NASA Falsely Depicted the Surface of the Moon

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Mar 14, 2021.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
  2. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113

    ALl debunked and proven fiction
     
    kiwimac likes this.
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
    kiwimac likes this.
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Do you acknowledge he is wrong in his assessment I detailed? EXACT time for crater discussion please.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.

    [​IMG]


    Another question for you to avoid:-

    [​IMG]

    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!
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.

    [​IMG]

    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)
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2021
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83


    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..
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2021
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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)
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.



    [​IMG]

    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!
     

Share This Page