Fake Moon landings

Nice summary of all the obvious fake studio photos being passed off as from the actual lunar surface. The most intense light
is always coming from the back of the head of the "astronaut" doing the photography and all the shadows intersect in the field of
view. Pure BS, since remote light sources like the Sun cast essentially parallel shadows that converge at "infinity".

Then we have the ludicrous claim by the so-called lunar astronauts that they never saw any stars. That is a pure lie since
there is no atmospheric or dust backscatter of light from the lunar surface that would create such an effect. There is no
freaking way that stars would not be visible and instead a pure black wall would be. Any talk about the Sun's rays affecting
the optics is BS too since it is possible to take the shots from the shadow part of the lander and by even using a hand to
shield the lens. The key detail is that there is no photon flux being scattered into the camera lens from the direction it
is being pointed to. Again, if morons chime in and claim that the surface scatter can do this obscuring, then I say BS. Point
the camera upward and get the ground scatter out of the FOV.

These clowns routinely pulled back the gold-colored filter in their helmets and exposed their faces and eyes to full bore surface scatter
of sunshine. Look at the numerous photos they supposedly took themselves "on" the Moon. This is patent nonsense since
they would have experienced a severe case of snow blindness after a short period of time. Maybe that is why they saw no stars.
But they never claim this, so I am not going to project such an excuse at them. Their behaviour was typical studio acting and
not real extra-terrestrial travel.

Then we have the total lack of any ablation pattern from the powerful lander rocket at the base of the lander. It is physically
impossible for the dust not to show a radial ablation pattern. It is clear that there is plenty of dust there and not bare rock.

To believe this Moon landing hoax requires religious faith and not scientific empiricism. Details are not "mere" they can be show
stoppers.

People who denie the moon landing are morons.

People attack people with opposing views when they have nothing to defend their own position with...

You cant fake it. You see the stuff still standing on the ground.

Of course you can fake videos and photos... Hollywood earns a good living doing that and has done for quite some time.

They placed mirrors on the surface that we use for laser meassurement. They brought samples.

The best and most useful mirrors on the moon are Soviet. They had a lunar rover up there too, and the Soviets also brought back samples of moon rock... are you saying they landed people on the moon too?

The entire developed world followed this missions. You could easily follow it. USSR acknowledged it as well. France acknowledged it. Germany, acknowledged it. UK as well.

Maybe the Soviets were sick of wasting money trying to get people to the moon... a largely pointless and wholly political exercise in money wasting.

But its senseless to discuss with such people. Laugh about those clowns and move forward

The west does not care about the truth.... the truth for the west is what they say at the time... when Saddam was gassing Kurds in the mid 1980s the west initially blamed the Iranians for doing it... and then they admitted that Saddam did it but didn't care. It was only after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwaite that he became the monster that gassed his own people... but they aren't he people... that is why he gassed them... they were separatists and still are today.

Kicking Iraqi forces out of Kuwaite was about bringing democracy to the middle east... men in Kuwaite got the vote in about 2006 and women still can't vote there... or drive a car on their own... There is more democracy in Iran, which the US wants to destroy than in any other country in the region.

GarryB wrote:

People who denie the moon landing are morons.

People attack people with opposing views when they have nothing to defend their own position with...

You cant fake it. You see the stuff still standing on the ground.

Of course you can fake videos and photos... Hollywood earns a good living doing that and has done for quite some time.

They placed mirrors on the surface that we use for laser meassurement. They brought samples.

The best and most useful mirrors on the moon are Soviet. They had a lunar rover up there too, and the Soviets also brought back samples of moon rock... are you saying they landed people on the moon too?

The entire developed world followed this missions. You could easily follow it. USSR acknowledged it as well. France acknowledged it. Germany, acknowledged it. UK as well.

Maybe the Soviets were sick of wasting money trying to get people to the moon... a largely pointless and wholly political exercise in money wasting.

