Proof that the Moon Mountains were Backdrops to a Movie Set/MOD WARNING

Yikes - this thread still continuing? What an obtuse, inaccurate poster this fake moon landing tin foil guy is. Simple fact is, and was, that the Gemini and Apollo astronauts on the way to the moon, and returning, passed through the Van Allen Radiation belts so fast, that they got a dose of radiation about as sizable as that you receive when sitting near your microwave oven cooking a tv dinner or your television. Matter of fact, the microwave oven is one of the inventions to come out of the space race, and the radiation level is considered acceptable to the general public, we are still using them. Fortysix years and counting, and hundreds of thousands of artifacts and photographs later, we still get people like this claiming they have evidence the moon landings were faked. Well - talk to the guys who went there, most of them have lived on to a ripe old age.

Did you see the Abe Zapruder film of the JFK assassination? Believe it? Could it have been faked? There is an alleged conspiracy that has been going on longer than the moon landing - who did they bury in Arlington National Cemetery on November 25, 1963? It was a silent movie - which way did the bullet come from that struck the President, and was it even him in the motorcade? It was televised.

Did you watch the 1980 Olympic Games in Lake Placid, an isolated community in the mountains of New York State, which, BTW, bought their optic service for television broadcasting access from the area from some kid named Mark Cuban, making his fortune, he owned all the rights. Only about 2,000 people observed the U.S. Olympic hockey team win the Gold Medal upsetting the USSR. Was televised - you believe it? Name me one or two people who were there and talked about it publicly, other than those on the ice. Was a grand victory of the Free World over the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. If it had taken place in Madison Square Garden in New York City, would you believe it actually happened?

Did Jack Ruby really shoot Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police Department building? Were you there - it was on television. Why was Oswald buried secretly by the U.S. Secret Service, and later dug up, and what did they do with his body. Why are there no photographs of the Dallas Police officer, Tippett, that Oswald allegedly shot?

One of the great action movies of the 1960's took place in Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, with a cast of thousands of scraggly hippie-type war protesters screaming "The whole world is watching" as the Chicago Police Department go in more stick time than the Chicago Black Hawks hockey team, in 1968, at the Democratic National Convention. It was televised - do you believe it? Know anybody who got their teeth kicked in during that televised brawl. Do you believe it happened - it was only shown on television.

Richard Nixon allegedlt flew AF 26000, Kennedy's plane, to Red China on an international open door mission, stunning the world, particularly the Russians. It was on television, broadcast to the world. You believe it? Ever met anybody who was with Nixon on that trip - I have.

The clear truth that tinfoil hat doesn't accept is that the Space Race of the late 1950's and 1960's, which carried America to the moon, depended upon complete new technology, the type that today's technology would stun the NASA engineers of that era. It depended upon the invention of the tiny computer chip to accomplish the technology to go to the moon. It is only 230,000 miles away - we have airline passengers who have flown that far. To believe any of your fake moon landing stories, one has to disbelieve each and everything he or she ever saw on television in their lifetime, every citizen of the world who watched the moon landing in July 1969. Not just one or two engineers; not an out-of-it dying movie producer who deals in dreams, illusion, and smoke and mirrors and creates his or her own universe, but each and every single person in the entire world must agree with you that the moon landing's were faked - all of them - in order for any alleged evidence you have presented in your pilgrimage across "lost touch with reality" to be true.

Nothing ever broadcast on television is true if your moon landing fake story is true. You don't seem to understand it, and the obtuse bullheadedness you continue to post to regarding it, just about as laughable as anything ever produced on the internet (another invention that owes its birth to the computer chip and the Space Race)...............

 

Hey Stanfan

The proof that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio is crushing.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html


Nothing you said there makes it go away.

 

Spam and debunked to death:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/conspiracytheorydidwegotothemoon.htm
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did we land on the Moon.htm
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html

 

...by people who destoyed their credibility by saying lame things.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=125628

 

It is you who destroyed your credibility years ago.

Every claim you have made has been crushed with evidence and facts.

 

Here's one I forgot to put in my last post. Check out Jay Windley's lame behavior on page #2 of this thread. The moderator gave some pretty lame reasons for closing the thread.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy/page2&


The behavior of Jay Windley, the moderator, and the rest of the pro-official version posters was that of checkmated sophists. The way they addressed this guy's question is laughable; it would get them laughed out of the debating hall.


Those people are indeed experts with good educations but they are dishonest experts with good educations. Citing their analyses of the Apollo anomalies only hurts your cause.

 

Ad hominem spam. For some baffling reason you use the most insane circular reasoning to dismiss copious amounts of evidence. You use one of your other debunked to death and truly stupid conspiracy claims as a yard stick to then dismiss the entire testimony and rebuttal of a person who refutes that truly stupid conspiracy claim! Man you are one piece of work. You suck as a truther!

