We Never Went to the Moon

[Scott]

Had to laugh at that. That is insane. Bouncing dust now?

Ok. I should have said "ricochet".


Viewers...

Start reading here to see what this is about.
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.781/page-9#post-253551

 

[buster12]

A "wire"? Another one of those really dumb generic conspiracy claims. To mimic lunar motion with no jerkiness from centre of gravity changes, a person needs multiple support points. The idea this can be achieved from a single invisible wire is just the kind of ignorant guff you would say.

This phrase only applies to you. You have no honour, you are simply not capable of honest debate. The dust wave can be projected when it is at apex, you can actually visualise it from its motion and see it follows a correct trajectory and speed. You can actually see the clump that causes the end splash as it falls.

So many unanswered posts!! Are you afraid to debate like an honest person? Go and start answering them all.

 

[Scott]

So many unanswered posts!! Are you afraid to debate like an honest person? Go and start answering them all.

You destroyed your credibility by agreeing with Betamax. Betamax's attempt to mislead the viewers was too clear to obfuscate. Anyone who looks at the footage at slow speed can see that he deliberately lied. Only a paid sophist* would attempt something like that and only a paid sophist would agree with him. You're exposed. Now that you're exposed and everbody can plainly see it, what's the point of wasting time talking to you?


*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html

 

[buster12]

You destroyed your credibility by agreeing with Betamax. Betamax's attempt to mislead the viewers was too clear to obfuscate. Anyone who looks at the footage at slow speed can see that he deliberately lied. Only a paid sophist* would attempt something like that and only a paid sophist would agree with him. You're exposed. Now that you're exposed and everbody can plainly see it, what's the point of wasting time talking to you?

Owned. Utterly humiliated as always and now he ignores huge posts tearing him a new backside.

Now who would have thought he would do this?

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)

"5. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist."

This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo Missions. He gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test"."

You pathetic person. You are afraid because you know you are wrong. When I can be bothered I will list all the things you've ignored and explain why you cannot answer them.

 

[buster12]

Finally found the animation of the Young jump:

There's just enough of the parabolic arc of dust between his boots to see it is falling at the same speed as he is.
Just that 2 second clip proves they are on the Moon. No magic ricocheting dust here. In your face and all you can do is deny, ignore or vacate.

 

[Scott]

Finally found the animation of the Young jump:

You know that's not the anomaly to which I was referring. Here's the one to which I was referring.
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.781/page-9#post-253554

 

[buster12]

You know that's not the anomaly to which I was referring. Here's the one to which I was referring.
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.781/page-9#post-253554

Already addressed. You lost, ran away in denial and pretended you were victorious. Your dumb claim apart, this is the ORIGINAL bloody claim you said prompted it. Duh!!

Now, to anyone with eyes, that dust parabola between his boots is falling at the same speed as he is. Of course we don't see it all the way down, but we see enough of it for enough time to see it rise simultaneously to the same height, then drop simultaneously. Oh look, you lose again. Ignore, deny, run away. You have no honesty, the game is over, we went and you know it.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

There are pictures of the landing site taken from multiple satellites but strangely they are all far away and not clear even though we can take pictures of a nickel on the ground with them.

There is certainly something at the landing site (original) but you really can’t tell for sure what it is.

The fact is that astronauts cannot pass through the Van Allen radiation belt and live with the technology they used on that first mission. The story by NASA that they sped up super fast and shot them through the narrowest part of the belt is really just laughable.

Many space ventures get destroyed going through it today if there is even the slightest fault in their protection and this is just electronics so a human would definitely not survive.

You can equate it like this, the astronauts would have taken as much radiation as someone standing inside the Chernobyl plant for a week after it melted down and NASA wants you to believe that an inch of aluminum shielded the astronauts.

Really?

 

[buster12]

I love it when a person stumbles on the "hoax" bullshit and thinks they've uncovered the truf! This van Allen nonsense was debunked about 20 years ago.

There are pictures of the landing site taken from multiple satellites but strangely they are all far away and not clear even though we can take pictures of a nickel on the ground with them.

Cobblers. The highest definition you will get from Earth satellite of comparable size is a car. There are significant differences in illumination and surface contrast.

There is certainly something at the landing site (original) but you really can’t tell for sure what it is.

Yeah you can it's the Apollo hardware and foot/rover trails. End of chat.

The fact is that astronauts cannot pass through the Van Allen radiation belt and live with the technology they used on that first mission.

I laughed at you using "the fact is" then posting debunked bullshit hoax claims. It isn't a fact and you have just repeated some guff you have seen, without verifying any of it.

The story by NASA that they sped up super fast and shot them through the narrowest part of the belt is really just laughable.

Well they didn't speed them up to do that, it was to achieve escape velocity. The crafts took elevated routes through weaker areas of the belts. The proton belt was not dangerous at all. The elctron belt carried very weak energy in the outer areas.

Many space ventures get destroyed going through it today if there is even the slightest fault in their protection and this is just electronics so a human would definitely not survive.

Bare assertion, you sound such an expert

You can equate it like this, the astronauts would have taken as much radiation as someone standing inside the Chernobyl plant for a week after it melted down

Haha, GTFO. Who told you that crock of crap?

and NASA wants you to believe that an inch of aluminum shielded the astronauts.

Really?

The appeal to incredulity the weapon of the virtuous conspiracy theorist

Just so you know, hundreds and hundreds of satellites have operated in these regions for years on end. If there was this Chernobyl like radiation do you think that would be possible?

MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED!: 8.1 How come the Van Allen radiation belts didn’t kill the astronauts?

 

[Scott]

The fact is that astronauts cannot pass through the Van Allen radiation belt and live with the technology they used on that first mission. The story by NASA that they sped up super fast and shot them through the narrowest part of the belt is really just laughable.

Many space ventures get destroyed going through it today if there is even the slightest fault in their protection and this is just electronics so a human would definitely not survive.

You can equate it like this, the astronauts would have taken as much radiation as someone standing inside the Chernobyl plant for a week after it melted down and NASA wants you to believe that an inch of aluminum shielded the astronauts.

Here's some stuff about space radiation that I posted a while back.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.781/page-7#post-251569
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.781/page-3#post-81440

 

[Scott]

There are pictures of the landing site taken from multiple satellites but strangely they are all far away and not clear even though we can take pictures of a nickel on the ground with them.

Here's some info on that which I posted earlier.
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.781/page-8#post-253527

Here's something else.
https://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2012/02/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-proof-positive.html

 

[Scott]

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

 

[buster12]

More forum spam - I shall be reporting it. In the meantime here are some cut and pasted replies you have already been given and basically ignored elsewhere:

Sci forums
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!


Political forum

Four hours of moronic spam from the serial forum spammer.

As opposed to this guy who has researched this whole subject to a level that your youtube imbeciles could never comprehend. Probably one of the most totally conclusive analyses I've come across:-

Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com)

No doubt you won't even click the link.

_____

The claim is nothing to do with image discrepancies and everything to do with why astronauts become labored from walking up a slope. I suggest you go and read up about inertia. It takes the same effort to move mass anywhere, regardless of gravity. They are moving around in a cumbersome space suit, doubling their mass.

reduced gravity sports - Why is it so hard to walk on the Moon? - Space Exploration Stack Exchange

_____

What are you using to determine its size? The jackass who made the video? A single image? And why does he use such a crappy version of it!

a16pan17239-48SBHR.jpg (6125×2436) (nasa.gov)

Many, many times explained to you, distance on the Moon is simply not obvious. The visual cues we receive on Earth, such as trees, bushes etc. do not exist. The other main clue to distance on Earth is the natural distortion from, heat haze, dust, pollution and perspective. Once again nothing on the Moon to provide this.

Watch this video very quickly:-

Pause at 1 minute. Mentally assess how big the rock is that they are running towards. Do the same at 1min 30 seconds. Now go to 5 minutes.



Distance cannot be accurately judged from a damn image, let alone a continuous video! I guarantee you were wrong about the size of that rock.

Then he starts talking about boulders surrounding the crater as though this means something. On Earth, billions of years of erosion and weather, but even then, the whole crater is littered with boulders and rocks.

Another question for you to avoid:-

How big is the crater above? Careful now. I've removed all the visual cues. Huge? Yes?

_____



That video above demonstrates astonishing clarity between what is seen and expected. Your video is a bumbling mass of appeals to incredulity and ignorance of the lack of visual cues available.

What world of crazy ignorance does somebody look at a reasonably straightish section of Rille, then determine that a spot at one end would be able to see straight down to the end! Neither of the orbital pictures are detailed enough to capture the numerous ridges along its route as they are shaded the same as their surroundings and locally this thing twists and turns in the same general direction..

_____

In addition to the above post, I refer you to this video: now start by pausing it at 40 seconds. That is very close to the picture used in your video to say that it is too small.

Then the camera zooms in and suddenly it gets a whole lot bigger and it is still not as close as it could get.

The following page has orbital pictures from LROC showing a crazy number of ground features that match perfectly with Apollo images. Now you tell me why you cannot assimilate solid accurate research like this but have no trouble believing the observations of fools on youtube!

Landing Sights: Apollo 15 (onebigmonkey.com)

_____

Ignored:

They don't they are random, but so what? Why should they be anything from that impact? I expect ejecta from that to be many miles away. This could be ejecta from many other impacts.

It is NOT the one in Arizona. Try again how big is it - I will show you when you commit. Big or small. The point is proven already, you don't know, you just assumed.



Later maybe if I can be bothered. This website has numerous in depth analyses of orbital and surface photographyshowing 100% consistency:-

Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com)

The landings have already been proven many times. Every single idiotic claim has been debunked. You are washed up and ignoring numerous posts.

Now, how big is that huge crater just above? I fully expect you are stumped and are seeking ways to find it before answering. PROVING my point entirely!

Dust free sand strawman - debunked

_____




What kind of person posts the same thread on 3 different(probably more!) forums and ignores basically all responses?

 

[buster12]

Here's some info on that which I posted earlier.

Here's something else.

SPAM REMOVED!

Here was my answer already given about LROC and ignored by you!

I often wonder what people like you do for proper research. The LROC deconvolved images have astonishing size and complexity and are transmitted in constant real time. The TIFF images are absolutely massive. If you go to the main LROC browser - LROC WMS Image Map (asu.edu) - click any part of the Moon and it brings up the best usable images for each part. As you zoom in, you can see quite how large each TIFF image is, many gigabytes if you want a full resolution download.

Now for the general masses and for quick loading, the team sliced up the images into small sections, enhanced them and in some cases added a few lines. To edit the TIFF to what they used - a JPEG - they used editing software. Photoshop.

Your stupid video points out that the cropped images released show evidence of this. Well duh!

SNIP SPAM video

What we have here are the opinions of the buffoon Jarrah White, a man devoted to denying Apollo at the expense of all sense and logic. Here he shows his apples and oranges comparison of the brightly reflective Earth with its myriad of colours then suggests that the far less reflective and totally grey Moon should offer the same clear imagery!

Basically he is suggesting they are faking the images but is also suggesting they are incompetent at doing it. That is so dumb it deserves an award!

How about you answer all the other posts I made?

 

[Scott]

Here's the debate I had with Betamax which is referred to in post #148.
politicalforum (dot) com/index.php?threads/nasa-falsely-depicted-the-surface-of-the-moon (dot) 585966/

If the above link gets deleted, go to "Political Forum" and look for the thread entitled "NASA Falsely Depicted the Surface of the Moon" in the "Moon Landing" section.

You left out what I said in post #16.

In addition to the above post, I refer you to this video: now start by pausing it at 40 seconds. That is very close to the picture used in your video to say that it is too small.

That's explained 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The following page has orbital pictures from LROC showing a crazy number of ground features that match perfectly with Apollo images. Now you tell me why you cannot assimilate solid accurate research like this but have no trouble believing the observations of fools on youtube!

Of course they match. They were both taken by NASA. The issue here is that the NASA images don't match the ones taken by amateur astronomers.

Betamax is a known sophist who never admits it when he's been shown to be wrong. I already pointed out an example.

See posts #131, #132, and #133.
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.781/page-9#post-253553

This totally discredited him and your agreeing with him totally discredited you. That's why I'm not going to spend a lot of time debating you.

The anomalies in the footage and pictures have already pretty much proved the hoax so the issue of NASA's allegedly falsely depicting the surface of the moon is really about how they faked it. It's not about whether they faked it. You just won't recognize it. Here are some of the anomalies. I've linked to them before but I want to show them all together.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(00:50 and 1:50 time marks)

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

Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXretl0amQ


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


AMERICAN MOON, 2017
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/
(2:07:26 time mark)

----------------------------------------------------------

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

https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stevedachemist

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

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://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