Start watching part 1 of this documentary at the 1:19:23 time mark. There seem to be differences in the moon's surface between the NASA pictures and pictures taken by independent amateur astronomers. It continues into part 2. Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 1 of 2 Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 2 of 2 If those videos don't work, click here. https://www.bing.com/search?q=Moon+Hoax;+"Apollo;+Hoax+Of+The+20th+Century"+Part+1+of+2+&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=moon+hoax;+"apollo;+hoax+of+the+20th+century"+part+1+of+2+&sc=0-58&qs=n&sk=&cvid=BF4DE2A36BD041BDAFC24588E7737ACF
Four hours of moronic spam from the serial forum spammer. As opposed to this guy who has researched this whole subject to a level that your youtube imbeciles could never comprehend. Probably one of the most totally conclusive analyses I've come across:- Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com) No doubt you won't even click the link.
I gave it a scan and I saw lots of NASA's official pictures. I didn't seen anything that addressed the argument of the documentary – NASA's pictures seem to be different from non-NASA pictures. If that's addressed there, could you link to it?
Pathetic. You have on this website a fantastic cross reference to multiple pictures compared between decades. It shows a breathtakingly accurate consistency that cannot possibly have been faked! And you flicked through it in a couple of minutes. Any piece of crap you throw at the wall in the hope it sticks. What nonsense "seems" to you is irrelevant. No. If you want anything in that 4hrs of complete ignorance addressed, highlight a specific point. Pick your best one. I fully expect that at all costs you will not be swayed from your crazy confirmation bias.
I don't see how that addresses the alleged difference between the NASA pictures and the non-NASA pictures. The site you sent seems to have all NASA pictures. If there is a comparison there and you know where it is, could you link to it? Also, if you're a serious truth-seeker, you'll watch the whole footage I pointed out. Most of the viewers are probably watching it and seeing the analyses and you're not going to impress them by refusing to watch it. At the 00:56 time mark of part 2 he talks about North Ray Crater.
The claim is nothing to do with image discrepancies and everything to do with why astronauts become labored from walking up a slope. I suggest you go and read up about inertia. It takes the same effort to move mass anywhere, regardless of gravity. They are moving around in a cumbersome space suit, doubling their mass. reduced gravity sports - Why is it so hard to walk on the Moon? - Space Exploration Stack Exchange
Talk about the size of the crater. It's alleged that the Apollo picture of the crater is too small to be the real crater.
Do you acknowledge he is wrong in his assessment I detailed? EXACT time for crater discussion please.
The point is that the crater in the Apollo picture couldn't be the crater seen from above as it's way too small. I thought it was clear that this was the main issue. Their walking uphill to the edge of the crater is a vaguer issue that's easier to obfuscate. It would probably be hard but I can't really say. The clearest evidence of fakery is the size of the crater in the Apollo picture. You seem to be afraid to address that. I say that proves the Apollo picture was faked and therefore proves the moon missions were faked. edit -------------------------------------------- Sorry. I made a mistake with the time mark. I meant to say "56:00 time mark". I'm sorry I said you were avoiding the issue.
What are you using to determine its size? The jackass who made the video? A single image? And why does he use such a crappy version of it! a16pan17239-48SBHR.jpg (6125×2436) (nasa.gov) Many, many times explained to you, distance on the Moon is simply not obvious. The visual cues we receive on Earth, such as trees, bushes etc. do not exist. The other main clue to distance on Earth is the natural distortion from, heat haze, dust, pollution and perspective. Once again nothing on the Moon to provide this. Watch this video very quickly:- Pause at 1 minute. Mentally assess how big the rock is that they are running towards. Do the same at 1min 30 seconds. Now go to 5 minutes. Distance cannot be accurately judged from a damn image, let alone a continuous video! I guarantee you were wrong about the size of that rock. Then he starts talking about boulders surrounding the crater as though this means something. On Earth, billions of years of erosion and weather, but even then, the whole crater is littered with boulders and rocks. Another question for you to avoid:- How big is the crater above? Careful now. I've removed all the visual cues. Huge? Yes? Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) 1. For images or video: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake." He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such. Then why the hell didn't you remove the bullshit claim preceding this when you edited your post!
I see what you're saying but there are other factors. Why would the boulders get gradually bigger as they get further away from the camera? You should get an unknown crater for this test. It has the same shape as the one in Arizona. It's obviously the one in Arizona. Let's hear your analysis of the issue of Hadley Rille at the 24:30 time mark.
They don't they are random, but so what? Why should they be anything from that impact? I expect ejecta from that to be many miles away. This could be ejecta from many other impacts. It is NOT the one in Arizona. Try again how big is it - I will show you when you commit. Big or small. The point is proven already, you don't know, you just assumed. Later maybe if I can be bothered. This website has numerous in depth analyses of orbital and surface photographyshowing 100% consistency:- Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com)
That video above demonstrates astonishing clarity between what is seen and expected. Your video is a bumbling mass of appeals to incredulity and ignorance of the lack of visual cues available. What world of crazy ignorance does somebody look at a reasonably straightish section of Rille, then determine that a spot at one end would be able to see straight down to the end! Neither of the orbital pictures are detailed enough to capture the numerous ridges along its route as they are shaded the same as their surroundings and locally this thing twists and turns in the same general direction..
