Jump to content

Fake Moon Landings


SovereigntyOfMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

 

Reminds me of "Micro changes in air density, my ass."

 

You see, zooming in at 300dpi on the photograph in question it is clearly apparent that shadows from the left and right sides point almost in opposite directions.

 

 

shadows.jpg

 

 

It is in a small crater. Perhaps you can draw me the light diagram from the light for making shadows converge? Yes, please show me how one light source is doing this. More than one light source makes more than one shadow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SimonTV said:

 

Of course, only NASA proponents know anything. haha not heard that one before. You guys are all the same. 

 

Ad hominem response. I suppose it is an element of truth. Informed people probably always do give the correct answer. People who believe in hoax always make the same copied unoriginal claims. Here is very cool website:

 

http://www.clavius.org

 

I am amazed at this hoax still being alive - it is debunked thousands of times.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2021 at 4:30 PM, SimonTV said:

One thing you learn when looking in to the NASA fraud is that NASA and its proponents have an answer for everything no matter how preposterous. 🙄

 

The only sleight of hand that matters is the story sold to the public and the many companies and organisations involved in the project was for tweaking the communist nose and the technological advances that would go hand in hand with such an attempt was not the main reason for doing it.

 

 Post WW2 the CIA were heavily into secret research of things that might destabilize the USA in the long term. Some of that research led them to believe Earth underwent catastophes on a regular basis. One could paint over that various reasons for covering up the construction of underground basis (not just the missile sites) with a plausible cover story but in any case acting on such knowledge might gain a terrific advantage on an unsuspecting world post disaster.

 

This all has to do with the Sun of course.

 

More recent research in various fields over the last 5 decades can't hide the veracity of these cyclic changes which have been fundamental to the evolution of life on this vicarious planet.

 

See Suspicious Observers, Magnetic Reversal News and others to come up to speed.

 

 

So the question to be asked is why is mankind currently going down the technological road at breakneck speed to total digital dependency knowing the Sun could blow it all away in a day?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Doctor What said:

 

Ad hominem response. I suppose it is an element of truth. Informed people probably always do give the correct answer. People who believe in hoax always make the same copied unoriginal claims. Here is very cool website:

 

http://www.clavius.org

 

I am amazed at this hoax still being alive - it is debunked thousands of times.

 

As far as I am concerned the burden of proof still lies on NASA to prove that they went to the moon at least once, never mind several times and played golf up there. The evidence so far that NASA has provided has been debunked to such an extent, that we know without any doubt that NASA or anyone has never been to the moon. Did you ever watch the Apollo landing videos? They look like something out of 1970s science fiction film special fx. There is no dust displacement on the landing and the feet of the lander have no dust on them after landing. They look like they have just been placed there in a warehouse with fake sand and a production studio. I am truly sorry to destroy your childhood dreams of space travel but is an evil lie that needs to be uncovered and people need to know. 

Edited by SimonTV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Precisely. Given there was no additional lighting taken to "the moon" then shadows in virtually opposite directions are not possible in this scale of photograph.

 

You failed to reply in my point made. The shadows are not 'virtually opposite'.

There is only one light source so you must explain what is casting shadows. I give you explanation. 

 

Terrain, camera perspective.

 

shadow03.jpg&ehk=VecyHvNWXA3oqeARAdPU11c

 

Draw light diagram for one light and converging shadows please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SimonTV said:

As far as I am concerned the burden of proof still lies on NASA to prove that they went to the moon at least once, never mind several times and played golf up there. 

 

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

  

3 hours ago, SimonTV said:

The evidence so far that NASA has provided has been debunked to such an extent, that we know without any doubt that NASA or anyone has never been to the moon. 

 

This is very ludicrous and false statement.

 

3 hours ago, SimonTV said:

Did you ever watch the Apollo landing videos? They look like something out of 1970s science fiction film special fx. 

 

No this again is simply not true.

 

Apollo 11 landing from PDI to Touchdown - YouTube

Apollo 11 Landing Profile - YouTube

 

3 hours ago, SimonTV said:

There is no dust displacement on the landing and the feet of the lander have no dust on them after landing. 

 

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.

 

3 hours ago, SimonTV said:

They look like they have just been placed there in a warehouse with fake sand and a production studio. 

 

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. 

 

3 hours ago, SimonTV said:

 I am truly sorry to destroy your childhood dreams of space travel but is an evil lie that needs to be uncovered and people need to know. 

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doctor What said:

 

 NASA has provided nearly 400kg of rocks been examined by world's many geology experts. 

 

Most of these 'experts' know to keep quiet , if they want to keep their cushy university job . But a few   speak out  ..

