What's the point of misrepresenting what was said when people can watch the video and see what was really said? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-29#post-1074232482 Armstrong clearly said that he couldn't see stars while using that instrument from the surface of the moon. Nothing you said about the LRO photos being real proves they were real. Pictures are fakable so they can't be considered proof of anything. I said what I believe so it's an honest response. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665 That footage is another piece of proof that the astronauts were on wire supports that can be added to this list. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-absurd-hoax-coffin.604367/#post-1073766164 People can look at the footage and come to their own conclusions.
There's no point at all, but that's not what I am doing. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What instrument? He never used any instrument to view the solar corona from the Moon! Surely you know this? I mean, are you just guessing here? Bad guess! The ONLY time they viewed the solar corona was during lunar coast from the command module. But you don't understand any of it, made no attempt to respond to it, so how the hell would you know!? Circular argument. YOU don't understand why they aren't fakable so you don't get to spam your stock reply. They are impossible to fake and I just described why. Was the soil on wire supports? It went up as high as his boot and at the same time. QED. Case closed.
If the moon landing were fake, given that the Soviets had a vested interest in disproving the moon landing, the Soviets would have offered incontrovertible proof, but though they were suspicious, they never did. Not only that, there are third party proof confirming the landings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 meters. AS15-82-11121: Apollo 15 Lunar Roving Vehicle AS15-82-11122: Apollo 15 photo 3D SELENE reconstructed photo The light-colored area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command/Service Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of crewed landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo program. Chandrayaan-1 As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site.[2][3] Chandrayaan-2 Chandrayaan-2 image of the Lunar Module Eagle descent stage at Tranquility Base In April 2021 the ISRO Chandrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage. The orbiter's image of Tranquility Base, the Apollo 11 landing site, was released to the public in a presentation on September 3, 2021.[4] Chang'e 2 China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings and the lunar Rover, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified.[5] The common issues and the debunking on each: Lack of Stars in Photos: One of the arguments is that there are no stars visible in the photos taken by the astronauts on the lunar surface, suggesting that the pictures were taken on a studio set. Debunking: The absence of stars in the photos is due to the settings of the cameras used during the moon missions. The cameras were set to capture the bright lunar landscape and astronauts, which made the faint stars not visible in the background. [PDS interjects: As a professional photographer, myself, the dynamic range of the film used at that time was not broad enough to capture the light to dark range of the brights of the lunar landscape and the lowly lit stars in the dark sky. Therefore, when adjusting the aperture and shutter to capture the details of the lunar surface, the settings are not enough to allow light from the sky to reach the film plane] Flag Movement: Some claim that the American flag planted on the moon appears to be waving or fluttering, which they argue is impossible in a vacuum. Debunking: The flag's appearance of movement was due to the way it was deployed. The flag's horizontal pole had a wire that extended along the top edge, causing the flag to "wave" since there was no atmosphere to dampen its motion. Lack of Blast Crater: Critics argue that the lunar module's descent engine should have created a large blast crater on landing, but there is no evidence of one in the images. Debunking: The moon's surface has a layer of fine dust and regolith that behaves differently from the soil on Earth. The lunar module's descent engine did create a blast, but it dispersed the loose surface material rather than creating a deep crater. Crosshairs and Overlapping: Some claim that certain photos show the crosshairs from the camera's viewfinder behind objects, suggesting that the photos were doctored. Debunking: The crosshairs were etched onto the camera's glass plate, and they sometimes appear behind bright or reflective objects due to overexposure. This is consistent with how the camera was designed. Multiple Light Sources: Critics argue that the lighting in some moon photos seems unnatural, suggesting the presence of additional light sources, which would not be possible on the moon. Debunking: The moon's surface reflects light from various angles due to its rocky and irregular texture. The presence of astronauts, the lunar module, and the lunar surface itself caused light to scatter in different directions, creating a complex lighting environment. [PDS interjects: as a pro photographer myself, it looked to me that some shots used a wide angle and/or fish eye lens, which would have given the illusion of shadows coming from a different source if the lines of the shadows pointed to a central region in the photo] Radiation Hazard: Some argue that the Van Allen radiation belts around Earth would have been deadly to the astronauts, preventing them from reaching the moon and returning safely. Debunking: NASA planned the trajectory of the Apollo missions to minimize the time spent in the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft also had shielding to protect