AMERICAN MOON (2017): A fascinating documentary about the Moan Hoax from start to finish

Total crap. The lunar rover footage is shot on film, there is no resolution difference. Are you afraid to admit you can't explain it. 1971. Again.......

As I said. No clown can explain it. You two just proved my point.

• Explain the dark sky.
• Explain evenly lit surface for kilometers of travel.
• Explain how every rock has a single shadow.
• Explain why distant mountains don't get closer.
• Explain why the terrain changes reflectivity as they turn cross sun.

After your embarrassing failure in the other thread, where your pathetic evasion was in action , I don't expect an honest or useful reply.

 

Hey Beta, let see if you can explain this video made in 1942 that is remarkably similar to the rover videos that you think are proof positive.

• Explain the camel's motion
• Explain the gray sky.
• Explain evenly lit surface for kilometers of travel.
• Explain how every camel print has a single shadow.
• Explain why distant sand dunes don't get closer.
• Explain why the terrain moves faster the closer to the camera
• Explain how they faked the camel's entrance from the desert into Morocco.

Bing and Bob should have made a movie entitled, "On the Road to the Moon" - we could have seen them riding in a rover.

I am afraid your embarassing attempts at obfuscation have once again failed.

 

A truly pathetic diversion. There is simply no comparison between a static sequence with a background movie and a constantly evolving, clearly moving rover. What kind of person are you that makes such a ridiculous post? Shame on you. I can kind of understand how some people wish to doubt events simply out of the need to play devil's advocate, but you? What are you even doing here?

Coward. Answer my questions:
As I said. No clown can explain it. You two just proved my point.

• Explain the dark sky.
• Explain evenly lit surface for kilometers of travel.
• Explain how every rock has a single shadow.
• Explain why distant mountains don't get closer.
• Explain why the terrain changes reflectivity as they turn cross sun.

After your embarrassing failure in the other thread, where your pathetic evasion was in action , I don't expect an honest or useful reply.

 

Are you saying the camel isn't apparently moving?

 

Okay after watching that video I'm now convinced that Bing Crosby and Bob Hope were the really the first men on the moon going way back to 1942 and they were robbed from the fame by NASA, Buzz, Neil, and Michael.

The Van-Allen Belts are not deadly.
The unabated Galactic Cosmic, Gamma, and X-ray radiation don't really exist.
There is no vacuum on the Moon.
You can actually get to the Moon via a Camel.
You don't need a Space Suit that has leaky YKK zippers.
You don't need to bring water or food as there's clearly a restaurant in the background.

 

Troll noise. As I said, no clown can explain the lunar rover video. And neither of you have.

 

I'm saying get a life. You can't explain the lunar rover video. You can't explain the rocks. You can't explain a single thing.

 

Beta, do you think this is a real image or a constructed one? In 1942 did they have the technology to simulate this? What about the vast expanse of desert and sky? What about the evenly lit landscape? Do you think Bing and Bob are riding on a real camel here. How could they simulate the desert city of Morocco?

C'mon Beta, in 1942 they couldn't fake this, now could they?

 

Couldn't care less. It is a STATIC image!

A static background with a little sand in the foreground. Irrelevant.

Static image.

Static image

Static image.

Static image.

Simple. Static image, sand in foreground.

Now coward, answer my questions - because the Lunar rover on the Moon is clearly moving with an evolving background:

As I said. No clown can explain it. You two just proved my point.

• Explain the dark sky.
• Explain evenly lit surface for several miles of travel.
• Explain how every rock has a single shadow.
• Explain why distant mountains don't get closer.
• Explain why the terrain changes reflectivity as they turn cross sun.

After your embarrassing failure in the other thread, where your pathetic evasion was in action , I don't expect an honest or useful reply.

Here is the answer, there is no system on Earth that will light any surface like that except the Sun. But the sky is black. There is no area on Earth like this, with those mountains. The massive clue is where they change direction and head across sun and the retro-reflective surface is no longer casting back towards the source. It completely changes hue.

Google "Two Clowns on the Road to Nowhere".

 

IT IS NOT A STATIC IMAGE! It's is the end of the video with Bing and Bob riding into Morocco on a camel. How is that a static image?

The point is that in 1942 they had the technology to realistically create other places on film with people and animals moving around in them. The camel ride through the desert, while meant to be entertaining, is also very similar to what we see in your proof positive rover videos. In 1970 they could have easily faked the rover ride. C'mon.

 

It is 100% a totally static image. It lasts for about 5 seconds and then cuts to a piece of "Morocco" wall scenery! You are either lying, or assuming. Based on below, it appears you are deliberately being deceptive! The sequence occurs right at the START of the movie - they are cast adrift and wash ashore in the desert!



