Thank you,caniswalensis.Your comments are polite....I must say,if anyone thinks that asking questions is insanity then he or she should report to the nearest mental facility first.
Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"
- Thread starter likelystory
- Start date
-
- Tags
- moon landing hoax
- Status
Thank you,caniswalensis.Your comments are polite....I must say,if anyone thinks that asking questions is insanity then he or she should report to the nearest mental facility first.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
My comment may have seemed brusque, but the simple truth is public libraries are an indispensable source of information in the form of a multitude of books on any given subject. Much of what I know about Apollo has come from reading books (along with watching various documentaries on the subject). If one is serious about learning the subject (or any subject), then the local public library should be among the first stops.
If you wish to ask for specific book recommendations, that's fine, and feel free to do. I'm sure you'll be provided with an excellent list.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
That might be interesting, but even in making such a request, it should be recognized in advance that analysis of photographs even by professionals, is a very poor way of verifying info. Lighting effects, camera glitches, lens effects and a whole series of things can lead to incorrect analysis. Sure, you might find some things that look funny, but looking at the "big picture", what you are asking is for people to believe that countless scientists of many kinds, astronauts, radio and telescope operators, both official and amateur, manufacturers, and politicians of many (sometimes mutually hostile) countries are "in on" the big lie. That's a lot to ask just because you found something in a photograph that looks funny.
This is why I have mentioned a different theory that only the first landing was faked.
SezMe
post-pre-born
ArmillarySphere
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 829
... which has the interesting problem of trying to match faked stagings of conditions which you have yet to explore, with later landings that photograph and measure the real conditions (in minute detail). Just take a look at the kind of artistic renderings that were made prior to the first landing. None of them to my knowledge depict anything close to the first landing.
Of course, all this is moot if the aliens gave us some photos and rocks to use. All you need then is to bring the astronauts down somewhere hidden and send your unmanned (and strangely enough, suddenly capable of remote operations) spacecraft to the moon, smuggle the astronauts into the CM after splashdown... and bribe a few hundred people to keep silent for 50 years.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Mention away,it will never make it true.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
The bottom line is that this is second-hand info. Unless we were there, we have no way to verify what actually occured and this doesn't make the anomalies in the footage go away.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65.html#post3526599
There's some stuff I've never seen explained such as this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62.html#post3319015
I've only seen people lamely try to obfuscate it and then just assume they'd debunked it.
How does this prove that the Apollo pictures couldn't have been taken from an unmanned probe or a satellite?
Those pictures were fakable. Fakable pictures aren't proof of anything. Are you saying they weren't fakable?
If anyone were to try to come forward, the owned press would ignore him or here. It would also be downright dangerous to come forward; look what happened to these guys.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU
You have a strange idea of what spam is. Summaries of evidence that argue a case are not spam.
The anomalies in the footage have already proved the hoax. There are plausible scenarios that would explain those videos. Maybe all the NASA footage wasn't faked at the same speed. There's still the anomaly of the difference in body movements between the Apollo 11 mission and the later missions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm
What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.
At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736#
It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 40 second mark.
http://www.google.es/search?q=a funny thing happened on the way to the moon&hl=es&tbm=vid
It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Here it is doubled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E
When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW31fOWzY-E
How do we know what he says is double speed is really double speed? It may be more than double speed. Look at the Apollo 11 footage that is sped up to be what is said to be double speed in the above videos, the movements look exactly like earth movements.
Thinking people aren't moved by empty rhetoric.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
I've never seen anything that conclusively proves they're real.
More empty rhetoric. It's pretty clear that the government can find thousands of experts who will lie and that science journals are owned.
That's right. He didn't compare the exact situations but this doesn't prove they went to the moon.
The theory is that they faked lunar gravity with a combinations of slow-motion and wire supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
The way the astronaut jumped could be explained with slow-motion and wire supports and that doesn't make the rest of the anomalies go away.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
Maybe it wasn't dust. Maybe it was large-grained sand. The effect of atmospheric drag would be negligible at that speed and distance.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 60,769
me me! They used sand that was graded to the right size then washed to get rid of the dust and then moved in lorries to the filming site. Washing the sand and making sure the grains were all the same size made it act like Lunar regolith in a vacuum when the rover was driven over it and no dust was kicked up.
How about that? FF?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Ok, that was funny.
ArmillarySphere
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 829
I won't bother countering all the nonsense being posted here. There's not much point in attempting to convince FF anyway, since his fingers are firmly jammed into his ears. Just a few points that struck me:
Then again, that would take integrity...
