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

Diversionary crap. 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!?

 

I'm serious, how do you think they filmed this scene? Should be easy to answer.

 

Really? You're serious? So am I troll:

Diversionary crap. 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!?

 

Do you really think they used a real camel during the singing?

 

Troll. I suggest you actually watch it. What kind of person gets their jollies from doing the idiotic crap you do?

 

The LRV on the lunar surface - proving the authenticity | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

 

They didn't use a real camel and the rover video is not real either. Do you see the problem here, Beta? You think things are real when they are obviously not.

 

A moronic non sequitur. Not only are you wrong on both those statements, they have no connection in time, how they were filmed and their complexity. One has a blindingly obvious projected backdrop, the other shows a transit over terrain, changing direction, faultless and real. It is irrelevant and impossible to prove whether they used a real camel on The Road to Morocco. The script talks about a real camel, brief cut scenes show a moving head on a camel - it has no significance, since film makers of that era would frequently use real animals rather than spend money trying to create false ones.

Yes I most certainly do!

• You deliberately went back over a page to source a troll comment rather than deal directly with my claim.
• You do not debate directly but use ridiculous diversions and obfuscation because you cannot answer a simple request.
• You think that cameras are always level when determining center of gravity.
• You don't understand how studio lighting works or its limitations.
• No amount of logic or evidence breaks through with your pre-determined crazy claims.
• You lack the integrity to debate honestly and are incapable of admitting any single one of your endless mistakes..
• You can't tell the difference between a 5 second studio clip with a projector and a 5 minute outdoor transit on the Lunar surface without.
• You are more concerned with getting a reaction than finding out the truth about any single thing.

 

Here is a good reason NOT to use a real camel:

 

Amazing, I would think they used a tame one from a circus or something similar. This below is not a real train:
Family Guy- We're off on the Road to Rhode Island Music Video - YouTube

But just, a few seconds before the song, it is quite clearly a real camel, animatronics in 2015 doesn't even get the whole body sway as accurate as the 1942 movie.

animatronic simulation Camel - YouTube

 

Right!

And that's the same reason why NASA couldn't land men on the Moon.

~Deadly Radiation
~Deadly Temperatures
~Joke Spacesuits
~Joke Lunar Excursion Module

It would have killed them, so they simply FAKED it.

And let's not forget that in the past 50 years since the NASA FAKED moon landings not one nation has even attempted to land one of their own citizens on to the lunar surface.

You know why?

Because it can't be done even after 50 years of high tech advancements.

CASE CLOSED!

 

There never was a case.
The deadly environment was known and gthe technology allowed for it.

You are simply posting fiction.

They were not faked and the evidence proves this

 

Of course it was FAKED!

Just go to the 34:17 minute mark and watch the LEM explosion of the side panels on Apollo 16 when the CIA explosive EXPERTS over did it for the fake departure of the lift off on the moon....

 

Because it's not safe to ride on a wild camel?

Troll-noise.

• The "deadly radiation" is not deadly for short-term exposure. Fast transits through the weaker areas of the belts - explained and ignored by you.
• The "deadly" temperatures of what? If you mean on the surface, these are surface temperatures and they went lunar morning for this reason - explained and ignored by you.
• "Joke" spacesuits. There is nothing joke about them, your pathetic ignorant opinion doesn't count as proof - explained and ignored by you.
• "Joke" LM. You have been given concise reasons for the appearance of the LM and images of it without the lightweight exterior materials - explained and ignored by you.

Try not to be such an irritating person and go and learn something. Automatically believing fools who repeat garbage debunked for decades, is just not impressive.

Every post troll-noise. There is no problem with any "side panels". The ascent stage separates and some of the insulation flexes and is stripped off. Rocket engines are quite powerful you see.

Once again, you see garbage that contributes towards your confirmation bias and you gullibly suck it in. Who is likely to be right here, the idiotic YouTuber, copying the work of other ignorant people, or people who actually understand any of the subjects he blunders into?

 

I came across this while browsing.

Massimo Mazzucco’s American Moon – a Review
https://www.aulis.com/american_moon.htm

 

See batshit post batshit. The crappy Aulis page written by a complete nobody with absolutely zero experience in any relevant field, no wonder it caught your attention.

You have already deceptively denied the most obvious of all problems with this nonsensical film. Namely the complete absence of any dust coming out from the direction of a falling battery lid. THAT closes the whole case of whether it is in a vacuum and astonishingly you don't seem to understand this totally obvious thing.

 

Betamax is referring to this anomaly.

AMERICAN MOON (2017): A FASCINATING DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE MOAN HOAX FROM START TO FINISH
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CoP5WywgvPHs/
(2:07:00 time mark)

Here's another link in case one goes off-line.



Here's the discussion we had on this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676

The viewers can decide for themselves.

 

There is no anomaly, there is a falling battery lid in a vacuum that doesn't send all the nearby dust flying away.

That wasn't a discussion, it was you running away from totally obvious reality.

The viewers that never agree with you (oh, except for the 2 trolls who chime in every now and again).

I missed your response to this:

There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-

• There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.
• The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
• It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
• A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.
• There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!
• In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.
• In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.
• It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!
• Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.

Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:-

• Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable.
• He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking!
• This person lacking in any integrity will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors.

The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. The forum spammer has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim!

Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.

 

Nice FACT filled Exposé on Massimo Mazzucco by Emanuel E. Garcia exposing the NASA Moon landing HOAX.

 

Good work there Scott.

 

Did your buzzer go off? Just that one clip in the film proves they were on the Moon, no wonder you are afraid to answer it.

Falling lid displacing air - YouTube

 

I just noticed that at the bottom of the review in post #215 there's a link to a video of Massimo Mazzucco being interviewed.

101: How to Fake an American Moon Landing w. Massimo Mazzucco



Here's his website. You can change it to English at the top.
https://luogocomune.net

 

Bullshit. You just want to ignore all the evidence and bump a bullshit hoax thread. There is something fundamentally wrong with you as a person. You are as cowardly a poster as I have ever seen, totally afraid to honestly acknowledge the irrefutable proof of the US lunar landings. You have zero integrity. Zero. For you it is now impossible to admit your 20 years of failure.

I missed your response to this:

There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-

• There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.
• The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
• It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
• A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.
• There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!
• In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.
• In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.
• It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!
• Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.

Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:-

• Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable.
• He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking!
• This person lacking in any integrity will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors.

The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. The forum spammer has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim!

Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.

Diversionary crap. 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.

 

The NASA Moon-landing HOAX bloopers are great, especially the radar dish on Apollo 12, wow!

 

The only wow is that you follow imbeciles who don't understand what they are looking at. It's truly head-shaking stuff.
In the original film on the OP there is a 2 second clip that proves they were on the Moon all by itself.