But its senseless to discuss with such people. Laugh about those clowns and move forward

The west does not care about the truth.... the truth for the west is what they say at the time... when Saddam was gassing Kurds in the mid 1980s the west initially blamed the Iranians for doing it... and then they admitted that Saddam did it but didn't care. It was only after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwaite that he became the monster that gassed his own people... but they aren't he people... that is why he gassed them... they were separatists and still are today.

Kicking Iraqi forces out of Kuwaite was about bringing democracy to the middle east... men in Kuwaite got the vote in about 2006 and women still can't vote there... or drive a car on their own... There is more democracy in Iran, which the US wants to destroy than in any other country in the region.

Gary, you showed that you have no clue about meteorites and you know exactly how i debate such issues with a person who doesnt know much. I dont explain. I give an arrogant smile and walk over you.

USSR brought back a few gramm of moon samples. USA brought back hundreds of kg.

Dont know what Saddam has to do with the moon landing Gary. Your thoughts are sometimes kinda erratic.

But to bring this on a positive side. I think the moon makes a perfect base for further solar colonialisation. We should focus on a lunar base.

Gary, you showed that you have no clue about meteorites and you know exactly how i debate such issues with a person who doesnt know much. I dont explain. I give an arrogant smile and walk over you.

Don't you mean hop?

USSR brought back a few gramm of moon samples. USA brought back hundreds of kg.

Says who? Did you weigh it yourself?

Dont know what Saddam has to do with the moon landing Gary. Your thoughts are sometimes kinda erratic.

Evidence they can't be trusted and there is no truth, no friends, no allies except of convenience... there are only interests.

Landing humans on the moon was meaningless except for pride, but their lies corrupt everything... looking forward to hearing what sanctions the US imposes on Russia for this now.

But to bring this on a positive side. I think the moon makes a perfect base for further solar colonialisation. We should focus on a lunar base.

Not unless there is water there... otherwise the far side would be interesting for space observation without interference from earth based sources, but it is in a hole.

The reduced gravity means construction is easier than in zero gravity in orbit but without an atmosphere it has a double penalty in terms of fuel burn... you burn fuel to land and to take off, and anything you build there needs to have all its components sent there from earth so ultimately there is no obvious benefit.

An orbital station around the moon would be clear of the debris in earth orbit, but zero gravity assembly is a problem...

GarryB wrote:

Gary, you showed that you have no clue about meteorites and you know exactly how i debate such issues with a person who doesnt know much. I dont explain. I give an arrogant smile and walk over you.

Don't you mean hop?

USSR brought back a few gramm of moon samples. USA brought back hundreds of kg.

Says who? Did you weigh it yourself?

Dont know what Saddam has to do with the moon landing Gary. Your thoughts are sometimes kinda erratic.

Evidence they can't be trusted and there is no truth, no friends, no allies except of convenience... there are only interests.

Landing humans on the moon was meaningless except for pride, but their lies corrupt everything... looking forward to hearing what sanctions the US imposes on Russia for this now.

But to bring this on a positive side. I think the moon makes a perfect base for further solar colonialisation. We should focus on a lunar base.

Not unless there is water there... otherwise the far side would be interesting for space observation without interference from earth based sources, but it is in a hole.

The reduced gravity means construction is easier than in zero gravity in orbit but without an atmosphere it has a double penalty in terms of fuel burn... you burn fuel to land and to take off, and anything you build there needs to have all its components sent there from earth so ultimately there is no obvious benefit.

An orbital station around the moon would be clear of the debris in earth orbit, but zero gravity assembly is a problem...

USA gave all allied nations samples ad also USSR got one. The one France got is over 1 Kg. Which means that one sample aloe is twice as much as what USSR brought back.

The material brought back from the moon by the americans is several hundred kg.

As for the moon, there is alot of water inside craters where sun doesnt reach the ice.

The benefits of a lunar base are, that all rescources are there and must not be brought. Also you are protected by the cosmic radiation when the base is located inside a crater or lava tube.

We currently develop a 2d-printer in France united with Germany that makes walls from the lunar soil. It manags 2m² each hour.

USA gave all allied nations samples ad also USSR got one. The one France got is over 1 Kg. Which means that one sample aloe is twice as much as what USSR brought back.

