moon hoax information index.

yeah,
reminds me of the famous identical rocks and landscapes at "different" locations.

The crocodile rock and ensuing frenzy still makes me chuckle  ,

Quote from: Yendor on February 10, 2016, 08:50:10 AM

I don't believe anyone doesn't believe they actually built a landing module that was to government specs. Of course they did. I just don't believe the pictures of it on the moon is the real one. I believe they also built cardboard and plywood mockups and called them simulators and they are what all the moon pictures show.  That is why all the gold foil and tarpaper is used for, to cover things up. I'd like to show two more pictures from the Apollo 15 mission on the moon.

AS15-82-11082
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-82-11082.html 


AS15-82-11057
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-82-11057.html 


I'd like to bring your attention to the hills in the background. Does anyone believe like me they are the same hills? If so, why is the LM in one and not in the other? I can't believe all the hills on the moon look the same.

I know what you will say, the LM is close and out of sight in AS15-82-11057. That is why it isn't seen. But, if you look at the hills they look the same size and the details look the same to me. I believe if you  put one pic on top of the other, they would be the same size. I can't really do it because I don't have a good program that does that. All I have is 'Paint'.
       
       

Lets oscillate the pictures back and forth, angled to match:


AS15-82-11057 at the LM and  AS15-82-11082 at Station 9 are taken 1.4 kilometer from each other. AS15-82-11082 is also 30 meters higher, so the LM is below the border at AS15-82-11082

I'll be able to demonstrate this better when I'm not firewalled at work, but the base of the hills beyond the LM is about 12km away - much further than it looks.

Here we go, as promised this is a 3D view I created using JAXA data of Hadley Rille. The two yellow dots mark (roughly) where the two images were taken. The hills in the photos are the ones in the distance here.

I'll be able to demonstrate this better when I'm not firewalled at work, but the base of the hills beyond the LM is about 12km away - much further than it looks.

And why can't we see the LM in the other picture? is it height difference? is there a small hill between the LM and the photographer?

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 28, 2017, 05:32:33 AM

I'll be able to demonstrate this better when I'm not firewalled at work, but the base of the hills beyond the LM is about 12km away - much further than it looks.

And why can't we see the LM in the other picture? is it height difference? is there a small hill between the LM and the photographer?

Pretty much, combined with an overall downward dip in the landscape. In this view I've generated a contour line at 10m intervals using the LRO elevation data and maps:



You can see there's about a 20m or so elevation difference between the two locations (the LM is at the yellow marker and Station 9 is towards the bottom left of the image I generated).

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

photos ?

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got ?

can sound travel in a vacuum ? 

Quote from: Denspressure on March 28, 2017, 09:36:58 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 28, 2017, 05:32:33 AM

I'll be able to demonstrate this better when I'm not firewalled at work, but the base of the hills beyond the LM is about 12km away - much further than it looks.

And why can't we see the LM in the other picture? is it height difference? is there a small hill between the LM and the photographer?

Pretty much, combined with an overall downward dip in the landscape. In this view I've generated a contour line at 10m intervals using the LRO elevation data and maps:



You can see there's about a 20m or so elevation difference between the two locations (the LM is at the yellow marker and Station 9 is towards the bottom left of the image I generated).

      what's that ^ supposed to be OBM ?

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 28, 2017, 10:23:35 AM

Quote from: Denspressure on March 28, 2017, 09:36:58 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 28, 2017, 05:32:33 AM

I'll be able to demonstrate this better when I'm not firewalled at work, but the base of the hills beyond the LM is about 12km away - much further than it looks.

And why can't we see the LM in the other picture? is it height difference? is there a small hill between the LM and the photographer?

Pretty much, combined with an overall downward dip in the landscape. In this view I've generated a contour line at 10m intervals using the LRO elevation data and maps:



You can see there's about a 20m or so elevation difference between the two locations (the LM is at the yellow marker and Station 9 is towards the bottom left of the image I generated).

      what's that ^ supposed to be OBM ?

" In this view I've generated a contour line at 10m intervals using the LRO elevation data and maps:"

     what's that ^ supposed to be OBM ?

Never seen a contour map before? It helps people who go outside find their way around. Ask a grown up.

Quote from: Denspressure on September 06, 2016, 05:26:24 AM

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

photos ?

or CGI ? 