the astronauts from harmful radiation. Slow-Motion Walking: Critics point to the slow-motion movement of astronauts on the moon's surface, claiming it resembles a studio set. Debunking: The moon's lower gravity (about 1/6th of Earth's) caused the astronauts' movements to appear slower and more graceful than on Earth. This effect was evident in both video footage and still images. Continued: No Visible Engine Exhaust: Some argue that the lunar module's descent engine should have produced visible exhaust or flames, but no such evidence is seen in the photographs. Debunking: The Apollo lunar module used a hypergolic engine that ignited on contact between fuel and oxidizer, producing a nearly transparent exhaust that is difficult to see in the vacuum of the moon. Additionally, the engine's exhaust quickly dissipates in the airless environment. Film Survivability: Critics question whether the film used to capture images on the moon's surface could have withstood the extreme temperatures and radiation. Debunking: The film was designed to withstand the harsh conditions of space, including radiation and temperature fluctuations. The astronauts stored the exposed film in special containers and returned them to Earth in the lunar module. Flag Shadow: Some argue that the shadow cast by the American flag appears inconsistent with the sunlight direction, suggesting additional lighting sources. Debunking: The flag's shadow appears inconsistent due to the uneven lunar surface and the flag's design. The folds and wrinkles in the flag cause the shadow to appear disjointed. Lack of Impact Craters Around Lunar Module: Critics claim that the lunar module should have created visible impact craters when landing and taking off from the moon. Debunking: The lunar module's descent engine had a low thrust and a wide exhaust nozzle, which dispersed its thrust over a large area, minimizing the creation of impact craters. The moon's surface also lacks an atmosphere, which would otherwise have caused the material to be ejected much farther from the landing site. Radio Blackout: Some argue that there should have been a communication blackout when the lunar module went behind the moon, but the astronauts maintained contact throughout the missions. Debunking: Communication blackouts were expected and planned for. The signal from the spacecraft was relayed through a network of tracking stations on Earth, ensuring continuous contact with mission control. Astronauts' Survival: Critics question how the astronauts survived the extreme temperatures, radiation, and vacuum of space. Debunking: The astronauts were protected from the vacuum of space and harmful radiation by their spacesuits, which were designed to withstand the conditions of the moon's surface. The spacecraft also had proper insulation to regulate temperatures.
Notice that no reply has been made for this ass kicking. He didn't know about the solar corona photography and the LROC imaging techniques prove how ludicrous it is to suggest the ASU team are faking these enormous TIFF images!
I dealt with that in post #35. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-2#post-1070452238 The US has a lot of influence in the world and can get other governments to cooperate with their scams. Anyway pictures are fakable so these vague pictures don't prove anything. .http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/#post-1070440440 You only posted stuff that was easy to obfuscate. There are some very clear anomalies that close the whole case. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-absurd-hoax-coffin.604367/#post-1073766164 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068 http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-15#post-1072797829 (40:14 time mark of video) (also 3:16 time mark) https://vimeo.com/user65991576
I've seen all the claims, and for every claim, there is a debunk and the debunk is compelling. The astronauts are not liars in on an conspiracy, sorry.
How predictable. I knew for a certainty that this would be the result. He completely avoids the ass kickings and carries on as though nothing has happened. The issue over the never-used "scientific method" is completely ignored. You pretend not to see things everyone else sees. You make these pathetic statements where you "dealt with" something, when you just wave your arms about. I list extensive, EXTENSIVE, irrefutable reasons why the LROC images could never be faked and you come out with your pathetic spam line about all pictures are fakable! You made-up some crap about Armstrong doing some "whatever" with the solar corona, on the surface, then ran away from another ass kicking.
May I point out something to you? Every argument you just made has been put forth many times before to the person you replied to. I have been "debating"kicking his butt for 10 years and he just ignores it all. If you want to get embroiled in this, knock yourself out, you won't get anywhere. I have yet to come across a "moon hoaxer" who had the balls to concede their errors. Read here : http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-the-untenable-and-absurd-hoax-coffin.604367/ Solid irrefutable arguments and the responses are pathetic. If irrefutable evidence isn't acceptable, nothing is. You'll just get a link, to another link to a stupid video or claim that answers nothing, or some batshit about how the viewers all think he's right. I made a blog to respond to his entire wall of spam and he pretty much ignored the whole lot. https://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/
You never dealt with it The fact is that the soviets were the mortal sworn enemy of the US and would never have gone along with such a fraud You have never addressed that fact or dealt with it. There are no such anomolies
You're absolutely right. I have no idea why I bothered. Must be the weed I smoked in that moment. thanks!
