Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 105

Thread: Proof that the Apollo footage was filmed in air here on earth

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    It is true and can be proven very easily. One of them is a still from the final TV broadcast before they took off from the surface

    https://youtu.be/RWoMW9thdqc?t=27778

    the other is a section of this panorama

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.1464906_gpan.jpg
    Go to where it says, "The Hills Are Alive" in the second link.

    Now that I look at it again I see that I misunderstood what was being said. They weren't saying that those two pictures were from different missions. They're hotlinks that are supposed to take you to videos but they don't work so we can't do anything with this.


    when images taken of the moon are an exact match for images taken by Apollo
    They knew what the moon looked like when they were designing the movie set for Apollo. It's logical that they'd try to make everything match.


    particularly when the hill in Hawaii is tiny in comparison with the ones on the moon
    The size of pictures can be manipulated. They can make a picture of a mountain look as big as they want to.


    Because they can verify that what is on view in the Apollo images is an exact match for images taken by orbital probes
    Those pictures taken by orbital probes are fakable. Nothing that's fakable can be assumed to be real and used as proof.

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


    There are many shows Apollo hardware and evidence of human activity, including images taken by American, Chinese, Indian and Japanese probes. All those images show the same things and are available for anyone to download and process for themselves.
    It's all fakable and it doesn't make the anomalies go away.


    Nobody addressed the evidence of support wires from post #8.

    Galileo and the Apollo Moon Jump
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLta...E&index=2&t=0s

    The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AWemWrsZn4


    If it is such a huge conspiracy with massive resources, why did they release video that is full of apparently easy to spot 'give aways'?
    They were pretty sloppy alright. Maybe the people who were doing the faking felt guilty and didn't worry too much about getting caught in the future. Maybe they wanted the hoax to be known far in the future when the perpetrators were all dead.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Go to where it says, "The Hills Are Alive" in the second link.

    Now that I look at it again I see that I misunderstood what was being said. They weren't saying that those two pictures were from different missions. They're hotlinks that are supposed to take you to videos but they don't work so we can't do anything with this.
    So you're happy to concede you were wrong. Good. We can move on.




    They knew what the moon looked like when they were designing the movie set for Apollo. It's logical that they'd try to make everything match.
    They did not. Again I would remind you that the sources you use are not the only ones looking carefully at lunar images, some of us do research of our own. I have been through images from each mission and demonstrated clearly that the level of detail available to them prior to the landings was inadequate to show them the small details revealed in photographs taken by Apollo and subsequently confirmed by modern probes:

    http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/landings.html



    The size of pictures can be manipulated. They can make a picture of a mountain look as big as they want to.
    But you have failed to prove that they have. You have also failed to explain what they have done with vegetation on the Hawaii image, and where all the other hills are? The fact is that the Apollo photographs show the fine details confirmed by later orbital probes but not known about in advance - where are those details on the Hawaii hill?




    Those pictures taken by orbital probes are fakable. Nothing that's fakable can be assumed to be real and used as proof.
    You have not demonstrated that they have been faked, nor have you shown that they could have been faked at the time.


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

    No. All that that video shows is that the industry standard software for dealing with images has been using to process a photograph. it does not prove that an image has been faked or that anything in it has been added or removed. If you look at the metadata for any of my holiday snaps you will see Photoshop's signature. This does not mean that I did not go on holiday. You will also notice that I specifically drew your attention to India, Japan and China's probes. The evidence of human activity in their images was not discovered by these space agencies, it was discovered by me. You will find Photoshop in those image signatures on the link I gave you. This does not mean I faked that evidence, it means I use Photoshop.

    It's all fakable and it doesn't make the anomalies go away.
    There are no anomalies.
    Last edited by Onebigmonkey; 2018-Jul-19 at 01:37 PM. Reason: parsing

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Visually for one and because it clearly returns to a down position



    <snip for brevity>
    Your opinion is not fact. Aulis is a very deceitful and dishonest site. Jarrah White is an appallingly inept maker of rubbish.

