Jump to content

Fake Moon Landings


SovereigntyOfMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

Virtually never, but there are a few rare gems. He was a very private man.

I'm not saying he never gave interviews, I know he did ive seen them, most likely all of them. I'm saying I've often heard woos say he never gave them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Icke-Kia said:

I'm not saying he never gave interviews, I know he did ive seen them, most likely all of them. I'm saying I've often heard woos say he never gave them.

 

Yes I've heard that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Your image comparison does not stand up to scrutiny. The lunar images are way too smooth and are not representative of the LRO photos from above.

 

1.jpg

2.jpg

 

This is not a comparison for features but a comparison for distance. On Earth there is ice and rain which change features with mountains. 

 

You used the Japanese Selene picture not the Apollo picture and did not address the topographic facts. They are exactly as the Apollo ones. The Apollo mountains are many miles in the distance so are small out of focus for settings used with cameras.

 

Apollo 15 LRV traverse 16mm film stabilized - YouTube

 

Please explain how this is faked. Mountains are proven very far away and it is dark sky with sunlighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I contend that a great many mountainous features on the moon are not smooth and rounded but sharp and craggy. However, looking at NASA backdrops we consistently see what look more like evenly sculpted models behind a foreground, most of which, incidentally, exhibit a demarcation line between foreground and background.

 

"October 12, 2014: The LRO mission has provided researchers strong evidence the moon’s volcanic activity slowed gradually instead of stopping abruptly a billion years ago. Scores of distinctive rock deposits observed by LRO are estimated to be less than 100 million years old. This time period corresponds to Earth’s Cretaceous period, the heyday of dinosaurs. Some areas may be less than 50 million years old.

The deposits are scattered across the moon’s dark volcanic plains and are characterized by a mixture of smooth, rounded, shallow mounds next to patches of rough, blocky terrain. Because of this combination of textures, the researchers refer to these unusual areas as irregular mare patches."

 

LRO_Auto3F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is that experiment that University's can setup on Earth where they fire a laser at a reflective panel placed in the moon and time the echo return.

 

When was this panel placed there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

I contend that a great many mountainous features on the moon are not smooth and rounded but sharp and craggy. However, looking at NASA backdrops we consistently see what look more like evenly sculpted models behind a foreground, most of which, incidentally, exhibit a demarcation line between foreground and background.

 

I have no issue with you making this claim - it is not relevant in the size of mountains and rilles. NASA have not used backdrops and why have you avoided the video and question? Also, your picture is Tycho crater not anywhere near Apollo 15 mountains.

 

Apollo 15 LRV traverse 16mm film stabilized - YouTube

 

Please explain how this is faked. Mountains are proven very far away and it is dark sky with sunlighting. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we do many physics experiments with lasers and the effect of space and expansion on the echo and being that the moon is a constant distance and maintains its face towards the Earth then placing a reflector there would possibly provide a greater resolution to these tests than the shorter distances available on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doctor What said:

 

Please explain how this is faked. Mountains are proven very far away and it is dark sky with sunlighting. 

 

Let's get one thing straight - I am not here to answer your questions. That is the province and the bullying history of CosmosQuest, which you possibly subscribe to.

 

You cannot possibly know that NASA never, ever used a backdrop, including images for publicity purposes. Opinions are fine, of course.

 

The precise locations of NASA images I have posted is irrelevant with regard to my contention that virtually all background "mountains" appear smoothly undulating and not ragged as overhead images suggest. The question of scale arises because one would reasonably expect the LEM and astronauts to be dwarfed by comparison. This is not the case, hence they look like sets behind the demarcation line so prevalent in many photographs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Let's get one thing straight - I am not here to answer your questions. That is the province and the bullying history of CosmosQuest, which you possibly subscribe to.

 

Calm down. This is a very amazing statement and one which does not surprise me. I am already of the opinion that you dodge questions, but for you to say bullying is absurd. It is a normal thing for debates to post questions to reach conclusions. It is normal for hoax believers to fail on answering them!

 

3 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

You cannot possibly know that NASA never, ever used a backdrop, including images for publicity purposes. Opinions are fine, of course.

 

And of course you cannot possibly know the alternative. But, I posted a strong video evidence that is proof for all who do have a desire to arrive at the truth. If you watch the video and cannot show how it has been produced it would tell you how wrong you are. I find anybody who does not do this to be showing very strong denial and fear for being wrong.

 

3 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

The precise locations of NASA images I have posted is irrelevant with regard to my contention that virtually all background "mountains" appear smoothly undulating and not ragged as overhead images suggest. 