They are poorly illuminated for bright desert, the sky is not consistent and there is zero perspective - lasts 5 seconds and is a static image. Do something amazing, admit your failure for once!

A complete lie. They had the technology to place a background image behind frontal scenery!

You are lying again. There are two parts, face on static image behind and this is completely brain numbingly obvious. Second part last 5 seconds frontal sand set with background rear projected image. Cut short because they would have collided with the screen!

What kind of idiotic claim is this? To summarize: I have proven that your pathetic diversion is a totally obvious static image. The lunar rover image to anyone with a braincell is clearly taken on a moving vehicle outdoors in what appears to be a plant-less area with mountains that do not match the Earth. It is clearly very odd because the sky is pitch black. The Sun very brightly illuminates the ground, right up until they turn right and suddenly the retro-reflective surface is no longer aiming back at the source!

It is impossible to fake this with 1970s technology. Cue your ridiculous scramble to Youtube to find something even remotely as faultless!

Now coward, answer my questions - because the Lunar rover on the Moon is clearly moving with an evolving background:

As I said. No clown can explain it. You two just proved my point.

• Explain the dark sky.
• Explain evenly lit surface for several miles of travel.
• Explain how every rock has a single shadow.
• Explain why distant mountains don't get closer.
• Explain why the terrain changes reflectivity as they turn cross sun.

After your embarrassing failure in the other thread, where your pathetic evasion was in action , I don't expect an honest or useful reply. And clearly once again I am totally correct.

Shortened version showing the turn:

 

They sure drove a considerable distance from the LEM. Those 1970 batteries went a long way on one charge. BTW, what would happen if the rover suddenly stopped? Hmmm?

 

The Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle (nasa.gov)

They would walk back to the LM. Apollo 16 press kit detailed this:
"The maximum distance the LRV will be permitted to range from the lunar module will be approximately 9.4 kiiometers (5.9 miles), the distance the crew could safely walk back to the LM in the unlikely event of a total LRV failure. This walkback distance limitation is based upon the quantity of oxygen and coolant available in the astronauts' portable life support systems. This area contains about 292 square kilometers (113 square miles) available for investigation, 10 times the area that can be explored on foot."

 

They could not have faked the landings.

hence faking the rover would be needless

 

First part does not have a static image behind and second part is not a rear projected image. There was nothing to collide with. You don't know how they made this and you don't know how they made the fake rover video.

 

The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit during the day.

Those "non-rechargeable" silver-zinc potassium hydroxide batteries that LRV used were truly one-off "MIRACLE" batteries that had a functioning temperature range from -20° F to 131° F

The four LRVs were built at the cost of $38 million or $9.5 million a piece in 1970
dollars.

Silver must of been having an unprecedented run-up on the price when NASA contracted Boeing to produce them....

 

The troll is back. The average temperature of what? Since you have no idea about anything, these are average temperatures of the surface! They are operating in a vacuum where only radiated heat is in effect, so the surface temperature has very little relevance. They also went during lunar morning when the surface temperature was no hotter than an average beach.

Get a clue!

They were under thermal shielding. They were in a vacuum, so the only temperature affecting them was through conductive through the chassis of the LRV. You are a clueless parrot of other hoaxnut's failed claims. NONE of this is your own. You see batshit you repeat batshit. I pray you are not in the navy.

The batteries were expensive, but the development of the rover was a complicated and expensive process. The expression "must of" is always used by very uneducated people. It is "must have" and it's no surprise that someone like you doesn't know this.

 

You are a liar. Proven. You said they did this scene at the end of the film - a lie, it was at the start. You said they went all the way into Morocco, when it lasts 5 seconds - another lie. You said it wasn't a static image - a lie.

Your intrinsic lie, which you will never admit, is that this useless special effects sequence is nothing whatsoever like the very real transiting rover filmed on the lunar surface. I do not believe you are dumb enough to even think this.

I know how they made both scenes. They have a rear projected image and a fake set in the foreground. On the singing sequence they have numerous cuts, the rear fixed image is moved around to create a sense of movement, predominantly the camel is not moving very far between edits - I would not be surpised if they had fake humps for the scenes where you didn't see the camel's head and no camel at all for the close up head shots. The final image that lasts 5 seconds where you lied your ass off is a completely stationary rear projected image with an area of sand in the foreground.

You are pathetic and totally afraid to admit your deliberate attempt at deception. You have been caught out and you know it.

Now coward, answer my questions - because the Lunar rover on the Moon is clearly moving with an evolving background:

As I said. No clown can explain it. You two just proved my point.