    Indeed for example. If one browses the threads in aulis, one finds a little tidbit that Mary Bennett shows how the Saturn V velocity "couldn't" have reached the velocities published by NASA by showing how a shadow on a cloud "proves" that the velocity is much slower. Lets do a little math: The launch tower is 106 m high. There is a call out that the tower is cleared 9-10 sec(look at any Saturn V launch and count them yourself). from Physics s = s1 + vt + .5at^2. Since the vehicle is at ground levels1 = 0, and v = v1 + at with again at launch v1 = 0, v = at substituting 106 = 0 + 0 + .5at^2. Solving for a
    (106 -0 - 0)/.5 * t^2 (Lets use 10 seconds to clear that distance). Solving for a ~= 2.12 m/s Inserting this one finds the velocity is 21.2 m/s. Now attempting to project to the to the time when the vehicle entered the cloud by straight multiplication is incorrect as it should be integrated. However 21.2 + (66-10) * 2.12 = ~140 m/s not what Ms. Bennett attempted to show as 108 m/s (this is from memory as I haven't won't go back to aulis to check, but you may. ) Another fact if you watch a video of Apollo 11 launch you will note a condensation cloud around the first change in vehicle diameter. This occurs when the vehicle goes Mach 1 (310 m/s). So Ms. Bennett id wrong and the site is very very bad concerning anything about Apollo, including the parallax thread which you have linked.




    Totally debunked. The Betamax blog above!

    <snip for brevity>

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    They did not. Again I would remind you that the sources you use are not the only ones looking carefully at lunar images, some of us do research of our own. I have been through images from each mission and demonstrated clearly that the level of detail available to them prior to the landings was inadequate to show them the small details revealed in photographs taken by Apollo and subsequently confirmed by modern probes:
    We have no idea what kind of classified technology they had. You're assuming that what's made public is all that they had.


    But you have failed to prove that they have.
    The fact that it's possible means that it can't be taken as proof as you seem to be doing. You're committing a logical fallacy if you think the size difference means it wasn't the photo of the Hawaiian mountain.


    You have not demonstrated that they have been faked, nor have you shown that they could have been faked at the time.
    See above post.


    it does not prove that an image has been faked or that anything in it has been added or removed.
    It just proves that pictures are fakable and that pictures can't be presented as proof of anything as they might have been faked.


    Indeed for example. If one browses the threads in aulis, one finds a little tidbit that Mary Bennett shows how the Saturn V velocity "couldn't" have reached the velocities published by NASA by showing how a shadow on a cloud "proves" that the velocity is much slower. Lets do a little math: The launch tower is 106 m high. There is a call out that the tower is cleared 9-10 sec(look at any Saturn V launch and count them yourself). from Physics s = s1 + vt + .5at^2. Since the vehicle is at ground levels1 = 0, and v = v1 + at with again at launch v1 = 0, v = at substituting 106 = 0 + 0 + .5at^2. Solving for a
    (106 -0 - 0)/.5 * t^2 (Lets use 10 seconds to clear that distance). Solving for a ~= 2.12 m/s Inserting this one finds the velocity is 21.2 m/s. Now attempting to project to the to the time when the vehicle entered the cloud by straight multiplication is incorrect as it should be integrated. However 21.2 + (66-10) * 2.12 = ~140 m/s not what Ms. Bennett attempted to show as 108 m/s (this is from memory as I haven't won't go back to aulis to check, but you may. ) Another fact if you watch a video of Apollo 11 launch you will note a condensation cloud around the first change in vehicle diameter. This occurs when the vehicle goes Mach 1 (310 m/s). So Ms. Bennett id wrong and the site is very very bad concerning anything about Apollo, including the parallax thread which you have linked.
    There might be a few flaws in that site but it doesn't everything there is bad. I've seen mistakes made by hoax-believers. Could you link to what you talked about?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    <snip for brevity>

