You have to laugh at this guy, putting things in quotes and capitals, not realising that it reverses their meaning. In this case though correct, they are neither factual or proven. Another uninformed person who completely ignores rebuttal and just trolls this sub forum like a yapping dog barking at the ball. Futile attempt, why would NASA use live studio microphones when supposedly faking a vacuum? Why would NASA zoom in on a flag as it moved? Simply cut out the section if it was even remotely incriminating- which it wasn't.
Here's the hoax-believers' answer to the issue of the lunar samples. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ric-event-was-h.436449/page-7#post-1072387040 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...he-authenticity.603023/page-2#post-1073672541 What Happened On The Moon (3:14:37 time mark) Moon rocks can be faked and scientists can be paid to lie. There are plausible explanations that would explain alternative sources of the rocks so they aren't conclusive proof of anything. The viewers can decide for themselves.
To summarise, an idiotic website that suggests they couldn't know it's a moon rock because they have never seen one and a clueless fool who makes pretty much the same claim. Neither of the 2 pathetic links offers any rebuttal to the literally thousands of lunar sample reports from many hundreds of geologists around the world. Geologists recognize that the rocks are from a low gravity, dry source. They have no terrestrial weathering or signs of being meteorites, both of which are very easy to spot. They have solar isotopes, minerals comparable to Earth, exterior he3 , zap pits and must have been collected from a body other than Earth. Everything about them is consistent with their origin. The Moon. https://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-apollo-moon-rocks-idiotic-website.html The major issue is not that Geologists everywhere confirm their authenticity, but that ignorant people cannot understand why. Complete spam. Any excuse to dump this pathetic debunked to death video. Numerous section are included in my Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt thread where you have failed to refute my claim and as usual have run away from admitting the films showing this are perfectly correct. http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-1.html http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-2.html http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-3.html http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-4.html http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-5.html http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-6.html http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-7.html http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-8.html Above an 8 part series that was posted in its entirety on this forum. This person failed to respond to one single part of any of these! They completely tear apart that stupid video exposing it for the garbage it is, yet here we are having it spammed for god knows how many times! Bullshit! Explain how in your next post or you are just trolling (we know you are anyway). Bullshit! In 1991 NASA logged hundreds and hundreds of references for geologists who had examined the rocks from all over the World. It is ludicrous to suggest they have all been paid to lie. How many people in on this ridiculous and absurd hoax!? A false claim. There is not one plausible explanation for retrieving nearly half a ton of lunar samples and bringing them safely back in any manner other than manual collection. These samples include 3m core samples.
Troll-noise. I find it hilarious that someone like you suggests they are logical. A lie. You ignored my extensive response to your plagiarised garbage. Bullshit. What the hell would a rocket engineer know about rocks? A 1st year geologist can tell the difference between a meteorite and a normal rock. Meteorites have fusion crusts, so it would be impossible to have the measured helium-3 found on samples. For the same reason, there would be no zap-pits from micro-meteorite impacts in-situ on the Moon. Moon rocks are found in 1% of all meteorites. That would mean much more than 100 x 842lbs just to be in with a chance! That would be 50 tons! During entry to Earth, intense heat fractures the rock with tiny cracks, especially on crystalline formations. Solar isotopes would show no consistency and would have altered from decay on Earth. Terrestrial weathering from oxygen and atmospheric/ice water would occur and be considerable over time. You have totally failed to answer my previous rebuttal and you will not answer this either. Fail! The video shows an incredible ignorance of how the suits worked. It's like a five year old looking at it! It's so typical of the dishonesty in hoax claimants that they dump a stupid video and say "look, it explains everything" when it explains nothing. You aren't honest enough to detail the major points in that video that you think prove your inept claim. The inner thermal suit is connected to the PLSS heat exchanger which uses a vacuum plate with tiny holes that ice up, to cool the wearer. The exterior layers form the pressure layer and the many layers of insulation and robust exterior. It was designed outside NASA by a whole team of people, who either built a suit fit for purpose or were in on the idiotic hoax that never was.
That what you've read but is it true? Mainstream sources are all under the control of the same group. Check out this info. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798
A ludicrous claim that thousands of reports are made up and the many hundreds who have examined the rocks are all lying because the evil mainstream are in control. There is nothing remotely plausible with any of this crazy line of argument and you know it. Nope, it's been posted a dozen times previously, addressed half a dozen times and is spam. there is a link to it on my blog and on this forum that of course you ignored.