They sent a lot more missions there pretending to be carrying people there and back... and how much did the USSR bring back do you think?

As for the moon, there is alot of water inside craters where sun doesnt reach the ice.

Which would be a few craters near the poles... but the Americans landed people on the moon.. surely they could have seen this ice?

The benefits of a lunar base are, that all rescources are there and must not be brought. Also you are protected by the cosmic radiation when the base is located inside a crater or lava tube.

The problems of a lunar base is that you have to build it... which means lots of missions to take equipment and materials there so you can build it... would be cheaper to not land it on the surface and just put it in orbit around the moon. Water could be used as an outer shell to store it for use as rocket fuel and also to reduce radiation inside the space station.

We currently develop a 2d-printer in France united with Germany that makes walls from the lunar soil. It manags 2m² each hour.

Wouldn't be much good if it was a 2d printer... and the Russians already have 3d printers that can make houses, they had one in Dubai at a show... wasn't mentioned that it was Russian technology of course, but that changes nothing.

Hilariously obvious fakes of supposed moon rover trips to different locations. The exact same freaking foreground debris field with the exact same shadows.
The camera was in the same freaking spot even though the narrator is going on about two different locations.

And so on, ad nauseam.

There are only two choices that conform to physical reality:

1) Moon landings did take place, but none of them were filmed and photographed. This is not so unlikely since they did not have digital cameras during these
trips. Thus, the standard film they used would have been rendered useless by background radiation. Since they are clearly not on the dark side of the moon but
near the terminator, they are getting exposed to the solar wind (protons, electrons, X-rays and some gamma-rays) and the film would be exposed inside the
camera (of any type) by the radiation flux that is able to penetrate the relatively thin metal and plastic walls of the camera. This would render all the potential
PR value of the Moon landings low so some political decision was made to improvise.

2) No Moon landings ever took place. Again, this is not so wild since there is enough evidence that the Saturn V rockets were not reaching the necessary speeds
at various altitudes to enable lunar intersection trajectories. More solid evidence is that the astronauts who were in low g conditions for over a week and up to two
weeks came back to Earth and jumped out of the crew module as if they had no muscle atrophy or coordination problems. This is complete BS since I dare you to try
to sit in your chair for a week and then run around like nothing happened. Muscle atrophy starts from the first second since that is how biology works, if you don't
use it, you lose it. It is routine for athletes to note that they lose their form very fast. So months of training disappear in about a month. The metabolism works
independently of our desires.

kvs wrote:

Hilariously obvious fakes of supposed moon rover trips to different locations.    The exact same freaking foreground debris field with the exact same shadows.
The camera was in the same freaking spot even though the narrator is going on about two different locations.

And so on, ad nauseam.

There are only two choices that conform to physical reality:

1) Moon landings did take place, but none of them were filmed and photographed.   This is not so unlikely since they did not have digital cameras during these
trips.  Thus, the standard film they used would have been rendered useless by background radiation.   Since they are clearly not on the dark side of the moon but
near the terminator, they are getting exposed to the solar wind (protons, electrons, X-rays and some gamma-rays) and the film would be exposed inside the
camera (of any type) by the radiation flux that is able to penetrate the relatively thin metal and plastic walls of the camera.    This would render all the potential
PR value of the Moon landings low so some political decision was made to improvise.

2) No Moon landings ever took place.   Again, this is not so wild since there is enough evidence that the Saturn V rockets were not reaching the necessary speeds
at various altitudes to enable lunar intersection trajectories.   More solid evidence is that the astronauts who were in low g conditions for over a week and up to two
weeks came back to Earth and jumped out of the crew module as if they had no muscle atrophy or coordination problems.  This is complete BS since I dare you to try
to sit in your chair for a week and then run around like nothing happened.   Muscle atrophy starts from the first second since that is how biology works, if you don't
use it, you lose it.   It is routine for athletes to note that they lose their form very fast.   So months of training disappear in about a month.   The metabolism works
independently of our desires.

You should mark your post as satire.