    There might be a few flaws in that site but it doesn't everything there is bad. I've seen mistakes made by hoax-believers. Could you link to what you talked about?
    There are more than the flaw I discussed, as I said I'm not going back to the site ever, but if you are discerning, which your posts have indicated you aren't, then you would be able to see the flaws.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    We have no idea what kind of classified technology they had. You're assuming that what's made public is all that they had.
    Actually I think I have a better idea than you do. If we're talking about assumptions, you are assuming that they had more available to them than is known about - might be an idea to produce some evidence to support those assumptions.. The fact is that much of the photographic technology used in the Lunar Orbiter missions to photograph the lunar surface was state of the art. The next best technology was being developed for spy satellites and that is what ended up in the Apollo Panoramic camera, photographs from which are not far off the standard of the LRO.


    The fact that it's possible means that it can't be taken as proof as you seem to be doing. You're committing a logical fallacy if you think the size difference means it wasn't the photo of the Hawaiian mountain.
    The logical fallacy you are committing is deciding in advance that the missions were fake, taking someone else's word as fact and not doing any checking to see if it's true or not. You have not demonstrated that what you claim is possible, you are just making a bare assertion that it is, just as you are in stating that a hill in Hawaii has been used to replicate lunar scenery in Apollo images. My objection to the Hawaii hill was not its size, but it's overall shape, surface features and the lack of all other hills on Apollo landing sites - none of which are a match.



    It just proves that pictures are fakable and that pictures can't be presented as proof of anything as they might have been faked.
    Bare assertion again, and you don't get to decide what gets to be put forward as supporting evidence for anything. You are not a gatekeeper for facts. Interesting which parts you decided not to respond to in my post.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Onebigmonkey View Post
    Actually I think I have a better idea than you do. If we're talking about assumptions, you are assuming that they had more available to them than is known about - might be an idea to produce some evidence to support those assumptions.. The fact is that much of the photographic technology used in the Lunar Orbiter missions to photograph the lunar surface was state of the art. The next best technology was being developed for spy satellites and that is what ended up in the Apollo Panoramic camera, photographs from which are not far off the standard of the LRO.



    The logical fallacy you are committing is deciding in advance that the missions were fake, taking someone else's word as fact and not doing any checking to see if it's true or not. You have not demonstrated that what you claim is possible, you are just making a bare assertion that it is, just as you are in stating that a hill in Hawaii has been used to replicate lunar scenery in Apollo images. My objection to the Hawaii hill was not its size, but it's overall shape, surface features and the lack of all other hills on Apollo landing sites - none of which are a match.



    Bare assertion again, and you don't get to decide what gets to be put forward as supporting evidence for anything. You are not a gatekeeper for facts. Interesting which parts you decided not to respond to in my post.
    I don't have the links but the JAXA image of Mt. Hadley versus the panorama from A15 would be good to past as well.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,882
    "If I can't explain it, it must be because they had advanced technology to fake it" isn't an assumption?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    That can happen if the speed of the wind holding them up decreases. If the flaps are light enough, it wouldn't take much wind to hold them up. We don't know the weight of the flaps and, due to the possibility of slow-motion having been used, we don't know the speed of the rover.
    It is clearly a stiffened cover to protect something on the front, as seen on this video....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lERB9BPzC4



    Start watching here at the 1:55 time mark.

    Apollo 17 crew setting up the U.S. flag
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeiMHK8Jom4

    He walks right by the flag and there is no sign of the flag's being attracted to or repelled by the astronaut.
    I am bemused by your response. The flag is still moving from his touch and he is not running past it. The footage is much farther away and more grainy and finally we are talking about a really tiny movement anyway.

    Just to clarify: You seem totally unable to grasp these sequence of events.....

    1. Astronaut approaches flag, there is a very small movement of the entire flag. The ground itself is also moving as are lens flares. This movement has a different cause to point 2.
    2. Astronaut brushes his elbow against the bottom of the flag sets it swinging.

    You claim they are produced by one action. I say they are the result of 2.