I guess bribing 23 (or whatever it was - I can't be bothered to check) people wasn't enough after all. Now it's the whole press corps, next it's all the physicists, after that it's the psychiatrists... OMG, it just keeps growing!
If you doubt it, do the speedup yourself. The original footage is public domain. Don't just hypothesise a counter-argument, convince yourself first.
Then again, that would take integrity...
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
That theory doesn't make any sense either. If the first landing attempt hadn't worked (and there was no guarantee it would) the next crew would have tried. The U.S. had plenty of crews and vehicles available to keep trying until a landing was successful.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
So they used large grain sand and got away with it by using a ridiculously overscaled lunar rover?
I think the point is that they didn't yet have the capability at the time. You make it sound like couple astronauts dying is not a big deal at all.
It would have been a big deal, but lessons would have been learned.
Remember that 3 astonauts died little more than 2 years before, at the start of Apollo.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
What capability were they lacking? NASA had already demonstrated the Apollo vehicle could navigate to the Moon, enter and exit lunar orbit, and return to the Earth (twice, in fact: Apollo 8 and 10). It had tested the lunar module (twice: Apollo 9 and 10). Indeed, Apollo 10 was a complete dress rehearsal for a landing, with the LM getting to within 47,400 feet of the lunar surface. What Apollo 11 added to the previous mission was descending that last 47,400 feet.
Moreover, Apollo 11 was launched on July 16, 1969. Apollo 12 was launched on Nov. 14, 1969. That's only four months later. Not exactly a huge time difference.
Erock
Muse
There are no anomalies, spamming your link again doesn't make them arrive.
There are plausible reasons why you would spam this endlessly, but I can't think of one.
More spam. Collins' jacket for the thousandth time. It has been explained to you ad nauseum. Just because you do not have the scientific background, or any relevant skill pertaining to weightlessness does not make your bare-assertion fallacy correct. Your pathetic explanation for the clear weightless footage as being filmed in LEO, whilst they chose to film your 'special clip' on a diving plane is ludicrous and completely refuted.
Your favourite words, lame/obfuscate. The idea that you know something that nobody else has noticed, with your explanation coming from ignorance is simply stunning. You do not have the capacity to debate this subject. Even if the world's foremost expert on weightlessness explained this to you, your retort would be that he had been 'bought off'.
You make endless dismissive arguments to everything, but never once do you acknowledge the sheer numbers of people this would involve, or the ridiculous notion that they could all be kept quiet indefinitely.
You seem to have some problem with logic or evidence that contradicts your nonsense. For the hard of understanding I will explain in easy terms:
1/ The Apollo still shots with hi resolution, released to the world immediately after they were developed.....match weather patterns on Earth at the time of Apollo 11.
2/ The CSM Lunar orbiting shots, match weather patterns on Earth at the time they were orbiting.
3/ The video footage taken on route to the Moon matches both the still photography and the weather pattern. It is beyond dispute that this was filmed by an astronaut.
4/ It is impossible to take a full earth picture in Low Earth orbit.
5/ The video footage shows clear Earth rotational movement over a 10 minute period. This is easily verified by taking stills from any one of the 3 Lunar coast recordings.
So there we have it. It is impossible to fake prevailing weather patterns from distance by any means than the one showing Apollo 11 on route to the Moon.
If you dispute this, demonstrate how it was done. Preferably without the obfuscating tap-dancing, or using the word 'plausible', when it clearly isn't.
Circular argument. The pictures were not fake, they had to have been taken at a distance beyond the VAB, and in a sequence that matched the weather patterns progressively changing. I am saying they are not fake. If you say otherwise demonstrate how.
Spam. You have said that and posted it already. It is complete piffle, and dismisses the vast numbers of people it would entail.
It is spam. You do this on hundreds of different forums and ignore every single answer.
There are no anomalies, and you haven't listed a single one. This is your problem (amongst many). You start from a position of ignorance, then attempt to shoehorn everything into this hoax nonsense. Proving something to you is impossible. You do not have any capacity to assimilate evidence. If it contradicts you, you immediately dismiss it or ignore it.
Rubbish. The footage shows Lunar freefall motion and there is no substitute for the 245% factor to make it resemble Earth freefall. You have no answer to the two videos, so you throw out your 'it's plausible' crap and ignore them. They prove the footage was shot in 1/6th gravity.
There are no anomalies. Apollo 11 was the first mission and had little strenuous activity, save for Buzz Aldrin's mobility exercise. They predominantly collected rocks and experiments, and the EVA was much shorter than later missions.
