

 

15 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

Nasa fraud proponents always have an answer for everything, their technique is usually come with some over convoluted technical answer, hoping the person is unable to refute it. 

 

This is absurd reasoning and I shall ignore your rude label. Because you have no knowledge on this does not equal it being wrong. I wonder if you understand how the screen is working on your monitoring screen. It must be a fake by your logic.

 

15 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

The problem refuting NASA is that their claims are so preposterous and yet technically conceivable at the same time. When the argument is about something that is near impossible to reproduce. 

 

This very poor vague arguing. Point to me the preposterous parts. Show me also the impossible parts.

 

15 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

Basically I could make up a whole scientifically plausible story about visiting the closest solar system and then just keep "debunking" any arguments that point out the preposterous nature of my claim with technical jargon and explanations. 

 

No, you could not. I do think you can make up crazy answers though as you are doing it now.

 

Your replies can be put in this category:

 

Hand-waving - Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SimonTV said:

 

NASA is debunked.

 

Apollo was not a technological feat, it was a technological miracle. 

 

Look at how many failed attempts it took space X to land a rocket on earth. You expect me (and everyone else) to believe that NASA's lander managed to do it first time in a different gravity and then managed to leave no dust creators in the process. Even the video that you presented of the Apollo 11 lander stabilised footage clearly shows dust being displaced, of course this video came out decades later, the original one that was aired live on TV, did not include that footage. Which way is it? Does the dust move or doesn't it move? make up your mind NASA fraud proponents. 

 

I guess these reflectors just installed themselves on the Moon:

 

– http://polac.obspm.fr/llrdatae.html

 

– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Surface_Experiments_Package

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doctor What said:

 

This is called Appeal to Incredulity. The foil is called Kapton and aluminised Mylar and tape is not sellotape.

 

Apollo 11 Kapton Foil – Apollo11Space

Mylar and the moon (dupontteijinfilms.com)

 

All debunked for very long time, not for young people who do not wish to look on the internet for proper answers. Lightweight heat and mini meteorite protection.

 

Apollo lander engineering well established. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1159285/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...