    Now I ask again - show me someone close to a flag with enough resolution to see a tiny movement. Clue, I KNOW there is no other footage showing this.

    This video doesn't duplicate the Apollo scenario. The object is passed under the hanging cloth.
    I said quite clearly, rotate it 90 degrees and it mimics it exactly. The draft only occurs when the object is extremely close to the cloth and it begins moving away from the Bernoulli effect.

    Anyone can have a friend hold a cloth while he runs by it. The cloth will first move away and then toward the direction of the runner as the Apollo flag did.
    Anyone but you? Film it and put it online. The evidence stands.

    Only a person with a high security clearance could verify this. The fact that it's possible means it's not proof.
    Astonishing nonsense. YOU make a claim it is possible, then say only somebody not you, could know it! The fact of the matter is that this the specifications of the rover were established and supplied....to anyone who cares to read it. What you are saying is that they designed some random paper weight item on the front and it magically supports itself in air, but you have nothing to support this with because only super secret people know about it. Do you understand how absurd you
    are sounding?

    Ok. I'll go back to this.
    When? The thing that stands out is that you have already decided beforehand that your useless claim is correct, so you now have to devise a ridiculous scenario to shoehorn this footage into your claim. The fact of the matter is that, to anyone with any degree of discernment, it is clearly not on Earth.

    Physics of the Moon Flag
    I know the pendulum is not an exact comparison as the flag is attached to the pole and to the whole support rod but it still gives a good idea of the difference in the speeds at which the flag would move back and forth. I wouldn't say it's total nonsense.
    It is NOTHING like the pendulum test he does in the video.

    This video at 1:57 shows the Apollo footage speeded up 150%. Schmitt does a little hop that is still too slow for Earth, and during this sequence the astronauts cross over, NO WIRES. But anyway, at that 1:57 mark, the Apollo flag is MUCH faster than the Earth flag.

    Can you explain this without calling either party a liar? ANYONE can speed up the Apollo 17 video and see the video above is ok and anyone can twist a piece of fabric to see that it really does flap that slowly. If you claim deception, PROVE IT.

    I simply can't identify that movement that you describe. I think you're seeing what you want to see.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPLoqxacpFI

    At 2 mins, the support rod is going up and down. If you claim it is not, it is YOU "seeing" what you want to see.

    People can decide for themselves.
    Yes. And people on this forum agree with me. You are seeing what you want to see and avoiding what you want to avoid.

    Start watching at the 2:30 time mark.
    When the camera moves, the spots move with the camera. Those are not lens flares. They are spots on the camera lens.
    They are lens flares. You avoided my question:

    How can spots on a camera move(they are lens flares...same question)?


    I will tell you one problem you have. You simply don't know what research is. This Apollo 15 flag footage comes from a long unbroken sequence that you probably didn't even know about. Here is a screen shot of the lens flares larger when a different angle to the Sun.


  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Those pictures taken by orbital probes are fakable. Nothing that's fakable can be assumed to be real and used as proof.
    Circular reasoning.

    You must supply proof it was faked, otherwise all you are doing is blowing hot air.

    The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped
    I am once again astounded at how gullible you are. The images posted on the internet are edited tiny segments taken from absolutely massive uncompressed images. Of course they use an imaging software to create this!! The originals, TIF files, show no such manipulation.

    Your claim is dismissed, do you have any rebuttal to this?

    It's all fakable and it doesn't make the anomalies go away.
    Bare assertion. The rebuttal makes the anomalies go away and there aren't any real anomalies I am aware of apart from the Apollo 15 flag. That has better explanations for the movement than your nonsensical wave of air.

    Nobody addressed the evidence of support wires from post #8.
    Your claim amounts to no more than the observer can't see the soil properly and claims it MUST have got to the same height on a vertical jump. Volleyball players lift sand up as they do running jumps, but only a small amount gets to the same height. Slower jumps result in next to none of the soil getting up to jump height

    They were pretty sloppy alright. Maybe the people who were doing the faking felt guilty and didn't worry too much about getting caught in the future. Maybe they wanted the hoax to be known far in the future when the perpetrators were all dead.
    Or maybe you are talking complete nonsense and all your claims are contrived and foolish.