An interview where the condition of the Soyuz-9 crew after 18 days in orbit is described. It took the two cosmonauts
a week to get back up on their feet. When they came down, they were in extreme distress since orbital atrophy of muscles
(including the heart) and other tissues was followed by the extreme loading of descent back to Earth. In other words,
they were substantially traumatized by their return to Earth after about 2.5 weeks in space.

Contrast this to the prancing US astronauts who supposedly returned to Earth after two weeks. Even if they were on
the Moon, they spent most of their time in 0 g. On the Moon it is 1/6 g. They lost less muscle mass than the Soviet
cosmonauts but they were not that far behind. There is no freaking way that the US astronauts would be walking
immediately on landing after their two week trip to space. Anyone who fobs this detail off is full of sh*t and not engaged
in a serious analysis. Fanboi dick stroking is not a sign of intelligence. Go cherry pick your facts at the Church of US Moon Landings....

kvs wrote:

An interview where the condition of the Soyuz-9 crew after 18 days in orbit is described.   It took the two cosmonauts
a week to get back up on their feet.   When they came down, they were in extreme distress since orbital atrophy of muscles
(including the heart) and other tissues was followed by the extreme loading of descent back to Earth.   In other words,
they were substantially traumatized by their return to Earth after about 2.5 weeks in space.  

Contrast this to the prancing US astronauts who supposedly returned to Earth after two weeks.    Even if they were on
the Moon, they spent most of their time in 0 g.   On the Moon it is 1/6 g.   They lost less muscle mass than the Soviet
cosmonauts but they were not that far behind.   There is no freaking way that the US astronauts would be walking
immediately on landing after their two week trip to space.   Anyone who fobs this detail off is full of sh*t and not engaged
in a serious analysis.  Fanboi dick stroking is not a sign of intelligence.   Go cherry pick your facts at the Church of US Moon Landings....

Even more satire from you

When the first American astronauts went up on Mir they were told about the effects of long term periods in zero gravity and those astronauts said themselves at the time they thought that with American exercises and American food and health suppliments that when they landed they would take off their own straps and get up and walk around to show these ruskies and put them in their places.

Well... after three months in orbit landing back to earth... the American astronaut said he went to reach for his strap but could not lift his arm... after eating the right foods and getting all the vitamins and minerals and plenty of exercise every day on Mir he was as weak as they said he would be because they have healthy food and food suppliments and exercises too, but when there is no gravity pushing down on you 24/7 that your body has to resist it starts to redesign your body... it starts taking calcium away from your bones because you don't need them to be nearly as strong in zero gravity...

the only experience the americans had had of long term exposure to low gravity was a week in space on the shuttle... the trips to the moon only lasted a week or so... they had never been in orbit for 3 months at a time before.... if they had tried to fly to Mars without going to Mir or ISS then their people would have died... landing on Mars would have broken bones weakened in the year it would have taken to get there... and there would be no one to help them get better... feed them, clean them and they would probably have died on the surface...

kvs wrote:
Contrast this to the prancing US astronauts who supposedly returned to Earth after two weeks.    

The Apollo 11 astronauts blasted off on July 16, 1969 and were back eight days later.

Oh my. Physics is definitely not the side of the self-anointed exceptional yanquis.

Surface friction depends on the force normal to the ground/surface. So on the Moon, all friction is reduced by a factor of six.
This is not small potatoes since on Earth such a factor is the difference between sliding on ice and having good contact with pavement.

Before some genius knee-jerks a dismissal, none of the US alleged astronauts and the Moon buggy ever dug their feet or wheels deep
enough into the Lunar soil to engage other modes of contact. The Moon buggy wheels would be spinning like mad on the Moon instead
of producing motion identical to the surface of the Earth.

The video of the rover hard breaking is a total fraud. Under identical conditions a 3 meter breaking distance on Earth is 12 meters on
the Moon. No such sharp breaking is possible without using some other means such as surface impellers. The rear wheel dust throw
in the video is pure nonsense as well. For such dramatic disturbance the dust would have been launched above the shoulder of the
driver and would have followed a parabola 6 times longer. You see such dust throw on Earth which scales roughly as the diameter
of the wheel. On the Moon it would travel 6 wheel diameters.