All valid rebuttal that you have no answer to, You are routinely allowed to hijack threads with your spam which makes a mockery of your basketball forum "censorship" hogwash. You've got nothing but repeat cut and paste spam.

 

sorry Scott ... we have all seen the New Pearl Harbor vid that you have referenced hundreds of times ... having to sit through the hogwash was painful but interesting ... the information that it leaves out is the most glaring and "crushing" problem ... omission of facts is a example of redirect propaganda ... you've been fooled ... get used to it and get back in the real world ...

 

Or get a life.........shesh! Why hasn't this thread been closed, nothing he posts is accurate or truthful whatsoever - and more importantly, he has no credibility, and nobody cares............

 

I disagree. First, it is a lot of fun to talk about the Apollo moon landings, and Scott does come up with some pretty good stuff. Instead of just dismissing his point of view, why don't you intelligently debate? And the reason they don't close this thread is that people continue to read and post here - like yourself, for example

 

No, no , no.. 9-11 was a hologram projection.

 

I don't see any reason to doubt it. One can never be one hundred percent sure about anything unless one is an insider though.

 

It isn't 'evidence', it's speculation at best, and crude guesswork at worst.

 

It's evidence. Your denial is the kind of thing people post on youtube. The lunar samples are not guesswork or speculation, the idea they could be faked is an example of both, also demonstrating extreme ignorance.

 

Look mate they've been fooling you - don't take it out on me! Anyoldhoo, my comments aren't about local (lunar) stuff but the regular-as-clockwork contrived nonsensical intergalactic pronouncements issued with irritating regularity with a view to ensuring the 'research funding' keeps on coming in; I mean a lot of charlatans' jobs for life depend on it. Bottom line: they're fully aware of the fact that however ridiculous a 'theory' they dream up, there's a big audience out there made up of folk just like yourself who, without the slightest bit of tangible evidence, will believe it, and they (the 'cosmologists' ) exploit it for all they're worth - and who can blame them? I don't, for one. I might be demonstrating 'extreme ignorance', but you're demonstrating 'extreme (almost childlike) naivete'. They're laughing at your gullibility, don't you understand that? Can't you see how condescending they're being? Here's today's dose of condescension: "Astronomers have found gas clouds in the distant Universe that are around 12 or 13 billion years old." I suppose you believe that too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science

By the way, read my signature - the top one, and think about it?

 

LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Look at the bottom picture on this page.
https://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

Here it is again.
https://www.aulis.com/images/raq12.jpg

It looks suspiciously like they did that to create scenes such as this one...
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1174743.jpg

...and a lot of others.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=VWhJ0af+&id=9BD5154735E1531B37E08A4DF1502558CBEE7E30&thid=OIP.VWhJ0af-NToGZW31_-Iv_AHaEK&mediaurl=https://wallup.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/187579-moon-space-astronaut-Apollo.jpg&cdnurl=https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.556849d1a7fe353a06656df5ffe22ffc?rik=MH7uy1glUPFNig&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&exph=1080&expw=1920&q=apollo+pictures+backdrops&simid=608025150326509362&form=IRPRST&ck=793A06CBC4DD0885089FDDC2E619BC38&selectedindex=42&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0&vt=0&sim=11

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Je1ryge0&id=1DCD38DE650CC241B793BA82F7A4C101B3B04A9B&thid=OIP.Je1ryge0lWIILow9QqjCPwHaD5&mediaurl=https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.25ed6bca07b49562082e8c3d42a8c23f?rik=m0qwswHBpPeCug&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pixelstalk.net%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2016%2f10%2fImage-of-Apollo.jpg&ehk=uPyVKc5ruA5WcbxkFk7%2f44W1mcS0auqWYJAiU1ZZOsA%3d&risl=1&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&exph=2160&expw=4096&q=apollo+pictures+backdrops&simid=608019858933444193&form=IRPRST&ck=7DED158287A962634D64259CB059B679&selectedindex=23&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0&vt=0&sim=11

 

Bumping a 6 years old thread and previously a 10 years old thread - your "hobby" seems to be more related to swamping the sub forum with garbage.

But every single one of those images taken between locations has very subtle differences that prove they couldn't possibly be using this idiotic backdrop. You make this absurd "looks suspicious" claim based on nothing more than the idiotic opinion of a disinformation website aimed at making money from gullible people.



Amazing that they even managed to get the "backdrop" to match with prevailing solar elevation and shadows. How many people do you figure created the thousands of individual images?