You think they has CGI then? Cute.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 28, 2017, 05:32:33 AM

I'll be able to demonstrate this better when I'm not firewalled at work, but the base of the hills beyond the LM is about 12km away - much further than it looks.

And why can't we see the LM in the other picture? is it height difference? is there a small hill between the LM and the photographer?

My guess would be that the photo was taken from either close enough to the LEM so that it wouldn't be in frame or from the other side of the LEM.  It's not as if they were limited to always being in front of the LEM for whatever reason.

Quote from: Denspressure on March 28, 2017, 09:36:58 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on March 28, 2017, 05:32:33 AM

I'll be able to demonstrate this better when I'm not firewalled at work, but the base of the hills beyond the LM is about 12km away - much further than it looks.

And why can't we see the LM in the other picture? is it height difference? is there a small hill between the LM and the photographer?

My guess would be that the photo was taken from either close enough to the LEM so that it wouldn't be in frame or from the other side of the LEM.  It's not as if they were limited to always being in front of the LEM for whatever reason.

See my 3D renderings

The image was taken at station 9 on EVA-3 by a crater called Scarp on the edge of the rille.

One of the tools they have at the LRO quickmap

http://target.lroc.asu.edu/q3/?mv=eqc&mcx=0&mcy=0&mz=1

 site is one that will draw the surface when you plot a line.



The green line starts at the left where the image was taken and ends on the right where the LM is. The elevation line shows the ground surface along that line. The LM is clearly in a dip, and a photograph taken looking straight across is not going to see it.

Quote from: Denspressure on September 06, 2016, 05:26:24 AM

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got

It's never been debunked.......ever. Please stop lying.

Where is the flag?

Quote from: Denspressure on September 06, 2016, 05:26:24 AM

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

photos ?

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got ?

can sound travel in a vacuum ? 

That's right, only shills and desperate "I want it to be truhueee" believers keep defending that Kubrick production done under Ricky Nixon's government.

Quote from: feuk on March 28, 2017, 12:26:11 PM

Quote from: Denspressure on September 06, 2016, 05:26:24 AM

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

photos ?

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got ?

can sound travel in a vacuum ? 

That's right, only shills and desperate "I want it to be truhueee" believers keep defending that Kubrick production done under Ricky Nixon's government.

There is nothing to believe.
Apollo sites have been photographed with the LRO and other moon satellites.
Retroreflectors left behind can be used by a powerful enough laser, something like an observatory would have.

Quote from: feuk on March 28, 2017, 12:26:11 PM

Quote from: Denspressure on September 06, 2016, 05:26:24 AM

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got

It's never been debunked.......ever. Please stop lying.

one can only deduce you have not read my thread 

might I suggest you try it.

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on March 29, 2017, 04:23:48 AM

Quote from: feuk on March 28, 2017, 12:26:11 PM

Quote from: Denspressure on September 06, 2016, 05:26:24 AM

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

photos ?

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got ?

can sound travel in a vacuum ? 

That's right, only shills and desperate "I want it to be truhueee" believers keep defending that Kubrick production done under Ricky Nixon's government.

There is nothing to believe.
Apollo sites have been photographed with the LRO and other moon satellites.
Retroreflectors left behind can be used by a powerful enough laser, something like an observatory would have.

challenge accepted.

can I see independent ( non nasa ) images of the "landing" debris ?
the soviets have retroreflectors on the moon (so we are told), but I don't think the soviets are claiming to have golfed there.

that's them two wild statements debunked straight away.......next 

challenge accepted.

can I see independent ( non nasa ) images of the "landing" debris ?

LRO view of Apollo 14 (top) compared with a pre-Apollo view taken with lunar orbiter



Compared with India's view from Chandrayaan:



and Japan's:



LRO view of Apollo 16 (left) compared with India (right)



The surface images taken by Apollo show a wealth of detail that was not visible in the pre-Apollo images. Only later were they confirmed.

The Apollo Panoramic Camera also took images from orbit while missions progressed, and they captured not only mission hardware but the progress of different EVAs. Those photos were publicly available at the time. You can see more about that here:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/pancam/pancam.html

the soviets have retroreflectors on the moon (so we are told), but I don't think the soviets are claiming to have golfed there.

They did. They also took surface images and broadcast them back to Earth. Those images show details that can also be found in Apollo panoramic camera images.

Oh, and one astronaut took one club head, attached it to one of the tools they took and hit a ball with it. Big deal.

that's them two wild statements  =debunked straight away.......next 

Nope.