 

‘Moon rock’ in museum is just petrified wood

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood... https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon U.S. astronauts, is just a piece oNETHERLANDS NOT MOON ROCK A rock supposedly brought back from the moon, and a note from the then-U.S. ambassador is just a piece of petrified wood. AP Aug. 27, 2009, 11:18 PM +07 / Source: The Associated Press
By By Toby Sterling

It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

 

Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.

Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."

He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.

The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.

She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions......

Edited by oz93666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oz93666 said:

Most of these 'experts' know to keep quiet , if they want to keep their cushy university job . But a few   speak out  ..

 

‘Moon rock’ in museum is just petrified wood

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood... https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon U.S. astronauts, is just a piece oNETHERLANDS NOT MOON ROCK A rock supposedly brought back from the moon, and a note from the then-U.S. ambassador is just a piece of petrified wood. AP Aug. 27, 2009, 11:18 PM +07 / Source: The Associated Press
By By Toby Sterling

It's not green cheese, but it might as well be.

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

 

Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.

Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."

He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter.

The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.

She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions......

 

Moon rocks have been well and truly studied - https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/21/18677691/apollo-anniversary-moon-rock-lunar-sample-geology - and some studies are still ongoing – https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/untouched-apollo-moon-rocks-to-be-studied-at-nasa-ames/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarianF said:

 

Why would you think officials at the Dutch National Museum would come out and say it's fake? What have they got to gain but a lot of trouble?? 

 

I'm not suggesting all the moon rocks are petrified wood ...The controllers like to take the piss ...have a laugh , see what they can get away with , hence the Dutch petrified wood ...a long way from home (US) ..this story will never get in the US press ..

 

Probably most of the rocks came from a desert somewhere on Earth ... and are given to Universities .. they can rely on people in these institutions not looking too closely , professors there want to be re-hired ....

 

A very few samples NASA will take extra care with , bombard with micro meteors or radiation so it the rock looks  convincing , look how small the sample is they gave for detailed analysis ...picture from your link ...

 

IMG_9608.jpg

 

 Bottom line Apollo was faked , absolutely no doubt ... they just couldn't risk failure with the whole world watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oz93666 said:

 

Why would you think officials at the Dutch National Museum would come out and say it's fake? What have they got to gain but a lot of trouble?? 

 

I'm not suggesting all the moon rocks are petrified wood ...The controllers like to take the piss ...have a laugh , see what they can get away with , hence the Dutch petrified wood ...a long way from home (US) ..this story will never get in the US press ..

 

Probably most of the rocks came from a desert somewhere on Earth ... and are given to Universities .. they can rely on people in these institutions not looking too closely , professors there want to be re-hired ....

 

A very few samples NASA will take extra care with , bombard with micro meteors or radiation so it the rock looks  convincing , look how small the sample is they gave for detailed analysis ...picture from your link ...

 

IMG_9608.jpg

 

 Bottom line Apollo was faked , absolutely no doubt ... they just couldn't risk failure with the whole world watching.

 

The weight of evidence vs this odd case, would suggest it was probably a mix up or a labeling error. Maybe someone stole the real one. Who knows. But an isolated case like this doesn't really say much about an overall situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oz93666 said:

The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.

Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that."

 

She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions......

 

I have bolded two sentences from newspaper quote - please read.

This is nonsense story btw. NASA have given no big rocks as gifts and after Apollo 11 it is crazy for assuming they would do to an old prime minister of a tiny country. These rocks are very valuable.

 

These are very good researched videos:

 

The Moonstone of The Netherlands - Part 1 - YouTube

The Moonstone of The Netherlands - Part 2 - YouTube

 

Short explaining - this is Museum making assumption Drees has Moon rock, because of complimentary slip. This is what actual gifts look like, with tiny pieces inside in some resin and gold plaque with flag. These are gifts Apollo astronauts handed to head of states.

 

 220px-Apollo_11,_Goodwill_Moon_Rock_(pla

Edited by Doctor What
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oz93666 said:

Most of these 'experts' know to keep quiet , if they want to keep their cushy university job . But a few   speak out  ..

 

 

This is a very poor statement. There are many tens of thousand reports from all over the world and you make poor assumption all are university job people!

 

apollo rocks - Google Scholar

 

More truth would be very large money from proving rocks are not real!

Edited by Doctor What
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Doctor What said:

 

 Burden lies with people who claim this hoax.