SNIP SPAM.
We know, because the video shows the normal speed and a double speed. It is clear that the time of the second clip is half that of the first one. You have no answer for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TGf68LXqRc
It is clear to anybody who watches this video that you are just tap dancing and obfuscating. The footage looks un-natural at double speed, and your 'explanation' is that you dismiss it because you 'don't know' if it is more than double
You do not have the mental capacity to debunk it directly by finding the footage from the ALSJ and doing this yourself.
Fingers in the ears.....lalalalalalala. Pathetic.
That discounts you completely. You don't have the capacity to think, you just robotically spam your linkbarf with your repeated saved replies.
Yes you have, you just ignored it, or put your fingers in your ears.
Yet not one single deathbed confession, or witness testimony from any person, ever. You have no proof, just more bare assertion.
It proves Jarrah White to be an ignorant jackass who debunks himself with his utter incompetence. (Now I know why you use his videos.
)A theory of invisible wires that offers no explanation, plausible or implausible, of how they attached these wires to the dust and inanimate objects falling at Lunar freefall speed - that isn't a theory, that is bare assertion not backed up with scientific rationale.
No it cannot. Ballistic motion consistent with Lunar gravity does not look right when it equates to Earth gravity. It ignores the dust and inanimate objects.
There are no anomalies.
I don't think I have ever come across such stunning ignorance of all matters pertaining to Apollo. In the 4 years plus you have been making that identical Linkbarf post, it has not changed at all.
These videos, you basically ignored them save for one of your could have plausible 'assessments'.
Try again, how did they fake these. Your spam doesn't make the hard evidence go away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6yYQYoX_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs
Here's another one that shows your other hero David Percy is just another liar - a man incidentally that you quote, but who disagrees with you about the speeded up factor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vawJhSnFcQ0
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
This one piece of hoax evidence is so clear that it closes the whole case by itself.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62.html#post3319015
The corner of Collins' jacket goes up, stops, and goes back down the way it would in strong gravity. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity. The fabric is too loose to push it back down.
I was able to exactly duplicate the motion of Collins' jacket by putting a light jacket on a coat hanger and bouncing it up and down. Anyone can try this at home. The same is true for the dogtags around his neck.
Sorry, but there are some anomalies that are so clear that they are impossible to obfuscate. I doubt your efforts to obfuscate this anomaly are having any effect. There are always a few people who are just going to believe what they want to be true and ignore all evidence; we hoax-believers can't do much about them. The anomalies in the footage are so clear that thinking objective people know Apollo was a hoax as soon as they see them. The only thing you can do to sway them is to try to keep them from seeing the evidence; that's why all the threads with lots of evidence at the beginning get merged here; it makes the real evidence harder to come across and it reduces the number of people who see it.
You know that Apollo was a hoax as well as the hoax-believers do.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
I think you know what I'm implying by my posting the above link.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62.html#post3319015
The corner of Collins' jacket goes up, stops, and goes back down the way it would in strong gravity. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity. The fabric is too loose to push it back down.
I was able to exactly duplicate the motion of Collins' jacket by putting a light jacket on a coat hanger and bouncing it up and down. Anyone can try this at home. The same is true for the dogtags around his neck.
Sorry, but there are some anomalies that are so clear that they are impossible to obfuscate. I doubt your efforts to obfuscate this anomaly are having any effect. There are always a few people who are just going to believe what they want to be true and ignore all evidence; we hoax-believers can't do much about them. The anomalies in the footage are so clear that thinking objective people know Apollo was a hoax as soon as they see them. The only thing you can do to sway them is to try to keep them from seeing the evidence; that's why all the threads with lots of evidence at the beginning get merged here; it makes the real evidence harder to come across and it reduces the number of people who see it.
You know that Apollo was a hoax as well as the hoax-believers do.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
I think you know what I'm implying by my posting the above link.
Halcyon Dayz
Critical Thinker
Don't say 'we' if you mean 'I'.
You are incapable of verifying it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE.
On the other hand everybody who knows a bit of high school physics, engineering, and history, CAN verify it.
There is a lot more verifiable consistent evidence for Apollo then for the assassination of Lincoln or the Battle of the Bulge.
I guess bribing 23 (or whatever it was - I can't be bothered to check) people wasn't enough after all. Now it's the whole press corps, next it's all the physicists, after that it's the psychiatrists... OMG, it just keeps growing!
Everybody but Freddy was in on it...
ETA: Doesn't posting the exact same nonsense twenty times in a row constitute spamming?
