More proof that Apollo was faked

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by FatFreddy, Mar 15, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    906
    Start watching part 1 of this documentary at the 1:19:23 time mark. There seem to be differences in the moon's surface between the NASA pictures and pictures taken by independent amateur astronomers. It continues into part 2.

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


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



    If those videos don't work any more, click here.

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=Moon+Hoax;+"Apollo;+Hoax+Of+The+20th+Century"+Part+1+of+2+&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=moon+hoax;+"apollo;+hoax+of+the+20th+century"+part+1+of+2+&sc=0-58&qs=n&sk=&cvid=BF4DE2A36BD041BDAFC24588E7737ACF
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,741
    Seriously?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. David C On planet earth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    1:19:23 is some nonsense about meteor showers and nothing to do with any images. It goes on for some considerable time whilst this guy drones on and on implying I think that the astronauts should have been cluster bombed by meteors.

    The Earth has far superior gravity. When it leads into the path of the cometary trail, it will take pretty much the whole lot. When it trails into it, the far side of the Moon will get the hits. When it is side on closer to the Sun the left half of the Moon's leading face will be struck. When it is side on farthest from the Sun the right half of the Moon's leading face will be struck. All the Apollo sites are in the central area facing us.

    https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Apollo-landingspots.jpg

    Explain how there will be a positioning where the central facing part of the Moon gets bombarded. It is one reason why this face shows nowhere near the same damage as the far side.

    NEXT!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    906
    No idea. If you know, just tell us.

    The part of the documentary that I wanted to discuss lasts until the 1:10:10 time mark of part 2.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2021
  8. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    906
    At the 24:30 time mark of part 2 Hadley Rille is discussed.

    There's more info on Hadley Rille here.

    https://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Numerous Apollo 15 photo examples indicate an identical distortion grid – a projection screen at the distance of 100-120 metres from the front of the studio stage. A serious falsification of the true lunarscape, in particular, an artificial trench 30-60 metres in width given for the lunar Rima Hadley which is actually 1,200 metres in width; the image of this remote lunarscape being projected onto the curved background screen; and ‘astronaut’ photographers taking pictures in front of it in a studio set.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  9. David C On planet earth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Oh, I forgot. The title of this thread is somewhat deceptive. "More proof" implies that there is other proof when every single piece of junk has been debunked. Please don't go to your list of spammed responses to say how you have never seen "x debunked" because quite frankly nobody believes even you to be that daft! Oh and the post above - Hadley Rille? You already had an answer to that on another forum. Maybe you can stop repeat spamming things when they get good informative answers?

    It was rhetorical based on the answer I just gave you! That would be the answer you basically completely bypassed - it's no wonder nobody can be bothered playing these idiotic troll games you create. The latest youtube junk comes out and you feel compelled to start posting it everywhere without using any logic or reasoning

    I'm not trawling through that pile of ignorant tosh. I went to 1:10:10 and he says "look where are the boulders and craters" Far away, obscured by terrain or he is using crap images deliberately.

    Apollo Surface Panoramas (usra.edu)

    I then let it run for a minute and this ignoramus starts talking about the "250 degree heat" - I shake my head in astonishment at the idiocy of this repeated debunked guff. Firstly that is the maximum surface temperature at high noon. The missions without exception arrived early lunar morning where the surface was no hotter than the sand in Spain!
     
  10. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    906
    I'll list some of the clearest proof. The viewers can decide for themselves.

    Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue

    (Be sure to watch at the 3:13 time mark)

    The bumpy ride causes the flaps to go up but air is keeping them from coming back down.

    This would explain why it looks like they're on the moon.
    http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/
    ------------------------------------

    Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.

    (2:35 time mark)


    These two videos show that the flag had started to move before he got close enough to touch it.

    Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement


    The flag that moved



    This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.

    windyz.wmv


    Physics of the Moon Flag
    https://www.brighteon.com/5545a13a-1b33-4c2a-9393-050bac22b91d

    Physics of the Moon Flag 2
    https://www.brighteon.com/116e7f3f-e419-47d7-9944-e5864c63296e


    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker: The Flags Are Alive
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker: Flagging The Dead Horses

    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1145.0

    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------
    "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
    -----------------------------

    http://americanmoon.org/truth/FlagstaffAZ.htm

    http://www.moonfaker.com/videos.php

    Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

    The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI

    https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/loosechangeforums/we-never-went-to-the-moon-t5333-s220.html#p10451


    If any links don't work with Google Chrome, try FireFox.

     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
  11. David C On planet earth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Any excuse to repost your spam and bypass all the hundreds of already given responses. I have notified moderators. My responses below use previous responses from all over the internet.

    Bumps in terrain cause the flap to rise. The reason it doesn't fall is because a bump occurs just as it falls. Dead obvious to see.



    Nonsense. Making a really poor sky black on a single image where the person doing it has failed to include anything encroaching into the sky with black background, has no bearing on a multi framed continuous 15 minute video where we numerous times things doing just that. Plus he has used modern editing software and failed - where no such software was available in 1971

    So your method involves using modern digital software on a single image, to create a 20fps video in 1971? It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective.

    Can you explain in detail how that could possibly be done?
     
  12. David C On planet earth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Comedy spam time, posted probably about 500 times all over the internet.

    Show me exactly where these are ruled out:

    1. Video artefact blooming.
    2. Flagpole settling in stand.
    3. Static discharge.
    4. Kicked soil striking the bottom of the pole sending small vibration.


