Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!

[babe]

If you run into somebody who thinks that the Earth is flat, have him or her watch one of these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocketcam

I took the cog train up to the summit of Pike'sPeak one fairly clear day, and could see the curve of the earth in the horizontal plane out over the plains.

Out on Utah's Salt Flats, there are some views from the I-80 freeway where, if the factors(surface heating layer) that reflect the sky are not prevalent, you can see an arc on the horizon to the north, between the Newfoundland Mountians and the lakeside hills on the west.

Sailors can sometimes see the same sort of thing with the horizons if the surface layer of the air is clear enough.

 

[babe]

The flaps are the front of a moving vehicle. Air flow would either push the flaps up or push them down, not keep them horizontal.

Grab a sheet of paper, hold it in front of you with the front end unattached, and walk forward. Feel free to bounce up and down as much as you want. The paper will not stick out horizontally in front of you.


The rod and pole are moving, it's just harder to see because they are dark, and the movements are small.


That's what I said, vibrations from the guy moving would move the flag. Vibrations from the ground are more than sufficient.

The truth is that, given the technology circa 1970, it would be harder to fake the moon landings than to go to the moon.

The main reason they had to fake it was proably space radiation.

The media lies SO MUCH - and stupid Americans chat the lies furiously

How many times have you heard there has always been a "peaceful orderly transfer of power" after an election? They chat it, repeat it, over and over...

www.politicalforum.com

Lunar Geology and Ionising Radiation, | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 1.​

(23 parts)



That's the silliest thing I've heard in a while. Sufficient pressure from walking would keep a paper from falling back down.



I see zero movement of the rod and pole. Also, the movement of the flag would be caused by the movemnt of the rod and pole in your scenarion. The flag is obviously moving because it's hit by a wall of moving air. The movement does not originate from the rod.

I have pursued a few of your links.

I think this deserves a lot more consideration. Thank you for bringing this in here.

 

[babe]

This is a little vague. Air seems to be keeping the flaps from falling back down. It looks totally consistent with the atmosphere explanation. Please go into some more detail.


The only thing moving is the flag. If vibration were the explanation, the rod and pole would be moving and that movement would tranfer to the flag. The flag starts to move just before the astronaut gets close to it the way it would in air. Try it at home with a towel hanging from a ceiling light.


The Apollo Flag Air Compare

The Apollo Flag Air Compare

Brighteon.com is a leading online free platform that empowers free speech, allowing individuals to freely share videos and express their thoughts without any form of censorship. Join us today and be part of our community.

www.brighteon.com

The Apollo Flag Moon Gag

The Apollo Flag Moon Gag

Brighteon.com is a leading online free platform that empowers free speech, allowing individuals to freely share videos and express their thoughts without any form of censorship. Join us today and be part of our community.

www.brighteon.com

Moon Mindset Madness

Moon Mindset Madness

Brighteon.com is a leading online free platform that empowers free speech, allowing individuals to freely share videos and express their thoughts without any form of censorship. Join us today and be part of our community.

www.brighteon.com

Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!

How do you know he's been banned from 100 forums? Well for one he reports it on his daft "Poor old me is censored" thread at spurstalk, but otherwise just a bit of harmless exaggeration, probably only about 50! If you can stand 5-6 minutes of watching them, that gives barely a hint of his...

jazzfanz.com

I think I used to do better creative writing when I was in Junior High (before Middle Schools became thename). But thanks for using this bit as a tease.

 

[babe]

The flaps are the front of a moving vehicle. Air flow would either push the flaps up or push them down, not keep them horizontal.

Grab a sheet of paper, hold it in front of you with the front end unattached, and walk forward. Feel free to bounce up and down as much as you want. The paper will not stick out horizontally in front of you.


The rod and pole are moving, it's just harder to see because they are dark, and the movements are small.


That's what I said, vibrations from the guy moving would move the flag. Vibrations from the ground are more than sufficient.

The truth is that, given the technology circa 1970, it would be harder to fake the moon landings than to go to the moon.

I wonder what would be behind a name tag like "Cosmo Red". I think I saw something in my reading today in here about the Apollo hoax story being started in Russia, and about how we use the Russian vehicles for moving people to the space station rather than the Apollo stuff, because of course the Apollo stuff never really worked.

The project was always "The Space Race". We claim we won it, they say we faked it.

I have to examine this contest from the very beginning to the very end. I expect I will find that we used our media supremacy to win it least politically or propagandily.

We just have too damn many people defending our claim with lunacy. Incredible.

And you give me my prize exhibit on that score by claiming it was easier to do the moon than fake it.

 

[Cosmored]

I wonder what would be behind a name tag like "Cosmo Red".

I used to know a woman with bright red hair. Her email address was cosmored...something. I stole the name from her.

 

[LogGrad98]

Good grief. It’s as if meteoritics doesn’t exist...

Lunar meteorites | Some Meteorite Information | Washington University in St. Louis

sites.wustl.edu

They don't. It's a leprechaun conspiracy so protect their gold.

 

[babe]

I used to know a woman with bright red hair. Her email address was cosmored...something. I stole the name from her.

I think I already did a little lunacy about redheads recently. I have aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces who are reds, and at least one ggrandpa, and an ex-.....well two. Scots, Vikings.....

 

[babe]

They don't. It's a leprechaun conspiracy so protect their gold.

leprechauns also disguise their hoards as tungsten. Quite the opposite practice of the Chinese, who have 80% of the world's tungsten.

 

[One Brow]

That's the silliest thing I've heard in a while. Sufficient pressure from walking would keep a paper from falling back down.

That much pressure would bend it upwards, instead.

I see zero movement of the rod and pole.

I see no need to rely on your observational skills.