Last edited:
EdipisReks
Custom Title
it doesn't look like typical clothing behavior on the earth i live on. it also doesn't appear to be a light jacket. you're seeing what you want to see.
Last edited:
Erock
Muse
There is no case to close. That is evidence of weightless activity.
Nothing to do with gravity at all. The same motion would be apparant if you shook a curtain horizontally along a rail.
The identifiable force is inertia. The fabric is fairly loose, but it is connected to the object on his chest, and to his torso. Ad nauseum. Ignorus repetitius.
So what, I can duplicate that motion by moving the coat hanger side to side. The dogtags are hovering in mid air. Weightless.
And that in a nutshell is you.
Yes, that you are a habitual spammer who has no ability to assimilate knowledge.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
So quit armwaving and bring it. Or are you all mouth?
Halcyon Dayz
Critical Thinker
(An old post of mine, evidence for Apollo: )
The LASER reflectors are on the Moon.
Every observatory in the world with a big enough laser can proof that.
We have a chain of evidence of how they got there.
We know the hardware, how and where, and by whom it was designed and build.
Certified as the real deal by any aerospace engineer who looked at them.
We know when it was launched, in front of literally millions of witnesses.
We tracked it to the Moon.
We know the men who placed them.
There is photographic documentation of the whole process.
Video, DAC, telemetry, dosimeters, voice recordings, live broadcasts, independent observations, including by the Soviets.
Thousands of autobiographical books, articles, and interviews, by some of the 400,000 people involved in the process. None of whom EVER voiced ANY doubt that what they did was not for real.
The telemetry from the science stations.
Tens of thousands of scientific publications and engineering reports based on the results from Apollo.
The science itself.
Much of it a complete surprise, and COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with anything that has been learnt about the Moon since.
We have (or rather the Japanese do) conformation that the topological layout of the landing site documented by Apollo 15 DOES EXIST on the Moon.
This is information nobody could possibly have had at the time.
And there are the rocks.
Moon rocks. Hundreds of kilos.
Documented to been retrieved in-situ.
Often on live television with the geologists who got first dibs watching.
These geologist sometimes saying: No, that one, bring us that one!
Rocks verified by thousands of geologists the world over.
Matching the few ounces of Soviet samples.
And core samples. Which possibly couldn't even be roboticly retrieved with todays technology.
The reflectors are on the Moon.
NASA has shown how they got them there.
There you have it. And I was being concise.
Darryl Cunningham Investigates The Moon Hoax
Moon Base Clavius, for all your debunking needs
Evidence of 1/6 g gravity:
No wind on the Moon:
The LASER reflectors are on the Moon.
Every observatory in the world with a big enough laser can proof that.
We have a chain of evidence of how they got there.
We know the hardware, how and where, and by whom it was designed and build.
Certified as the real deal by any aerospace engineer who looked at them.
We know when it was launched, in front of literally millions of witnesses.
We tracked it to the Moon.
We know the men who placed them.
There is photographic documentation of the whole process.
Video, DAC, telemetry, dosimeters, voice recordings, live broadcasts, independent observations, including by the Soviets.
Thousands of autobiographical books, articles, and interviews, by some of the 400,000 people involved in the process. None of whom EVER voiced ANY doubt that what they did was not for real.
The telemetry from the science stations.
Tens of thousands of scientific publications and engineering reports based on the results from Apollo.
The science itself.
Much of it a complete surprise, and COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with anything that has been learnt about the Moon since.
We have (or rather the Japanese do) conformation that the topological layout of the landing site documented by Apollo 15 DOES EXIST on the Moon.
This is information nobody could possibly have had at the time.
And there are the rocks.
Moon rocks. Hundreds of kilos.
Documented to been retrieved in-situ.
Often on live television with the geologists who got first dibs watching.
These geologist sometimes saying: No, that one, bring us that one!
Rocks verified by thousands of geologists the world over.
Matching the few ounces of Soviet samples.
And core samples. Which possibly couldn't even be roboticly retrieved with todays technology.
The reflectors are on the Moon.
NASA has shown how they got them there.
There you have it. And I was being concise.
Darryl Cunningham Investigates The Moon Hoax
Moon Base Clavius, for all your debunking needs
Evidence of 1/6 g gravity:
No wind on the Moon:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 60,769
Well, the 'washed sand' ideas belongs to FF, he used it on several previous occasions under various disguises.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
That would explain why the props department had to move it around the set with a crane.