    Counter claim about the soil getting up to jump height - I will be pressing you for an honest response:

    Video 1 shows a gravitational analysis of the Cernan hopping sequence. I would also state that this is part of a massive unbroken sequence where the astronauts travel hundreds of yards from the rover and cross over numerous times. The analysis proves that the jump is perfectly consistent with lunar gravity. It shows the adjustment for Earth gravity.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U

    Video 2 shows a piece of soil being kicked up - to jump height just like your volleyball player, that hits the ground at the SAME TIME as Cernan. This proves they are not on wires.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG5FuVxDcPU

    Can you explain how this is possible, because the 245% footage is clearly ridiculous?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    We have no idea what kind of classified technology they had. You're assuming that what's made public is all that they had.
    OK, so NASA have magic technology. Prove it and of course you can't. You are just waving your arms around

    The fact that it's possible means that it can't be taken as proof as you seem to be doing.
    A truly astoundingly nonsensical argument. PROVE is was faked, otherwise the evidence stands.

    You're committing a logical fallacy if you think the size difference means it wasn't the photo of the Hawaiian mountain.
    I won't say what you are committing if you persist in saying they used a mountain in Hawaii

    There might be a few flaws in that site but it doesn't everything there is bad. I've seen mistakes made by hoax-believers. Could you link to what you talked about?
    Detail your best ones from that site and the members here will show you why they are rubbish, lies, deceit or "mistakes".

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    <snip for brevity>
    Those pictures taken by orbital probes are fakable. Nothing that's fakable can be assumed to be real and used as proof.

    Direct question, Provide proof that the LRO images have been altered, other than adjusting compression from transferring to the jpeg format.

    The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI
    Another direct question, Provide proof that just because "Photoshop" is in the METADATA of an image indicates it has been altered. Your reference video from hunchbacked is not sufficient evidence of fakery or altering. Just because you blindly agree without knowledge of what the METADATA information means. Others have post descriptions that both you and hunchbacked forget to tell those viewing his video.



    It's all fakable and it doesn't make the anomalies go away.


    <sip>
    You have yet to prove that any of the images, data, or videos taken during the Apollo mission were faked. Your belief that It's all fakable therefore it is (could be sic) faked, is at best a bare assertion. You have yet to describe what anomalies there are. I suspect it is all the inability to do proper image analysis.

    I await answers to my direct questions.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I don't have the links but the JAXA image of Mt. Hadley versus the panorama from A15 would be good to past as well.
    This is the JAXA one that is commonly reproduced:



    and this is a version I did myself from JAXA data:



    Here's one I did from Chinese data:



    and seeing as we're here this is one I did from LRO data that I built using several strips of images (hence the black stripes).



    The only differences between them are my inaccuracies in reproducing the Apollo viewpoint.

    The point I made on the part of my site for which I produced these is that anyone can download this raw data and produce their own images if they can be bothered to put the effort in - I even show them where to get the data, how to process it and provide examples of the 3D models to use. Hoax believers seem t prefer copy and paste approach to research rather than do their own legwork. That approach has already let the OP down in this thread alone.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Onebigmonkey View Post
    This is the JAXA one that is commonly reproduced:



    and this is a version I did myself from JAXA data:



    Here's one I did from Chinese data:



    and seeing as we're here this is one I did from LRO data that I built using several strips of images (hence the black stripes).



    The only differences between them are my inaccuracies in reproducing the Apollo viewpoint.

    The point I made on the part of my site for which I produced these is that anyone can download this raw data and produce their own images if they can be bothered to put the effort in - I even show them where to get the data, how to process it and provide examples of the 3D models to use. Hoax believers seem t prefer copy and paste approach to research rather than do their own legwork. That approach has already let the OP down in this thread alone.
    Very good work, but it will fall on blind eyes of Craig2, I suspect. Let me guess Photoshop appears in the images METADAT section, correct?