This is simplistic. If someone wanted to come forward, the media wouldn't report it. They would be risking their jobs or their funding. It might even be downright dangerous. Look what happened to this guy. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-official-story.514874/page-2#post-1073089437
Your claim is absurd and you have avoided the implication. You are suggesting that thousands of complex interwoven geological reports, telling a fully consistent narrative are all manufactured with lies and made up analyses!! That is a moronic thing to suggest. Utter hogwash. Media outlets would go into a frenzy at such a thing. Generalised garbage. People are intrinsically honest, yet you suggest vast numbers can be bought or are afraid to tell the truth, a pathetic and rather sick statement. I looked. You put 2 and 2 together and made a million, then generalised it to an absurd sittuation with thousands of reports!
A lot of people still trust the mainstream but not many of them read the alternative press on the internet. I think most people who read forums know about the owned media. Your credibility with people who read stuff on the internet just took a big hit.
Hogwash. Once again you fail to provide any coherent evidence, just your pathetic and biased opinion, steeped in confirmation bias. There is a hundred ton elephant in the room and you are dishonestly avoiding it. It is moronic and ridiculously unfeasible to dismiss an entire branch of science because you blundered on to something that you have generalised in a way only conspiracy theorists do. Your claim is absurd and you have avoided the implication. You are suggesting that thousands of complex interwoven geological reports, telling a fully consistent narrative are all manufactured with lies and made up analyses!! A ludicrous claim that thousands of reports are made up and the many hundreds who have examined the rocks are all lying because the evil mainstream are in control. There is nothing remotely plausible with any of this crazy line of argument and you know it.
This is strange. MoonFaker: LRO, The Halo Addendum. PART 10 They say they have the capability to see the Apollo equipment left on the moon but they never actually do it.
No it isn't. It's Jarrah White so it's garbage. Since you invariably just dump the video on a post with no meaningful description to it, it doesn't require any meaningful response. Who is "they"? China has seen it, India has seen it, Arizona state (LROC) has seen it, Japan has imaged identical terrain to Apollo images.
The people who run the telescope in Chile. China has also faked its spacewalk so they aren't to be trusted. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-chinese-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/ All of that was fakable so it ain't proof. Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake. The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped MoonFaker: LRO at 50km. PART 1 MoonFaker: LRO at 25km, Dead Ends & No Fly Zones. PART 1 Are you saying this picture isn't fakable? https://www.gamingdeputy.com/53-yea...obe-photographs-the-apollo-sites-on-the-moon/ We aren't in a position to verify whether the info is bogus so we have to leave open the possibility that it's bogus. I find it amazing that anyone would consider fakable pictures to be proof, especially after having seen all of the anomalies in the Apollo footage. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...est-radiation-effects.603272/#post-1073690085
Ignoring the rest of your ridiculously previously answered spam. The issue about resolving hardware using the large telescope array, in theory, had some real possibilities. But as they have since admitted, it was very optimistic given the nature of how extra resolution is acquired. The massive problem is that for there to be a workable interferometer from the combined array, there needs to be a significant resolution difference between the objects being imaged. Expecting greyish metallic against a backdrop of a grey surface to do this, was never going to be possible. More to the point, it is totally pathetic for anyone to highlight this as an issue, when the LROC has imaged the sites already, with enormous and faultless images. Those who ignorantly claim photoshop was used have no concept of the original images, the real-time transmission of data and the enormous issues each of these multi-gigabyte images would entail. It also puts a cast of hundreds in on the ridiculous and impossible hoax.
Are you saying those images aren't fakable? It's really a moot point anyway as the anomalies in the footage have already proven the hoax. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...est-radiation-effects.603272/#post-1073690085
Spam claim and yes, that is exactly what I am saying and below, ignored by you is exactly why. You are incapable of responding with any objective thinking! You simply do not understand anything relating to this subject. Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Scott/Rocky has a whole series of evasion tactics :- 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. This was taken from a forum post many years ago, referencing an expert:- This is some of his work - http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.html "There are several reasons why it would be impossible to doctor the LROC images. I will list the various reasons, in no particular order, as I think of them: 1. The LRO Team, not NASA, controls the LRO. The LRO mission control center is on the campus at Arizona State University. Thus it is the LRO Team who schedules what targets the LRO shoots, and when. Not sure, but I believe that these target commands are uploaded to the LRO on a daily basis. 2. There is no way to upload images to the LRO. 3. Jarrah believes that the LRO images of the landing sites are doctored after they are transmitted to earth. The problem with that theory is that the LRO transmits around 280 GB of data back to earth every day. This data is transmitted as analog data by the LRO's Ka band antenna, is received at White Sands and converted from analog to digital data on-the-fly, and then the data is piped directly to the LRO mission control center at ASU. If NASA or any other entity were to take the time to doctor LRO images of the landing sites, then the LRO team would certainly notice the delay when receiving LRO images of the landing sites. 