Erock
Muse
We are directed to a piece of footage from David Percy (who oddly thinks it looks normal!) - Fatfreddy88 has no trouble believing it.
We are directed to John Young jump salute by a youtuber double speed - Fatfreddy88 has no trouble believing it.
Fatfreddy88 has no problem believing that all footage he sees is doubled as stated.
Then in answer to this post by me:
Erock said:
He says this:
Fatfreddy88 said:
Now, all of a sudden he doubts that it is double speed, even though it is back to back with the original film, where times can be verified.
And we are back to Fatfreddy88 now believing that his footage shows double speed.
You are a complete joke. That video I presented shows double speed on Apollo 11 and looks ridiculous, your theory is baloney.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
The bouncing jacket corner did bust the case wide open. You people just won't recognize it. When you pro-Apollo people are confronted with evidence that you can't explain, you lamely "Explain" it anyway and then try to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it. That is better than admitting defeat from your perspective so I can understand why you people do that. The only way to counter that tactic is to repost said evidence so that you can't bury it. Your tactic to counter that is to call it spam.
Here's one more anomaly from the list I posted.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_9.html
Look at the bottom picture. It looks like there's the reflection of a studio light in the astronaut's visor.
Well, your credibility is shot–in the eye's of objective thinking people anyway.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Fixed that for you.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
See? Was that so hard? Now we can discuss specifics. Pity the link doesn't include the AS number to find the specific image. Fortunately I'm pretty smart and know my way around the Apollo photo archive at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
You do? Well, that just means you're in on it.
(See how easy it is to wave away evidence in the CT-ist's world?)
Halcyon Dayz
Critical Thinker
It's a SMUDGE!
Picture: AS12-48-7071
Same smudge here: AS12-48-7134
Jack White is the other JW hoax promoter 'genius' who only ever manages to make a fool of himself in public.
Objective thinking people don't take everything they read on conspiracist websites or see on conspiracist tube-channels at face value.
The alleged 'evidence' for the Chinese EVA video being faked is as uninformed and illogical as the staple HB 'proofs'.
As was show to you in the other thread!
Your brain seems to be stuck in a loop. Give it a Fonzie whack.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
since ff88 just wants to link to posts on other fora, I'll so the same because I get tired of reinventing the wheel.
Duane Daman (aka "straydog", one of JW's sycophants) asked about this very thing on the Education Forum in January 2007.
Dave Greer responded:
"Here are 8 links to photos that show the artefact on the helmet. It's clearly in the same place on the helmet in each photo. To me, that shows it's very unlikely indeed to be a reflection."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9097
The relevant photo numbers:
AS12-47-6919
AS12-48-7071
AS12-48-7074
AS12-48-7133
AS12-48-7134
AS12-49-7307
AS12-49-7308
AS12-49-7309
The ALSJ has all of these in multiple sizes, not all grainy and mooshed up like in ff88's aulius link.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
Duane Daman (aka "straydog", one of JW's sycophants) asked about this very thing on the Education Forum in January 2007.
Dave Greer responded:
"Here are 8 links to photos that show the artefact on the helmet. It's clearly in the same place on the helmet in each photo. To me, that shows it's very unlikely indeed to be a reflection."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9097
The relevant photo numbers:
AS12-47-6919
AS12-48-7071
AS12-48-7074
AS12-48-7133
AS12-48-7134
AS12-49-7307
AS12-49-7308
AS12-49-7309
The ALSJ has all of these in multiple sizes, not all grainy and mooshed up like in ff88's aulius link.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
Last edited:
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Ordinarily I'd put more work into this but I have stuff to do and this one's been beat to death repeatedly. Just like every other claim.
Say what you want about the Delusional Idiots Forum, at least some of them could come up with NEW ideas about the moon hoax. Like the wonderful "sublimation doesn't work in vacuum" or the "rake marks under the lander."
That's creativity, there.
Say what you want about the Delusional Idiots Forum, at least some of them could come up with NEW ideas about the moon hoax. Like the wonderful "sublimation doesn't work in vacuum" or the "rake marks under the lander."
That's creativity, there.
Erock
Muse
You'll never believe it, but he has discussed this before. Yes really he has
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/22/ - 2008.
David C said:
So I can confirm that the pictures appeared as a complete package immediately after the mission. Those pictures are on the 3 main rolls of film from the surface for Apollo 12. Got any more?
Maybe you can answer the long post I made just after your last Linkbarf TM
p.s. Are you royal? You keep using the word 'we'!
Last edited:
ComfySlippers
Banned
I wish to use this term. Do I pay you royalties?
- Status