    ETA: Unless you used another image software.
    Last edited by bknight; 2018-Jul-19 at 08:20 PM. Reason: Added image software.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Very good work, but it will fall on blind eyes of Craig2, I suspect. Let me guess Photoshop appears in the images METADAT section, correct?

    ETA: Unless you used another image software.
    Indeed it does, but crucially it does not appear in the raw data!

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,973
    I can't speak for the evidence involving this particular conspiracy theory but if I were NASA back then I would have convinced those authorities in charge to limit the fake moon landing program to only one landing mission. For it to be true then Apollo 13 was faked as well and the cancelation of later missions was just a good PR excuse to end the charade before anyone caught on. The government has many secrets but it doesn't make any sense for this to be one of them.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    [snip]

    The rocks are not proof of anything.

    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...arth-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).
    -----------------------------
    Yeah, no.

    Geology doesn't work like that.

    If you hand a piece of limestone to a geologist, one thing she knows is that it didn't pop out of a volcano, no matter what you might claim about where you got the rock. That's because limestone has characteristics which are simply not consistent with it being sourced from a volcano.

    The same thing goes with the Moon rocks. They have characteristics which are simply not consistent with them having come from the Earth. This includes things like the lack of water in their chemical composition, evidence of having been formed in a vacuum, their accumulation of solar radiation, and the microscopic craters known as zap pits. You might be able to back a geologist into a corner and say the rocks could have come from somewhere other than the Moon, but you wouldn't be able to get them to say that they came from the Earth. Never mind the lack of a "neutral control", those characteristics are simply not compatible with Earth rocks.

    Another point to consider is that before Apollo 11, scientists had a bunch of theories about how the Moon formed. As these theories came from all directions, sure, one possibility geologists were prepared for was that Moon rocks might be very similar to Earth rocks. But the rocks that NASA handed over to the geologists to study were not very similar to Earth rocks - they had those very distinct differences I just mentioned.

    Now I suppose you'll just dismiss that by saying that all the world's geologists are in on the hoax, just like all the worlds aerospace engineers and physicists (with the Van Allen radiation). Well, I suppose you can if you want, though this conspiracy is starting to get rather large...

    But then you also have to add in the Soviets - everyone in their political, military and scientific communities - because if you're going to claim that Soviet geologists went along with an American hoax designed to make the Soviets look bad then you're calling into question the reality of the Cold War. Which means we're really getting into weird territory.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
    Yeah, no.

    Geology doesn't work like that.

    If you hand a piece of limestone to a geologist, one thing she knows is that it didn't pop out of a volcano, no matter what you might claim about where you got the rock. That's because limestone has characteristics which are simply not consistent with it being sourced from a volcano.

    The same thing goes with the Moon rocks. They have characteristics which are simply not consistent with them having come from the Earth. This includes things like the lack of water in their chemical composition, evidence of having been formed in a vacuum, their accumulation of solar radiation, and the microscopic craters known as zap pits. You might be able to back a geologist into a corner and say the rocks could have come from somewhere other than the Moon, but you wouldn't be able to get them to say that they came from the Earth. Never mind the lack of a "neutral control", those characteristics are simply not compatible with Earth rocks.

    Another point to consider is that before Apollo 11, scientists had a bunch of theories about how the Moon formed. As these theories came from all directions, sure, one possibility geologists were prepared for was that Moon rocks might be very similar to Earth rocks. But the rocks that NASA handed over to the geologists to study were not very similar to Earth rocks - they had those very distinct differences I just mentioned.

    Now I suppose you'll just dismiss that by saying that all the world's geologists are in on the hoax, just like all the worlds aerospace engineers and physicists (with the Van Allen radiation). Well, I suppose you can if you want, though this conspiracy is starting to get rather large...