    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo 15 flag (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    "I have uploaded 7 videos on youtube analysing this subject. There are two main issues to deal with, namely the initial movement, and the subsequent movement after Dave Scott has passed by the flag.

    Video 1



    This video simply highlights the initial movement.


    Video 2


    In this video, I demonstrate that Jarrah White is self debunking his own claims. He runs past his own badly hung flag, yet fails to move it until he is level with it. He is considerably closer than Dave Scott was to the Apollo 15 flag. There is the barest of movements as he draws level.


    Video 3



    In this video I show the original Apollo 15 flag moving for 30 seconds. Using Jarrah's 66% slowed down footage theory, that equates to 20 seconds.
    White then proceeds to run past his own flag several times, yet is only able to move his flag for 4-5 seconds. That equates to 6-7.5 seconds adjusted up 150%.
    With White's flag, there is a totally different billowing movement, a rapid stop, and indeed a much more aggresive motion. No gentle back and forth prolonged swaying as per Apollo 15 flag.


    Video 4



    This video shows a wide book being dropped from 1 metre and failing to move a plastic bag until it is a few inches away from it.


    Video 5

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y

    In this video, I isolate several frames and show the flag with movement and Dave Scott at least four feet away. I show several color filtered shots that highlight the actual flagpole itself moving, that is clearly impossible. This one video debunks the "wall of air" contention completely, since air will only be pushed a few inches in front of a body in motion. The plastic bag demonstrated this.


    Video 6

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM

    In this video I take it a step further. Using frame grabs, I show Dave Scott about 6 feet away from the flag, with clear movement.


    Video 7

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JixGapxKURc

    This final video is my personal favorite. If you watch no other video, watch this one.
    I show White debunking himself in the most totally conclusive way. Simpler if you just watch it.

    Update

    From apollohoax.net, user Headlikearock has made a very significant observation concerning the lens flares on the flag. They actually move alongside the flag itself, the flagpole and parts of the ground. Here is the direct link, and the picture below:-

    http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo 15/flag-wave-new-gif_zps435e5ced.gif

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    Summary:

    There are two possible explanations for the initial movement.
    The movement is a camera blooming effect, caused by Dave Scott entering the frame and the camera blooming with CRT effect to compensate.
    It is consistent with the whole flag shifting right, including the flagpole itself, and also consistent with slightly more movement to the edge caused by the wide angle lens' natural distortion to objects at its edge.
    The movement could also be caused by ground vibration, since the flagpole is seated into the regolith, which has a consistency similar to sandstone just below it's surface.
    I tend to favor the former of these two, but I am open to the other.
    What I am not open to, is a mystery wall of air pushing against a nylon flag from 6 feet away, 4 feet away, or even 2 feet away.


    Finally, the main movement:
    The movement of the flag as the astronaut passes, is simply caused by his arm brushing it. There are two debunking videos explaining it perfectly......."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJvgqoeFSU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx5H7Rwfkjo



    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo 17 Flag (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    "Since you wish to include this as part of your wall of spam, I shall debunk it properly.

    Video 1:-

    Here is my first video showing the whole clip from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. In this video, the astronauts crossover a few times, so the idea they are using "wires" that we never see, can be quickly debunked.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQxQSzj3Khw


    Video 2:-

    Now, we have discounted the use of wires, since it would be impossible to stop them tangling! Here is the next video with the film firstly sped up 150%. The dust and flag motion is excessive, and several movements by the astronauts look very odd. There are short glimpses of vertical motion showing that it still is too slow for Earth gravity. I then speed the film up 200%, and now it all looks patently absurd.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPLoqxacpFI


    Video 3:-

    The final video is a debunk of the motion, showing also that the flagpole is rotating, causing a massive dampening effect to any pendulum swing.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio"



    Moronic. A chemist doing physics where he fails to understand a multi-pivot complex pendulum made of fabric with its main axis across the diagonal! His main assumption on which he bases his entire video is completely flawed, he uses the drop height of the flag when it oscillates across the diagonal. Epic fail and on which you are dishonestly ignoring since this has been responded to you many many times.

    He quotes from a book written by a moron hoax believer. How do you submit this as evidence? Geologists have analysed rocks and determined that they have no terrestrial weathering, have solar isotopes and patterns that could only be from low gravity. This precludes Earth rocks and meterites.


    Ludicrous. If you believe this you are as mad as a hatter.

    Once again ignoring detailed responses. The idiot who made that video has "analysed" internet crops from huge TIFF files of many gigabytes in size. Of course these are produced using editing software!
     
    foghorn likes this.
  13. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    906
    You're using Betamax's analyses. He's a known liar.

    Look at this piece of sophistry of his. Post #9 here is my rebuttal.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665


    When he was trying to obfuscate this anomaly...

    The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute
    https://www.brighteon.com/612d782a-9223-4698-99ac-3eb337ceedf5

    ...on this thread...
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...nlight-addendum.584604/page-3#post-1072505671

    ...he manipulated a gif in order to falsify what was happening.


    Betamax lamely tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-chinese-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/

    There's some more stuff here. Look how he supports Jay Windley's position.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-ever-happened.512081/page-27#post-1068295062


    Of course I'm speaking to the viewers. You're going to support the official version hell or high water.
     
  14. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    906
    I wasn't going mention the other anomalies but you brought them up.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    This thread appears to reproduce previously-debunked arguments for the moon conspiracy from elsewhere on the web.

    There is no value in reproducing this on sciforums, and nothing new is being added to this "debate". This thread is closed.
     
    exchemist likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page