Also, the movement of the flag would be caused by the movemnt of the rod and pole in your scenarion. The flag is obviously moving because it's hit by a wall of moving air. The movement does not originate from the rod.

Empty rhetoric, indicative of a closed mind. Thanks for the conversation, but I'll ignore your nonsense for the rest of this thread.

 

[One Brow]

And you give me my prize exhibit on that score by claiming it was easier to do the moon than fake it.

 

[Red]

Can’t fake lunar geology, can’t deceive planetary geologists the world over, who have studied the Apollo mission’s lunar samples...

https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/

They Were Faked​

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy does not know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that is better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I have studied lunar rocks and soils for 50+ years and I could not “make” even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth samples of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.​

 

[babe]

Can’t fake lunar geology, can’t deceive planetary geologists the world over, who have studied the Apollo mission’s lunar samples...

https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/

They Were Faked​

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy does not know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that is better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I have studied lunar rocks and soils for 50+ years and I could not “make” even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth samples of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.​

Argumentum hominem paleae.

We can make pictures like that today, and could make them then, with common techniques generally employed to create cartoons and such. We then and now could use the same techniques to alter real pictures from any kind of 'set".

You should know that.

First clue to realizing when you're being duped is when a dweeb like Adam comes into the picture, or that skeptical assistant.

You should know that.

a rock that descends from space through our atmosphere has characteristics of that event.

Any lunar rock will have similar circumstantial characteristics. The rock, however, may have been retrieved and brought here by a machine that was deployed and retrieved and brought home.

You should know this.

 

[Cosmored]

There are some analyses of the lighting issue in this video.

Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 1 of 2​

Here are what look like studio lights reflected in visors.

Scientific Analysis of Apollo images | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/12dinespotlight-jpg.31025/

Start watching this at the 1:10 time mark. The sun is too bright so it gets turned down.

The Mystery of the Apollo Sun hd

The Mystery of the Apollo Sun hd

Brighteon.com is a leading online free platform that empowers free speech, allowing individuals to freely share videos and express their thoughts without any form of censorship. Join us today and be part of our community.

www.brighteon.com

 

[One Brow]

Argumentum hominem paleeae.

We can make pictures like that today, and could make them then,

I agree it could be done today. As for "then", I'm game. Show me a faked photograph from the early 1970s where the shadows were converted from radiant to parallel, that does not involve the lunar landing. If we could do it, surely someone did it.

Any lunar rock will have similar circumstantial characteristics. The rock, however, may have been retrieved and brought here by a machine that was deployed and retrieved and brought home.

So, you think with 1960s technology, it would have been easier to create a robot to set up reflectors and retrieve lunar rocks?

 

[One Brow]

There are some analyses of the lighting issue in this video.

It didn't address the issue of the parallel shadows at all. Further, your videos show ignorance of things like taking pictures on uneven ground, the difference between early day and midday, that higher ground would lack dust, and many other things in the problems it claimed to find. Your presentations were ill-considered and ill-thought-out.

 

[Cosmored]

It didn't address the issue of the parallel shadows at all

I'm not an expert on lighting. I just posted that info for the viewers to check out. I've seen other photos in which non-parallel shadows are alleged.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-c-YK5kBKX4k/WlSXR6fFceI/AAAAAAAAtFo/tzOHlCnjZtArIkV_AxQK2Yf_U102Nl-wgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/f0512.png

The proof that the footage was taken in air has already proven the hoax so the shadow and rock issues are moot.

American Moon (English Version)​

(2:07:26 time mark)

Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!

How do you know he's been banned from 100 forums? Well for one he reports it on his daft "Poor old me is censored" thread at spurstalk, but otherwise just a bit of harmless exaggeration, probably only about 50! If you can stand 5-6 minutes of watching them, that gives barely a hint of his...

jazzfanz.com

edit
-------------------
There's more on the lighting issue in the above video. It starts at around the 2:36 time mark.

 

[candrew]

Apollo Astronaut Michael Collins dead at 90.

Clearly killed as part of the deep state cover up...

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/28/509599284/forgotten-astronaut-michael-collins-dies

 

[Cosmored]

More on the lighting issue...

Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis​

 

[babe]

I agree it could be done today. As for "then", I'm game. Show me a faked photograph from the early 1970s where the shadows were converted from radiant to parallel, that does not involve the lunar landing. If we could do it, surely someone did it.


So, you think with 1960s technology, it would have been easier to create a robot to set up reflectors and retrieve lunar rocks?

I remember the 1960s. A Univac computer filling a pretty big room. I used to do cards, data entry. It took hours to run the program with my data, calculating molecular orbitals for a rotating molecule around a sugar bonded to a planar nucleoside.

I don't think we shipped a computer like that. Radio controls, however, were available, as well as simple analog devices energized by springs.

I'd have designed a box on a chain with a lid that opens to the side, with a spring-driven scooper to draw stuff in and close the lid. Also the chain would be on a ratchet that woujld retract the box into the hold.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not an expert on lighting. I just posted that info for the viewers to check out.

Right. You're a non-expert, the guy making the videos is clearly not an expert, no one involved is an expert.

You're all just a bunch of non-experts asking questions, while ignoring answers that experts have een giving for decades, and thinking you are smart for not believing people who really understand the subject. Disbelieving the experts is like thinking you know chess better than Carlsen or Caruana, except you don't realize how badly you are losing the game.

I've seen other photos in which non-parallel shadows are alleged.

In you picture, the every object has a parallel shadow to the near objects, including those further away than the LEM(?) and the LEM(?). The LEM(?) also has a second shadow, which no other object has, at a right angle to the first shadow. Do you propose a magic light source that only affects one item in the picture? Did a djinn from a magic lamp conjure it? Or, are you misinterpreting a some anomaly with the film?

I'm done clicking your links. It's obvious that you don't care about the evidence.