    But then you also have to add in the Soviets - everyone in their political, military and scientific communities - because if you're going to claim that Soviet geologists went along with an American hoax designed to make the Soviets look bad then you're calling into question the reality of the Cold War. Which means we're really getting into weird territory.

    That's a cool summary. You can add also, that none of the Apollo samples have terrestrial weathering from exposure to water, oxygen or nitrogen and contain none of the minerals associated.

    Further, there is not the slightest possibility that the rocks can be meteorites for very similar reasons. There will be terrestrial weathering unless gathered instantly. There will be a fusion crust, wiping out two major things: the zap pits you mention and also stronger layers of helium-3 isotopes that are produced by exposure to solar flares etc.

    All in all, when someone says "The rocks are not proof of anything", they are quite wrong on two accounts. They prove they came from the Moon by spacecraft and that the maker of the statement has not the slightest clue what they are talking about.

    Now Craig2: Answer to these major points raised and explain how these rocks were obtained.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    (S)he is falling behind on the questions that need to be answered, instead of presenting bare assertions. EVIDENCE Craig2

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    731
    I find it astonishing that anyone would consider Aulis a reliable source. Of anything.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    Well in an obtuse way CT's love it.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    731
    Don't make me dig out Jack White's abject failure.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    Don't make me dig out Jack White's abject failure.
    Please do it would be another nail in Craig2's coffin.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Here's something new I just came across about the flag.
    http://aulis.com/moon_hoax_now2.htm

    It seems to be moving because of wind.


    Regarding post #33.
    There might be a few flaws in that site but it doesn't everything there is bad. I've seen mistakes made by hoax-believers. Could you link to what you talked about?
    There are more than the flaw I discussed, as I said I'm not going back to the site ever, but if you are discerning, which your posts have indicated you aren't, then you would be able to see the flaws.
    If you don't link to what you said was on that site, how do we know you were telling the truth?


    You people have made a great mistake here.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...62#post2454962

    You say those two spots are lens flares*. Anyone who watches the video can see that the spots move with the camera when the camera is moved so they can only be spots on the lens.

    Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
    (2:29 time mark)


    Your credibility has taken a big hit on this one. I'd like to hear comments on this from all of the Apollo-believers who are posting here.


    Here's something else.

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


    That guy seems to have some credentials and he says the astronaut in the rover is a doll.




    *
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare
    https://www.google.es/search?q=lens+...&bih=677&dpr=1

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    <snip>
    If you don't link to what you said was on that site, how do we know you were telling the truth?

    Are you calling me a liar? Ad hominems won't work, try evidence and answer the questions poised by myself and others:

    Bolded for your convenience. ANSWER the question.


    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    First off you haven't proved any hoax and you need to start doing that instead of giving bare assertions.

    "I consider it to be proven by the anomalies in the photos and footage" More bare assertions. The same direct question to you as in the other thread.
    What anomalies have proven a hoax, spell them out in detail. I suspect it is rather a poor image analysis, but I'm giving you the chance to prove these bare assertions you have been slinging about. If you use any image other than the originals from NASA's website, I'm afraid that will be disqualified due to the lack of control and the possibility that some HB changed the original, just like Jack white did numerous occasions.

    <snip>

    And here are more questions:

    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Direct question, Provide proof that the LRO images have been altered, other than adjusting compression from transferring to the jpeg format.

    Another direct question, Provide proof that just because "Photoshop" is in the METADATA of an image indicates it has been altered. Your reference video from hunchbacked is not sufficient evidence of fakery or altering. Just because you blindly agree without knowledge of what the METADATA information means. Others have post descriptions that both you and hunchbacked forget to tell those viewing his video.

    You have yet to prove that any of the images, data, or videos taken during the Apollo mission were faked. Your belief that It's all fakable therefore it is (could be sic) faked, is at best a bare assertion. You have yet to describe what anomalies there are. I suspect it is all the inability to do proper image analysis.