4. Let's imagine the impossible -- toss out 1 through 3 -- and assume that the LRO images of the landing sites somehow are doctored before they arrive at ASU. Here are the technical hurdles which would have to be overcome. They could be overcome, but only if you took a lot of time, as in a couple of days: 4a. All fake Apollo hardware must be positioned with sub-pixel accuracy. It would be very easy to tell if this wasn't done, simply by 2x or 4x bicubic resampling LRO images of the landing sites and then overlaying the images. 4b. The LRO almost always has to be slewed towards the east or west in order to look at the landing sites. This is because the LRO rarely passes directly over a landing site. This now imposes the need to make sure that viewing perspective of the fake Apollo hardware overlaid on the LRO images is correct. 4c. And now one would have to fake the shadows cast by the fake Apollo hardware. That would be very difficult to accurately accomplish since of course the lunar terrain is far from level at the half meter scale. 4d. Even after all of the above, faking the Apollo hardware -- especially the shadows of said hardware, becomes very difficult. Why? Because each NAC CCD is read out by first reading out all of the even numbered pixels (called the A channel) and then reading out all of the odd numbered pixels (the B channel). The problem is that this readout method (which is slightly faster than reading out the entire row of pixels) introduces the pattern of dark 1 pixel wide bands seen in the LRO images. This banding pattern is non-linear in terms of brightness for a variety of reasons, but my point is that trying to overlay a "correct" banding pattern on top of the fake hardware now becomes virtually impossible due to issues which I will describe further below. 5. Each of the LRO's Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) optical systems consists of an 8" aperture 700 mm focal length Ritchie-Chretien telescope with a group of field corrector lenses placed ahead of the focal plane. The field corrector lenses are mounted in a metal assembly in similar fashion to the way that lenses are mounted in older camera lenses which featured all metal mechanical construction. Temperature changes which occur when the LRO passes from the sunlit side to the dark side of the moon cause these lens elements to creep around very slightly, on the order of a few ten thousandths of an inch. This results in very slight random optical decentering.which in turn produces a very slightly different PSF function for LRO images taken each time the LRO's orbit shifts back to the sunlit side of the moon. 5a. It would be impossible for me to get the results which I do when deconvolving and enhancing the LRO images of the landing sites if the PSF function for the "fake" overlaid Apollo hardware didn't match the PSF function for the rest of the image. There is no getting around this issue. If a somewhat incorrect PSF function was applied to the "fake" image data to be overlaid, then the fake image data would stand out like a sore thumb as showing either an obviously incorrect deconvolution result or showing slight trailing in a random direction compared to the rest of the image. 5b. Image deconvolution involves the use of a PSF which is either calculated from the image (takes a while to do), or which is present in the image itself. For PSFs, I select and use one of the small pieces of highly reflective Kapton film which was blown off the LM descent stage when the ascent stage lifted off. The PSF of one of these pieces of Kapton film usually involves at least 10 to 20 pixels of PSF data. That is a lot of PSF data which one would need to generate not only for each pixel of the fake image to be overlaid, but which also must be fully merged into the actual PSF data of the original image. This would have to be pulled off with 64-bit depth precision since I perform image deconvolution at 32-bit depth precision. In other words, some serious number crunching would be involved in order to make sure that the fake overlaid image is not detectable. 5c. Assuming that, somehow, issues 5a and 5b are tackled, and after taking the time to test the results, then one would have to tackle the repeating electronic noise patterns which are present in every LRO image. The placement of these repeating electronic noise patterns are random since the noise patterns come from all of the electronics on-board the LRO itself. Want to see the noise patterns? Simply use Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. The upshot is that the repeating electronic noise patterns, present in the rest of the original image, would have to be incorporated into the fake image of the Apollo hardware which was to be overlaid onto the original LRO image. But wait...one would have to do this, while at the same time factoring in the issues mentioned in 5a and 5b! And each LRO image contains a few hundred repeating electronic noise patterns from transistors, diodes, capacitors, various circuits, other instruments, and the LRO's Ka band antenna. Lots of stuff, all very faint, but readily visible using FFT analysis. 6. Okay, now let's assume that somebody takes the time to address all of issues described in 4 through 5. The best way to actually fake the Apollo hardware would be to, and if you had plenty of time... -- decompand the original LRO image, -- then fully calibrate the original LRO image, -- then to use FFT to identify and remove all of the original electronic noise patterns in the original image, -- then to simulate the perspective of the fake Apollo hardware which one wishes to overlay, -- then to simulate the shadows of the fake hardware in the fake image which one wishes to overlay while at the same time taking into account the terrain of the original image and making the shadow patterns correctly match to at least at or better than the image scale which generally is around 0.5 meters, -- then properly simulate the effects of the A and B channel vertical nonlinear CCD readout patterns in the fake image, -- then overlay the fake image of the Apollo hardware onto the original LRO image, -- then reapply the original image's electronic noise pattern, -- then de-calibrate the image, -- then re-compand the image, -- then insert all of the original LRO spacecraft data which was sent along with the original image's data stream, -- then calculate and apply new but fake checksums for both the image and the data stream, -- and finally, then send the fake image to the LRO Team's mission control center at Arizona State University, -- and then come up with a reasonable explanation for the LRO Team as to why, each time the LRO images one of the Apollo landing sites, that the resulting image is mysteriously delayed for several hours or days in order to accomplish all of the above, to simply to keep alive some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax which other countries would be able to prove within a decade, if not much sooner. 