In addition to the above post, I refer you to this video: now start by pausing it at 40 seconds. That is very close to the picture used in your video to say that it is too small. Then the camera zooms in and suddenly it gets a whole lot bigger and it is still not as close as it could get. The following page has orbital pictures from LROC showing a crazy number of ground features that match perfectly with Apollo images. Now you tell me why you cannot assimilate solid accurate research like this but have no trouble believing the observations of fools on youtube! Landing Sights: Apollo 15 (onebigmonkey.com)
First of all the hoax has already been proven by other anomalies* so this issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it. That's explained here. https://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Numerous Apollo 15 photo examples indicate an identical distortion grid – a projection screen at the distance of 100-120 metres from the front of the studio stage. A serious falsification of the true lunarscape, in particular, an artificial trench 30-60 metres in width given for the lunar Rima Hadley which is actually 1,200 metres in width; the image of this remote lunarscape being projected onto the curved background screen; and ‘astronaut’ photographers taking pictures in front of it in a studio set. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Of course they match. They were both taken by NASA. The issue here is that the NASA images don't match the ones taken by amateur astronomers. * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068
Bullshit. Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) 7. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...." So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked. No matter how many times you cut and paste this bullshit it still stays bullshit. You're not qualified to assess any of that excerpt. 3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it " For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax. So laughably, you automatically buy into bullshit and reject experts who contradict the bullshit. How incredibly dumb is that. So how the hell did NASA assemble a "Moon set" that matches identically with orbital photography. It is ridiculous to suggest they had a team creating this to such detail and size! They match because they were both taken on the Moon or from orbit. Ignored: That video above demonstrates astonishing clarity between what is seen and expected. Your video is a bumbling mass of appeals to incredulity and ignorance of the lack of visual cues available. What world of crazy ignorance does somebody look at a reasonably straightish section of Rille, then determine that a spot at one end would be able to see straight down to the end! Neither of the orbital pictures are detailed enough to capture the numerous ridges along its route as they are shaded the same as their surroundings and locally this thing twists and turns in the same general direction. Ignored: They don't they are random, but so what? Why should they be anything from that impact? I expect ejecta from that to be many miles away. This could be ejecta from many other impacts. It is NOT the one in Arizona. Try again how big is it - I will show you when you commit. Big or small. The point is proven already, you don't know, you just assumed. Later maybe if I can be bothered. This website has numerous in depth analyses of orbital and surface photographyshowing 100% consistency:- Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com) The landings have already been proven many times. Every single idiotic claim has been debunked. You are washed up and ignoring numerous posts. Now, how big is that huge crater just above? I fully expect you are stumped and are seeking ways to find it before answering. PROVING my point entirely!
I just came across this. It's the first version of the video. Apollo 11 Moon Landing Never Happened Moon Hoax Proof Full Documentary https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...1A2879E1F82144F97BEC1A2879E1F821&&FORM=VDRVRV Here are some more links to the version in post #1 in case it goes off-line. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...47BA4855A410CFEF7AFEEE30&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl= https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...016343229D7BFEB9867D6531&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=
So how the hell did NASA assemble a "Moon set" that matches identically with orbital photography. It is ridiculous to suggest they had a team creating this to such detail and size! They match because they were both taken on the Moon or from orbit. Ignored: That video above demonstrates astonishing clarity between what is seen and expected. Your video is a bumbling mass of appeals to incredulity and ignorance of the lack of visual cues available. What world of crazy ignorance does somebody look at a reasonably straightish section of Rille, then determine that a spot at one end would be able to see straight down to the end! Neither of the orbital pictures are detailed enough to capture the numerous ridges along its route as they are shaded the same as their surroundings and locally this thing twists and turns in the same general direction. Ignored: They don't they are random, but so what? Why should they be anything from that impact? I expect ejecta from that to be many miles away. This could be ejecta from many other impacts. It is NOT the one in Arizona. Try again how big is it - I will show you when you commit. Big or small. The point is proven already, you don't know, you just assumed. Later maybe if I can be bothered. This website has numerous in depth analyses of orbital and surface photography showing 100% consistency:- Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com) The landings have already been proven many times. Every single idiotic claim has been debunked. You are washed up and ignoring numerous posts. Now, how big is that huge crater just above? I fully expect you are stumped and are seeking ways to find it before answering. PROVING my point entirely! Look at this guy, he disappears for six months then comes back and off-topic spams his own thread just to swamp the forum and as always, with the in-built integrity bypass, fails to answer the last post aimed at him.
Here's a picture of the one in Arizona. https://eu.azcentral.com/story/travel/arizona/road-trips/2017/10/17/meteor-crater-arizona/541387001/ It looks suspiciously identical to the one you posted. https://www.google.com/search?q=met...HSrqCD8Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1366&bih=657&dpr=1
Yes, its the one in Arizona - but someone blurred out the buildings and parking lot. Are you losing it, Beta?
It is clearly not the one in arizona which would make you the one losing it. Any three year old can tell at a glance this is one more debunked bullshit lie from the author of the OP
I blurred out the buildings and parking lot and made it black and white and trust you to interfere with my experiment! Of course it's Arizona! Are you saying that those images cannot be faked!? From your wall of cut and paste diversionary spam: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake." "I think it is moot now that you`ve been discredited and there is a mountain of evidence that proves the footage was real...." "If this turns out to be the case, there's a ton of proof that the missions were real and zero proof that they were faked" And there we go, I suspect that the points I am making will be totally lost on this person. He won't understand what it feels like when you present irrefutable evidence and get it dismissed for no reason!
Start watching this video at the 44:53 time mark. Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 2 of 2 Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 2 of 2 - YouTube www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=Vv07dUq8GjA It says that NASA changed the rough terrain to smooth terrain in a photo of the moon's surface.