    I await answers to my direct questions.
    There are a lot of questions asked and yet you don't provide any answers, just more bare assertions.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Here's something new I just came across about the flag.
    http://aulis.com/moon_hoax_now2.htm

    It seems to be moving because of wind.
    Or the film has been deceitfully edited.

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/video14.html#Golf

    Here is a screenprint from the same scene from NASA video:



    Here is a screenshot from Aulis:



    Here is the Aulis image contrast adjusted, notice an edited piece on the edge of the video?



    Direct question:

    Now, what do you think about this?

    Regarding post #33.
    If you don't link to what you said was on that site, how do we know you were telling the truth?
    Deception on Aulis? See above!!

    You people have made a great mistake here.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...62#post2454962

    You say those two spots are lens flares*. Anyone who watches the video can see that the spots move with the camera when the camera is moved so they can only be spots on the lens.
    Regarding mistakes, evasion or whatever!

    Repeat direct question:

    How can these "spots" move on a video if they are fixed to the lens? Answer please!

    Post #39 above shows the EVA where the camera has different orientation to the Sun, clearly the spots are bigger. Lens flares.

    Direct questions:
    Can you see the spots bigger?
    Do you retract your claim they aren't lens flares?

    Your credibility has taken a big hit on this one. I'd like to hear comments on this from all of the Apollo-believers who are posting here.
    You have responses already made to you that you need to address, including questions. Post #39. I supplied you with a video showing this whole area was absolutely massive, with long camera zooms. Again, black skies and the whole area lit with one single light source, evenly lit, single shadows.

    Direct question:

    Can you explain this?

    Direct question:

    I supplied you video of the LRV traverse, can you explain this please?



    Here's something else.

    Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8
    Pathetic diversion. No it wasn't a model.

    That guy seems to have some credentials and he says the astronaut in the rover is a doll.
    His claim amounts to 3 things:-

    1. The astronaut is not moving. So what, why should he.
    2. The soil is different colours. Phase angle changes to retro-reflective surface.
    3. It is comparable to front screen projection on 2001. Ridiculous observation. This was a fixed shot, the moon footage is moving constantly. It is this, more than anything that makes me question his credentials or motive.
    Direct questions:

    Can you verify his credentials please?
    How do his alleged credentials allow him the skillset to pose a credible analysis?


    Please answer post #39.
    Last edited by Clanger; 2018-Jul-21 at 01:48 PM.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    How can these "spots" move on a video if they are fixed to the lens? Answer please!

    Post #39 above shows the EVA where the camera has different orientation to the Sun, clearly the spots are bigger. Lens flares.

    Direct questions:
    Can you see the spots bigger?
    Do you retract your claim they aren't lens flares?
    The spots in post #39 are in a different location. They're not the same spots.


    Watch this video from the 2:23 time mark to the 2:45 time mark.

    Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU


    The camera moves at the 2:29 time mark and again at the 2:43 time mark. It's very clear that your lens flares are specs of something that are stuck to the camera lens. I want to hear everyone's opinion on this.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    I am once again astounded at how gullible you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Are you calling me a liar?
    OK, everyone chill. I want everyone to stop with the accusations, and the presumptions about the faults and abilities of others. We will debate this politely.

    Craig2, you need to get to work answer every single one of the direct questions that have been put to you.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Yesterday I was too busy to do any posting so sorry about that.

    Everyone here seems to maintain that those specs on the lens are lens flares which destroys their credibility and shows they aren't fit to debate this issue. I want to get everyone's opinion on that (including that of Swift) before I spend any more time debating here. Once it's clear to the viewers that debaters don't even believe their own arguments, the other side wins and there's really no point in continuing. The only thing that matters here is what the viewers end up thinking.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    The spots in post #39 are in a different location. They're not the same spots.
    There is no need for you to keep reposting that link!

    I gave you a picture of the video and this link is where it is from:

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1485317.rm


    Right at the start we see one spot, then suddenly another one appears. These are the 2 that end up exactly where claimed. You are wrong!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •