New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax ?

[123456789A]

I don't see any cloth at all.

Upon further analysis, you can see the astronaut's underwear.

[hckngrtfakt]

Oh no !!! so we never went to the moon, which probably means we also never made it to space ....

leading to me believe we have probably never launched anything onto orbit,

hence rendering gps and global telecommunications obsolete.

/s

:rolleyes:

[*RedBull*]

Allready been done hubble etc

That's not a close up. We need to see the stars on the flags.

[mudslag]

You seriously take those **** poor fuzzy blurry images as proof of anything ??? LOL :rofl:

This has to be the most entertaining post out of this entire thread. Specially given the rich history of Hum's threads and posts which he bases the existence of blurry images as proof for something other worldly.

[Growled Member]

I think an alien has taken over Hum's account. :p

[HawkMan]

Only problem with your crappy analysis, is that there is ZERO weather on the Moon like there is on Earth [sic] "desert shot"!!

So you think the moon is perfectly flat? Have you even looked up at the moon?

[LUTZIFER]

Personally I couldn't care less if they did or did not land on the moon.

I think the space program is a joke since even now they still can't even get out of our own solar system, let alone get around in it.

You'd think by now NASA or someone could have built some sort of star ship running on nuclear power that could go long distances, similar to nuclear subs.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Exerpt from AboveTopSecret:

Here are some smoking gun photos I found that will make you slap your forehead in embarrassment. You will probably be too embarrassed to speak after this. Take a good hard look at these photos. This will be the clincher that will change your mind if you are on the fence or an Apollo believer.

http://www.debunking...onspiracies.htm

5. Distinct line separating foreground from artificial backdrop

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures, and indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example:

http://www.spacewall...5FlagSalute.jpg

IMPORTANT! Here is a much larger version that I want you to open in a new window and look at closely, because it contains a BIG NEW SMOKING GUN! View this image at its original size, and notice that behind the astronaut the edge of a WHITE CLOTH SHEET can be seen placed over the dirt! This is a MUST SEE smoking gun that I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!

http://upload.wikime...2000-001114.jpg

4. Buzz Aldrin spotlight photo a smoking gun blunder

The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing in the spotlight is a giveaway in that he is being lit up in a spotlight from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is in darkness! How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?! This was obviously a major screw up, and NASA was reckless for thinking that no one would notice or that they could get away with it. In fact, it was such a blunder that NASA even tried to cover it up by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions of it. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:

http://grin.hq.nasa....2001-000013.jpg

Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal:

http://history.nasa....1-40-5903HR.jpg

8. Sun image on moon turns out to be light bulb in enhanced image

Here is another smoking gun that will make Apollo believers feel foolish and embarrassed. An Apollo image of the alleged sun from the moon?s surface turned out to be a big light bulb upon image enhancement! See images and enhancement below:

http://www.aulis.com...nbulbrevise.jpg

http://www.aulis.com...unsetonmoon.jpg

more

Very interesting topic, Hum, especially for the opened minded! Love stuff like this! Leads you to a kind of "come to your own conclusion" type of story, if you will. Good read! (Y)

[HawkMan]

There a difference between "can" and "want"

We can move around our solar system, but there's no point going outside it untill we have ftl travel. There's nowhere to go in one lifetime. Even in here, getting to mars takes months on a good year(yeah, it changes, every few years mars is much closer than others), and what would we do there. As it is there's simply no need to go anywhere.

When the technology gets more developed, reliable and cheaper then the markets will start to pick it up and you'll see mining companies going there, but first it must be cheap enough to be worth it to get there, mine, and return minerals.

[Pam14160]

Is Mars a hoax too? I mean surely Curiosity can't be real, right?

. . . Hmmmmmmmmmmm, give "John Carter" a call he is very familiar with all things Mars. . . :D

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

[I am Reid]

I don't see why people act like you cant have more than one light source. Ive never been to the "moon", but I would bet the refection off the earth might be quite bright. Just go outside at night during a full moon and tell me that the moon isn't bright, you can see your damn shadow at night from the moon during a full moon.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Moon is full here right now, and OMG...you can see a brighter spot over the top of yourself than usual! SHOCK! AWE! /s

Seriously, though, it's full here...and you can see almost anything outside here that you want to....there's even a few packs of coyotes you can see with a bright enough flashlight...though, you can still see them without it. What's the point of my rambling? There is none...but I guess I'm backing up I am Reid's claim....which is true. The moon is full. ;) (on the moon, you should only have ONE light source...should be the sun, but I'm not trying to get into details here...I'm tired, and want to go to sleep.) Good night, my neowin brothers and sisters! May your imaginations run wild, like mine does....and I'm sure Hum's does.

[thommcg]

(on the moon, you should only have ONE light source...should be the sun, but I'm not trying to get into details here...I'm tired, and want to go to sleep.)

One light source?

[redvamp128]

Moon is full here right now, and OMG...you can see a brighter spot over the top of yourself than usual! SHOCK! AWE! /s

Seriously, though, it's full here...and you can see almost anything outside here that you want to....there's even a few packs of coyotes you can see with a bright enough flashlight...though, you can still see them without it. What's the point of my rambling? There is none...but I guess I'm backing up I am Reid's claim....which is true. The moon is full. ;) (on the moon, you should only have ONE light source...should be the sun, but I'm not trying to get into details here...I'm tired, and want to go to sleep.) Good night, my neowin brothers and sisters! May your imaginations run wild, like mine does....and I'm sure Hum's does.

All I got say to disprove that--

[redvamp128]

Double post---

[mradam]

The identical backgrounds argument is nonsense, since the photographs don't actually have identical backgrounds.

 

Look at the intersection of a more distant mountain to a closer one.  It's clear that the second photograph is taken some distance to the right of the first photograph.

 

From this piece of crap: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm#_Toc344913268

 

 

 

[The_Observer]

I would like to call BS, but that's because I have faith that in this day and age, we have telescopes that can see the moon in very high detail, I'm sure someone could spend the time scanning the lunar surface and find the Flag, abandoned Rover, old Modules etc...

Edit

Lol the sun was a giant light bulb,

it technically still is a giant lightbulb :p

 

Even if this happened, people could call BS on those photos too. Look save up some money and get up there yourself. Why not start a kickstarter fund to build a rocket to go to the moon and prove it yourself.

[mradam]

The shadow side argument is also crap.  Of course the shadowed side of an astronaut on the moon should be somewhat lit.  He's standing on a giant reflector extending for miles in every direction, all of it brightly lit by the sun.

 

Look at his visor!  You can see what's being reflected right there in the visor.  The suits are white for the purpose of being as reflective as possible.  Think of a white car vs. a black car on a sunny day here on Earth.  The white car doesn't get nearly as hot because the white color reflects more radiation (including visible light) away instead of absorbing it, giving the appearance of white, and the cooler temperature.  Whiteness and reflectivity of the suit help keep the astronaut cool.

 

From this steaming pile: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm#_Toc344913262

 

 

[McKay]

We went to the moon. There are satellite pictures that show the American flag still standing up along with the what's left of the lunar orbiters.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/moon-flags-still-standing/4166604

 

But by now the flag will have been bleached white by the Sun, any Aliens will think France were the first to visit the Moon.  :rofl:

 

For me the biggest proof that America DID land on the Moon was the Soviet Union, they would have been tracking that thing all the way to the Moon to prove it went there, you think the USSR wouldn't have jumped at a chance to show the World that the Americans faked it.

[spenser.d]

Very interesting topic, Hum, especially for the opened minded! Love stuff like this! Leads you to a kind of "come to your own conclusion" type of story, if you will. Good read!

There's a rather large difference between things you can come to your own conclusion about and just making up facts. That we landed on the moon is not something you get to come to your own conclusion about.

[Dot Matrix]

(on the moon, you should only have ONE light source...should be the sun, but I'm not trying to get into details here...I'm tired, and want to go to sleep.) Good night, my neowin brothers and sisters! May your imaginations run wild, like mine does....and I'm sure Hum's does.

The Earth reflects back light to the moon, just as similarly as the moon reflects back light to Earth. The sun isn't the only source of light in space.

[freak180]

Good read!

[mradam]

The non-parallel shadow argument is nonsense, too (like all hoax evidence).

 

Although the topography (hills, valleys) of the lunar surface can make the shadows to appear not parallel, as well as lengthen and shorten them, the effect is mostly due to perspective.  Simply put, a 3-dimensional scene has the property that objects and distances further away from the camera appear SMALLER than objects and distances close up.  The same holds true for shadows and distances between shadows.

 

If you stand on railway tracks and look one direction, the rails (which are definitely parallel) will appear to converge in the distance.  The distance between the rails appears to shrink as the rails get further away.

 

From this 5-coil steamer: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm#_Toc344913261

Images of this effect on Earth follow.  Google Images for "nonparallel shadows" to see more.

 

 

 

[Dot Matrix]

I can't believe people still believe this crap...

 

SAVE US PHIL PLAIT! http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html