 

Your expectations for images are even more so irrelevant. I have explained distance and difficulties and you have not even acknowledged these. What it appears for you is just your failure to consider all reasons for this.

 

Why do you think it is harder for set artists to make mountains jagged? You make no sense.

 

3 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

The question of scale arises because one would reasonably expect the LEM and astronauts to be dwarfed by comparison. This is not the case, hence they look like sets behind the demarcation line so prevalent in many photographs.

 

Nonsense arguments. Images of near subjects with distant mountains and captured correctly.

Trekkers-Climbing-Kilimanjaro-at-Karanga

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doctor What said:

- Calm down. . .

- I am already of the opinion that you dodge questions, but for you to say bullying is absurd. . .

- It is a normal thing for debates to post questions to reach conclusions. It is normal for hoax believers to fail on answering them!

- I posted a strong video evidence that is proof for all who do have a desire to arrive at the truth. . .

- I have explained distance and difficulties and you have not even acknowledged these.

- What it appears for you is just your failure to consider all reasons for this. . .

-Why do you think it is harder for set artists to make mountains jagged?

 

In order of the above -

 

- I was perfectly calm, remain so and do not need patronising responses.

- I have no need to dodge questions.

- Bullying on the particular forum I quoted is NOT absurd. That demonstrates sheer ignorance. Either that or as a likely subscriber to it you refuse to acknowledge what has been witnessed for years by many. Therefore no point giving quotes from there, and this is not the place.

- Hoax believer? You know nothing about me, who I am and why my statements are present here. Perhaps you'd like to be called a Blind Bat unable to put basic pieces of logic together and unable to see anything other than what's rooted at your core?

- I do not need to acknowledge your postings that purport to show "strong evidence" on behalf of NASA and personal opinion.

- Your explanations for "distance and difficulties" are not written in stone. It's much like CosmoQuest handing out unquestionable viewpoints as if the last word on any subject under the sun.

- You've no idea of my considerations, motives or otherwise.

- Last point is quite obvious. Model making is a discipline I was involved in professionally for many years, including being team leader for a number of important projects. Myself and any one of my former colleagues could explain to you why rugged terrain is more complex and time-consuming to create than smooth, featureless mounds. But it would likely be wasted on anyone with fixed beliefs, and the answer might not sit well with any NASA proponent.

 

There are a number of apparent anomalies with the Apollo and Mars programmes which can be discussed with respect and tact, but not in this instance.

Edited by Pre-Raphaelite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2021 at 11:20 PM, Pre-Raphaelite said:

You have not proved me wrong. Evidently you think you have. Funny! But that is what you choose to believe. Others choose to believe differently. This is not the right medium for validating self-worth.

 

 

proved-wrong.jpg

 

Shadows in opposite directions - now you are fully proved wrong. The question of course is are you brave enough for admitting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an utter waste of time. Egos that know no bounds telling others what they are thinking. I have far more interesting things to do than respond to constant Rupertisms, as well as running a business. Quite right that this isn't a medium for validating self-worth. I wonder then why you continue to do it. Because you post YouTube videos it proves you right? That is both funny and pathetic.

 

Further bait will be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an fyi, everyone may have their own opinion, everyone should be free to make their own choices and believe as they wish.

 

However should a belief be of that which is objective, then their is only one answer. Only the subjective truth is subject to individual perception. The objective truths are not, no matter what your opinion. Fire burns, rain falls and shit stirs for theories are just that, by their very definition, the theory is unproven. Not fact nor myth not subjective nor objective belief can define it.

 

Is truth based on belief or fact? Ask the voters!

Edited by Seconal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

What an utter waste of time.

 

You are defending poor claims - so yes, waste of time.

 

12 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Egos that know no bounds telling others what they are thinking.

 

That is untrue statement in regards for my post. 

 

12 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Because you post YouTube videos it proves you right?

 

This is not true, the proof in the video does this and the arguments are it proves you wrong.

 

12 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

That is both funny and pathetic.

 

It is neither of these for me to supply evidence to refute your poor observations. These observations are not even your own.

 

12 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Further bait will be ignored.

 

Giving you evidences of your claim being wrong is not bait and it is verystrange from you. 

 

It is also very strange how you make claims of wrong shadows and have no explanation for your claims. I have given you all explanations and the picture in my post shows even more the effect of slopes on surfaces.  It is very telling that you are not admitting the clear obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 12:26 AM, Seconal said:

There is that experiment that University's can setup on Earth where they fire a laser at a reflective panel placed in the moon and time the echo return.

 

When was this panel placed there?

 

I'm assuming you're referring to the following:

 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100413-apollo15-LRRR.html

 

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

 

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...