This is one of the BEST "moon landing was faked" video I've ever seen. Remember when NASA astro-NOT Don Pettit said that they destroyed all the Apollo moon landing telemetry, data of the 1960-1970 moon landing technology... It's like the equivalent of humans have lost the 15th-century Inca citadel technology to build the pyramids or the stone walls of Machu Picchu.... If you watch the interview with the astronauts you can tell none of them stepped foot on the moon just by their mannerisms and how they answered the questions. Sometimes they sat there like deer looking into headlights because they really had no idea what to say. It’s incredible people still believe this happened. America is the great deceiver. At war with its own people, hell bent on destroying them; and all other nations on earth.
False, he said they destroyed all the technology. They actually didn't, all the blueprints are held at the Marshall Space center. Are you denyng Don Pettit went into space? THIS is what went up: THIS is what came back: That is what he meant. . Nope, it's nothing at all like that. It's like they can't use a 1969 space craft to fly because it's redundant and doesn't come up to modern safety standards. It uses old analog technology. It's all so very simple Haha, the HB amateur-psychobabble. I wonder if you understand how pathetic your bare assertion is. Here's the problem. @Navy Corpsman is not going to debate in good faith. His original thread dumping an idiotic hoax video on the forum actually highlighted a short section that PROVES it must be in hard vacuum and low gravity. He did not respond. There is a thread here that details slam-dunk irrefutable evidence they were on the Moon.
Hey Navy Corpsman... You didn't watch the video till the end. Start watching at the 37:00 time mark. It's a disinfo video.
False. You don't understand what disinfo is. It's a parody and I find it hilarious that you think it is only obvious after 37 minutes. Why are you even posting here? You're getting one ass kicking after another and ignoring every one. Tell us all about Armstrong on the surface and the Solar Corona! You only posted that to bump this idiotic thread above my update on the Apollo rocks!
Hey Patricio Da Silva... Let's here your analysis of this discussion I had with Betamax. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676
There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:- There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it. The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible. It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible. A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious. There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever! In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed. In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed. It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops! Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside. Now from the responses being received from this person we can also see a number of things:- Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable. He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking! He will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors. The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. @Scott has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim! Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.
@Scott - Are you afraid to show your cited "scientific method"? YOU linked to it, here it is: Here's the method: Ask a Question: Background Research: Hypothesis: Experiment: Analyze Data and Make Conclusions: Communicate: Now detail where you have followed all six of those for even one single thing you have ever posted! @Scott Answer these questions! 1. If you close a door does it or does it not send the vast bulk of the air current in the direction of it being closed? 2. What crazy world of physics does the entire volume of air puff out only in one tiny corner? 3. The whole area is replete with dust, yet nothing disturbs - how do you explain this?
Any chance of a reply? You must have spammed your claim dozens of times about how you use "the scientific method". You clearly don't and you clearly know it.
That is pathetic spam, literally posted 2 months ago! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tart-to-finish.602133/page-10#post-1074316476 I replied to it of course and you ignored my reply of course! It isn't an anomaly - from the transcript something broke. The craft begins to pitch around 90 degrees and the small dish is under force. It still has the inertia in space. It rocks back and forward then settles. Ridiculously virtually impossible to fake footage - At 12.45 he starts to pitch over. Notice the dish completely stops sideways on! You assume some sort of place in orbit is the vertical orientation, yet that whole video shows the views from all over the pace. "NASA has removed it" - Bullshit! All footage available from the DAC camera. Apollo 12 Flight Journal - Day 6, part 2: From the Snowman to Docking (nasa.gov) "145:31:15 Bean: No, wait. Why don't you take a look at what ever is swinging on top of the spacecraft; see it?"
I think he was referring to the video that shows the radar dish dangling. If that's still there, could you post it? Just the audio of the discussion wouldn't alert anyone to the anomaly.
The video you posted is not from the NASA website. The point he made is that NASA took down the video of the anomaly from its website. If it's on the NASA website, could you link to it?
You can find archived footage of Apollo 12 taken with the 16mm camera by the astronauts https://archive.org/details/Apollo1216mmOnboardFilm Aren’t archives great?
The video shows the ascent of the LEM from the 39:40 time mark until the 43:40 time mark but it stops before the radar dish falls. Is the footage that shows the radar dish falling anywhere here? https://history.nasa.gov/index.html