7. Obviously the dozens of scientists and researchers involved with the LRO, if one is to believe conspiracy theorists, would have to be "in" on the conspiracy -- more than 40 years later. That is beyond being patently absurd. 8. On average, every year roughly a half dozen research papers are published which reveal new and completely unique findings related to studies of the moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts. Findings which are impossible to duplicate, unless one is willing to believe that to this day research scientists are part of some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax conspiracy. 9. You can't bounce data off of the LRO. You would have to bounce data off of the moon itself since LRO's reflectivity in radio wavelengths is several orders of magnitude less than the moon. Any Ka band (since that is what the LRO uses) transmitter strong enough to bounce a fake signal off of the moon in order to simulate the LRO's Ka band transmission to earth would be picked up by radio astronomers around the world, and they would be very pissed off due to the interference with their work. Every LRO image of an Apollo landing site is unique. By this, I mean that the solar altitude above the terrain, the direction of solar incidence onto the terrain and direction of solar emission off of the terrain, and the LRO's viewing perspective when looking at an Apollo landing site and surrounding terrain always is unique for each image. Thus, I just realized that absolutely everything in the LRO image would have to be faked if the fake image were to somehow be uploaded to the LRO prior to the LRO team commanding the LRO to actually image one of the Apollo landing sites. In order to do this, one would have to have a DTM of the terrain with better than 1/2 meter accuracy in terms of both the position and altitude for every single object in the image. That is one hell of a huge swath of terrain to model down to 1/2 meter accuracy in both position and elevation in a DTM. To do so would require at least several dozen LRO images of each landing site over a several year period, combined with supercomputer crunching of all of the image data. So far the best LRO DTMs produced from NAC images have accuracies in the neighborhood of around 5 meters -- far short of what would be needed to properly simulate the height of every object plus the shadow direction and shadow length cast by every object in the image. The altitude component of a NAC DTM is what has by far the least resolution and thus the most amount of error. And this is just to fake one single LRO image. In a nutshell, I realize now that it is utterly impossible to fake a LRO image and upload it to the LRO beforehand." Now of course NONE of that will break through the curtain of ignorance you put up, but nevertheless your bullshit beliefs are completely baseless.
That should be your tag-line. You don't know about anything. Regarding your idiotic video, you point to the proven liar Sibrel. He lies straightaway by saying the footage was not for the public. It was one of the non-televised transmissions from 3 - THAT is what they meant. It is included in the video tape pack that was freely available to anyone at that time. Who says that anyone is saying "tuk"! It is a comms-noise and it is nothing whatsoever to do with any incorrect delays on any audio. We are then treated to the lying Sibrel and his deceptive omission of the Earth being panned out by Aldrin at the actual rectangular window, after he lied about it being filmed by standing at the back of the cabin to fake a full Earth through the round window! A quite insanely stupid claim that is disproven on any number of fronts. The full Earth in the window, matches the full Earth in the photography. Fail 1. The full Earth is at the rectangular window. Fail 2. The full Earth disappears to the side of the window, zoomed fully out. Fail 3. Doing what he suggested would result in a tiny segment of Earth changing ludicrously quickly as they orbited at 17,500mph. Fail 4. I dare you to respond honestly to any of that! You won't, you cant and we all know why. You never respond to anything when you get your backside kicked - in practically every post made to you.
...said the guy who got checkmated and tried to muddy the water for four pages instead of simply changing his position... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676 ...and tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-chinese-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/
I really don't know much about Bart's theory of the way they faked being halfway to the moon. That's why I never talked about it. If it turns out to be wrong, there are other anomalies that show they were faking being halfway to the moon. https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1145.0 I got banned there before I could finish the debate and they are all duly assuming they've debunked the theory.
Only the Chinese . The Americans will find frozen H2O at the moon's south pole. The rocket fuel of the Universe.
Perhaps @Scott could explain why the Russians didn’t blow the whistle on the apparently fake moon landings. It is possible to monitor where transmissions actually come from. No doubt the Russians and other countries were monitoring the transmissions. Don’t you think that if the transmissions were coming from some mocked up stage within the USA, they would have mentioned this loudly and repeatedly? If an amateur ham could do it, so could the Russians. http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