• Explain the dark sky.
• Explain evenly lit surface for several miles of travel.
• Explain how every rock has a single shadow.
• Explain why distant mountains don't get closer.
• Explain why the terrain changes reflectivity as they turn cross sun.

After your embarrassing failure in the other thread, where your pathetic evasion was in action , I don't expect an honest or useful reply. And clearly once again I am totally correct.

 

Maybe NASA should have sold the FAKED moon landings $38 million glorified golf carts MIRACLE battery design (that had a functioning temperature range from -20° F to 131° F) and worked flawlessly in -298° degrees to 224° degrees Fahrenheit on the Moon to Tesla.

It could have saved his company tens of millions of dollars developing ones for his EV's that will have severe problems and "must have" sophisticated and advanced microprocessors for top-notch thermal management in order to keep those batteries under 95° Fahrenheit....

 

I said it was at the end of the video I posted - I never said anything about the entire film. They are riding on a camel into the city of Morocco - how is that a static image?

The rover video is very similar to the Road to Morocco special effects in that it uses a projected background screen.

You don't know what you are talking about. The singing sequence has a projected video as a background; it is NOT a fixed image. Do you really think a real camel possibly was used for the singing sequence? And the final image of them riding into Morocco is NOT a rear projected image.

How can you possibly tell us that the rover video can't be faked - when you don't even know what a fake camel looks like?

 

Hey troll, I asked you a question. The temperature of what? It is a vacuum, there is no temperature. Vacuum has one means to transfer heat and that is through radiation. The batteries were enclosed in a thermally insulated box.

Stupidity is not impressive.

 

The foreground is in a studio with sand blended in to the background STATIC projected image. In your face and I bet you still lie about it.

There is zero similarity.

• We see the astronaut getting on the rover and it sets off.
• We see the rover moving along the ground.
• We see rocks and terrain coming nearer - single crisp and dark shadows.
• We see the sky is black.
• We see the entire background constantly changing in perfect synchronization with the LRV motion.
• They cover a distance of MILES!

What magic bullshit projector can do that and maintain perfect alignment and sync with an object that travels several miles.

The ultimate in irony!

The background looks fake as hell and you know it. It is a poorly and unevenly lit projection and everyone viewing the sequence knows this. The foreground camera has 3 distinct scenes which include a live camel.

I KNOW they used a real camel. And if you spent less time with your head up your backside and looked properly you would see so yourself. It is particularly obvious at 57 seconds.

You are either incredibly dumb or just lying again. The animated gif above clearly shows a rear projected fake image and an indoor studio with sand.

And once again you fail to explain how the rover footage was impossibly faked. Your rear projector bullshit cannot work in ANY circumstances.

As I said. No clown can explain it. You two just proved my point.

• Explain the dark sky.
• Explain evenly lit surface for several miles of travel.
• Explain how every rock has a single shadow.
• Explain why distant mountains don't get closer.
• Explain why the terrain changes reflectivity as they turn cross sun.

After your embarrassing failure in the other thread, where your pathetic evasion was in action , I don't expect an honest or useful reply. And clearly once again I am totally correct.

Have you even watched it all properly!?

 

“OMG” is this shill above really that simplistic?

Of course a vacuum can not hold nor contain heat and cold, but we are talking about the actual matter that is the lunar surface and that radiates extreme temperatures in both directions from -298 degrees Fahrenheit to 224 degrees Fahrenheit. The thermally insulated cooler could never transfer those extreme temps away from the MIRACLE batteries as it has no medium to do so. Why do you think that Elon Musk’s Tesla cars have to have an elaborate heat exchanger that’s controlled by microprocessors to keep his batteries from destroying themselves.

Maybe Elon should contact you and you can tell him all about how he just use one of those NASA designed Super Duper “thermally insulated” battery boxes that the $9.5 million glorified golf carts that worked so perfectly on the moon for his Tesla cars.

https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lithos/LROlitho7temperaturevariation27May2014.pdf

 

Question: Beta, since you are an expert on special effects - how do you think they filmed this scene?

 

Troll noise. I love it when an imbecile tries to lecture me about physics.

Sure it does. But what sort of extreme temperature does it radiate in lunar morning, what rate and why? I eagerly await your non "simplistic" answer.

Oh hell, we both know you aren't going to do that don't we. You are clueless.

Moronic. So there is no medium to dump your imaginary temperatures but there is a medium for your imaginary temperatures to arrive?

Well for one to capture and re-use excess energy that is caused by friction within the system. How do you think that compares to the speeds produced on an LRV?

Or maybe he should just ignore the clueless forum troll.

Here are the maximum solar angles by mission. Using your carefully crafted bullshit mechanism, identify how these relate to surface temperatures.

Sun Angles (nasa.gov)