 

I came across some pictures that supported the backdrop scenario that I'd never seen before so I decided to post them. Why don't you just address the issue?

The gif you show seems to be of photos that were supposedly taken from locations that were far apart. Do you think the idea that the backgrounds were manipulated between pictures to make it look more realistic is plausible?

Also, that particular gif isn't on this page.
https://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Could you link to where you got it? Do you have links to the three original pictures?

 

There isn't any issue. It's just you, uninformed and easily led by batshit websites, making a claim based on what you think. You have no credibility, no logic and are incapable of any reasoned debate anyway.

I couldn't care less about what you think is plausible. Prove your case, because pointing your finger and saying ahaa, doesn't work. There are literally hours of video with long camera zooms showing that these mountains cannot possibly be backdrops. The idea they decided to use something different for photography which ties in perfectly with the videos, is quite frankly moronic.

Well that would be because I created it from 3 images from a bullshit aulis page that said the backgrounds were the same! Even after I posted it a while back, you claimed the gif was 3 pictures that were the same!

To what end?

Amazing that they even managed to get the "backdrop" to match with prevailing solar elevation and shadows. How many people do you figure created the thousands of individual images?

 

You seem to be trying to sidestep the issue. An objective truth-seeker would simply address it.

If there's a plausible scenario that would explain it, it isn't proof. Tell us why the idea that the scenery was manipulated between photos isn't plausible.

I'll go back and take a look. Can't a person see things a little more clearly and modify his stand?

It's so that the hoax-believers can look at them and analyze them. If you have them, why not save us the trouble of looking for them and just post them?

 

You seem to be making claims without evidence. You are neither objective nor a truth seeker. You are the complete proven opposite of both.

It's many orders of magnitude more than plausible that they were on the Moon, it's plausible that you are incapable of ever getting this. The evidence proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that they landed 6 times. You wave your arms about and make literally hundreds of claims about crap being plausible when it isn't. You have not established even the slightest piece of evidence of reasonability about the sheer numbers involved in doing any of this. The lack of plausibility lies in the video footage showing quite clearly with zooms, that the mountains are not backdrops! The plausibility they chose to use different sets would then be moronic.

The LRV footage which you cannot explain, identifies an enormous mountain that doesn't change at all for considerable distance of travel.

Sure, a normal person can do this. Since you've never once done this, it says quite a lot.

You don't analyze anything. You rely on crap from your spam websites.

"Us"? Who is "us"? And save you trouble? Since you already spammed this previously and I responded with that gif, you can damn well go through your political forum posts and find it yourself!

 

Here is an analysis of the pictures used in the gif that's in post #119.

Hadley: a study in fakery (version 2)
https://www.aulis.com/PDF/hadley_study.pdf
(excerpts)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand what is going on, compare now Figures 1, 2 and 3. In Figure 8, I have reproduced excerpts from these three with Figure 1 scaled down by a factor .80 and Figure 3 by a factor .88. Look carefully at the skylines. THEY MATCH EXACTLY. You can check this by copying this figure onto a piece of paper, cutting round one outline and laying it onto the other two. More precisely, the main ridges on all three match exactly and so do the angles between the main ridge and the outlying slopes. But the lengths of these outlying slopes vary from view to view.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it plausible that three views of the same mountain from different places should have exactly the same outline (differing only in scale)? No: real mountains always look different from different viewpoints. Although it is possible for a solid body to have this property, the chance of this happening for a random shape such as a mountain is vanishingly small. Moreover we can see that two of the views cannot be right by thinking a little. The top slope is caused by a ridge on the mountain, clearly visible in the earth-based photos reproduced in the postscript below, and must be regarded as an accurate feature of the mountain. Comparing LM and S7 as viewpoints, we note that the ridge points more towards S7 than LM and therefore will appear foreshortened and hence have an apparently steeper slope when viewed from S7. This is what Figure 6 shows. The same considerations apply to the view from S9. Although the change should be less than for S7, the ridge should again have slope noticeably different (less than for the view from LM). Thus at least two of Figures 1, 2 and 3 is faked.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm still waiting for Betamax to address the info in post #118.

 

Utterly despicable spamming tactics. That gif was posted in response to the garbage you just spammed! And your answer to my exposing of their painful lies and failure is to repost it again. Pathetic. Clearly to an honest person, with no doubt whatsoever, these 3 images are from greatly differing vantage points. The ridge is curved, so no line of sight claim against map topography could possibly show any unexplainable differences, the lines of elevation are not reliable as to what is visible! Any person with photogrammetry skills knows this. This clown of mathematics has no such skills.

Are you crazy? Or is this a basic failure in comprehension. You didn't post any info, you suggested that an idiotic diagram was cause for suspicion about some Lunar images!