 

 

Exactly. Which is why I posted the Apollo photograph clearly showing shadows falling almost in opposite directions. Clear as day. I even put arrow graphics over the image in case you had trouble seeing (accepting) them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2020 at 7:48 AM, SovereigntyOfMan said:

Hi All, 

 

So I'm trying to gather some specific information in regards to the original moon landing and also get some chatter started...

 

So iirc not to long ago I read on this board that their was a freemason flag planted before the U.S. flag? Is there video of this and assuming there isn't can anyone direct me to where this info came from? I'm also interested in the audio chatter between the astronauts and its double and esoteric meaning on any of their recorded audio and also the real meaning of the eagle has landed.

 

What about Kubricks connection? 

 

 

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

 

- https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/the-apollo-experiment-that-keeps-on-giving

 

There's a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2021 at 10:38 PM, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Exactly. Which is why I posted the Apollo photograph clearly showing shadows falling almost in opposite directions. Clear as day. I even put arrow graphics over the image in case you had trouble seeing (accepting) them.

 

Am I understanding you? Your thinking is shadows cannot do this, therefore a hoax, but you fail in explaining how this is done for your hoax? It is perfectly normal to shadows to do this and combine camera angles and the perspective together with shapes of terrain and angle of object to ground.

 

AS-11-40-5930 is shot having terrain fall away from camera towards small crater. This picture AS11-40-5930 | Apollo 11 Hasselblad image from film magazine… | Flickr is full raw scanned image. On your picture is deceptive top right saying shadows go across, they go away from camera but are far away - it is cause by perspective.

 

See this picture, also has wide shadows converge and only to the right not shown would be even more wide:

tree-shadows_00442730.jpg (1920×1080) (wallpoper.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doctor What said:

 

Am I understanding you? Your thinking is shadows cannot do this, therefore a hoax, but you fail in explaining how this is done for your hoax?

 

It is as plain as day. Shadows in near opposite directions are attributable to more than one light source. It seems you have difficulty comprehending this salient point. Or are you simply disregarding the evidence of the photograph?

 

shadows.jpg.89d804bd2c6999d07c9a2a5fa760d507.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

It is as plain as day. Shadows in near opposite directions are attributable to more than one light source. It seems you have difficulty comprehending this salient point. Or are you simply disregarding the evidence of the photograph?

 

shadows.jpg.89d804bd2c6999d07c9a2a5fa760d507.jpg

 

The photograph is wrong arrows in top of the left corner! These are drawn in wrong direction. The shadow falls away direction from camera. True directions are converging from slopes. Did you look at tree picture and very wide shadow range?

 

And may I point to you failure you make. You already said multiple light source make more than one shadow. There is only 1 shadow.

 

Two choices:

Picture is correct in crater, wide angle lens. Uneven terrain and vary angle of rocks.

 

Or it has been doctored on a film from 1969. 

 

Always this crazy claim for shadows and stars - it's BS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

If that picture was authentic the far right rock would be lit from this viewpoint.

 

Is this your joke? The desert picture is authentic. Problem for you is the odd paths for shadows.

 

I gave you full explanations for variation on shadows. The Earth picture shows similar differences with shadow casting.

 

Camera lens / angle of rock / shapes of terrain - in crater or hill.  Distance from a camera. One thing to explain desert top right - It is probable dip in ground and not shadow from the rock plus far away makes the angle appear flatter.

 

Do you now see how shadows can vary dramatically? I showed tree shadows also quite wide spread - did you also see this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of asking folk if they can see, I might ask you if you are able to see. The NASA photgraph in question does not have the sun overhead, and even given a shallow crater, this does not account for shadows being in nearly opposite directions.

 

Well, it is evident you do not want to see this. Rupert is still a happy boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Instead of asking folk if they can see, I might ask you if you are able to see.

 

  Yes, I am able to see. I see example of the desert and a forest with shadows spreading and I see you not replying about them.

 

1 hour ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

The NASA photgraph in question does not have the sun overhead

 

This is more a reason for longer shadows and not a reason for direction in any image.

 

1 hour ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

, and even given a shallow crater, this does not account for shadows being in nearly opposite directions.

 

Yes this does. They are not nearly opposite this is perspective.

 

shaman-poles-of-serge-on-olkhon-in-the-s

 

Please tell me if you see the shaman poles being almost opposite - and this is on a quite flat ground! 

 

shaman-poles-serge-olkhon-sunset-long-sh

1 hour ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Well, it is evident you do not want to see this. Rupert is still a happy boy.

 

It is evident you cannot change your mind with explanations and pictures. Strange reply.

 

https://www.eyeem.com/p/85549766

 

Flat beach, imagine now in a crater.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Doctor What
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

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...