The funny thing about the flag they put on there would be while it was nice and colourful at the time, over the years, UV radiation would have made it turn to a nice 'I surrender' white.

challenge accepted.

can I see independent ( non nasa ) images of the "landing" debris ?
the soviets have retroreflectors on the moon (so we are told), but I don't think the soviets are claiming to have golfed there.

that's them two wild statements debunked straight away.......next 

I don't think that you understand what "debunk" means.

Now in not sure who the feuk FEUK is but what been clearly demonstrated on this thread  is the wealth of evidence available to counter the conspiracy theory crazies that the moon landings were a hoax. The problem is people like feuk and his ilk have no interest whatsoever in the truth they prefer to opt for the makebelieve and the made up. It's a common and constant theme played out across the forum. The Fe'ers regularly present some shitty old map, old book or some random photograph or sketch that they offer as conclusive evidence for some aspect of flat earth mythology......while at the same time dismissing 100% of any evidence they are shown to the contrary, wether it be photographic, video or any web content or scientific reference you care to mention. In a flash they will present their magic get out of jail free conspiracy card that automatically rejects out of hand any evidence that supports the truth. On this forum belief is far more important that the truth. The Americans achieved what was a remarkable feat by landing men on the moon and returning them safely back to earth. Somehow what they achieved has been downgraded and forgotten in all this conspiracy madness....

Well it could be worse. It's a step up from the 'There is no moon'

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

Quote from: feuk on March 28, 2017, 12:26:11 PM

Quote from: Denspressure on September 06, 2016, 05:26:24 AM

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

photos ?

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got ?

can sound travel in a vacuum ? 

That's right, only shills and desperate "I want it to be truhueee" believers keep defending that Kubrick production done under Ricky Nixon's government.

You clearly demonstrate that there exits a vacuum here on earth...the one between your ears.
Other forum visitors have come here and provided hard evidence in regard to the truth about the moon landings and how it was a remarkable achievement....and then there is your contribution, an empty statements with not a shred of evidence to back it up, but then again it appears to be how you operate, no regard for the truth, as your blind belief and prejudices matters more.
Never mind turning the spotlight of truth on the moon landings, how about we examine, your beliefs in regard to the hoax itself?
You along with other flat earth believers just keep chanting and repeating them in complete disregard to the truth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Well it could be worse. It's a step up from the 'There is no moon'

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

Indeed.
Flat earth believers set the truth bar very very high when it comes to examining any beliefs that conflict with their own, while at the same will readily accept any nonesense that appears to confirm their own prejudices.
Just read through this thread......

Quote from: feuk on March 29, 2017, 12:10:23 PM

challenge accepted.

can I see independent ( non nasa ) images of the "landing" debris ?

LRO view of Apollo 14 (top) compared with a pre-Apollo view taken with lunar orbiter



Compared with India's view from Chandrayaan:



and Japan's:



LRO view of Apollo 16 (left) compared with India (right)



The surface images taken by Apollo show a wealth of detail that was not visible in the pre-Apollo images. Only later were they confirmed.

The Apollo Panoramic Camera also took images from orbit while missions progressed, and they captured not only mission hardware but the progress of different EVAs. Those photos were publicly available at the time. You can see more about that here:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/pancam/pancam.html

Quote

the soviets have retroreflectors on the moon (so we are told), but I don't think the soviets are claiming to have golfed there.

They did. They also took surface images and broadcast them back to Earth. Those images show details that can also be found in Apollo panoramic camera images.

Oh, and one astronaut took one club head, attached it to one of the tools they took and hit a ball with it. Big deal.

Quote

that's them two wild statements  =debunked straight away.......next 

Nope.

that's a no then.

where are the non nasa images of debris ?

I see the wagons are being circled with panicked yelps,
however actual rebuttal appear very thin on the ground.

nice to see some golden oldies being dusted off though,
makes me feel all nostalgic 

where are the non nasa images of debris ?

Do you mean these?
http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html

Quote from: Gibbon on March 28, 2017, 02:53:18 PM

Quote from: feuk on March 28, 2017, 12:26:11 PM

Quote from: Denspressure on September 06, 2016, 05:26:24 AM

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got

It's never been debunked.......ever. Please stop lying.

one can only deduce you have not read my thread 

might I suggest you try it.

I read it and stand by my words.

You are living in a fantasy world at this time in your life.