The lunar rover video destroys itself:

1) the shape of the dust plumes proves the existence of ambient air since their shape is nowhere near parabolic and is characteristic
of the air dragging seen on Earth. There is compaction of the plumes at the leading edge and heavier particles fallout almost vertically.

2) the presence of air is confirmed also by the sustained lofting of fine mode dust particles. In a vacuum no such effect is possible
since all particles, regardless of their size are in free gravitational fall subject to their initial launch velocity. Fine mode dust and
aerosol sediments much more slowly than larger particles. For the same density, a particle that is twice in diameter (assuming a
roughly spherical shape) has 6 times the mass but only 4 times the surface area. The fall of a particle through air (or any other fluid)
depends on its surface area (or cross sectional area). Aerosols below 1 micron in diameter can be transported over vast distances in
the Earth's atmosphere since sedimentation in very slow. In fact, it is negligible for sub 100 nm particles and they start to behave more
like a gas.

3) it is clear from the video using a frame by frame analysis of the dust fall around the wheels that it is much faster than possible on the Moon.

4) That sometimes the dust is lofted above 2 meters does not prove it is on the Moon. It depends on the wheel bounce and clearly there
is a large spread in max height of the dust ejected.

There is an attempt to manipulate the speed of the video as well and the two NASA videos analyzed do not have the same speed.

Aristide wrote:People who denie the moon landing are morons.

You cant fake it. You see the stuff still standing on the ground.

They placed mirrors on the surface that we use for laser meassurement. They brought samples.

The entire developed world followed this missions. You could easily follow it. USSR acknowledged it as well. France acknowledged it. Germany, acknowledged it. UK as well.

But its senseless to discuss with such people. Laugh about those clowns and move forward

The head of Russia Space Agency ...Roscosmos , Dmitry Rogozin
deny it..  and he have a bit more information than you.. he have access to Russian space archives
and Russian intelligence.. so is not uninformed people on internet  ,who claim NASA faked it..

i actually a French Astronaut.. also exposed the moon landing fraud..
but he did it in a less direct way.. he told in a conference..  NASA was corrupt..
but he did not explained why...   this is not false information but facts..
i can find you the video.. but already posted it before..

so the question is.. . in what ways NASA can be corrupt ?

1)one way is with money management.. this is the most common form of corruption.. in business.
2)the second way is with fake images and fake story of the moon landing..

so the a french astronaut testimony on a conference , give it a 50% possibility
that he was speaking of NASA fraud on the moon.. and not about money management..
since thats not his expertise... engineers astronauts.. expertise is science and engineering..
so the possibilities he was meaning ,fraud in NASA claims and achievements in space are very high.
He also is on record that NASA no longer can go to the moon..  
since im tired ,someone look for those videos posted by me before.. NASA today says "forgot" how
to deal with the radiation of the moon ,when they supposed mastered this ,on the Apollo program.  

RT media ..have been reviving at every time ,the controversy of the moon landing too..
one putin aided.. became famous ,on media ,when he proposing a lawsuit against NASA for Fraud ,
with the moon rocks..  he told.. no.. i don't doubt the original story.. don't think that for a second..
his problem was he wanted an invenstigation of where the moon rocks ,went ? that nasa secrecy with the moon rocks was alarming.. and he demanded an investigation , of where they are and confirm the accuracy of their origin. in other words.. he was creating doubts about NASA moon landing.


Russia Says It Will 'Verify' Whether The US Moon Landings Ever Really Happened

https://www.sciencealert.com/russia-says-it-will-verify-whether-the-moon-landings-ever-really-happened


So right there the head of Russia space program.. questioning the moon landing... instead of saying
as american says.. {yes they did it.. and stop questioning this..}  he feed the doubts over it..

so let me summarize what are the 3 biggest lies..
top 3 lies ever told.. in past century in the world..
1) first biggest lie...NASA manned moon landing.. in their apollo program.. a  monumental fake..
2) second ...........  World trade center 9/11 jihadist attacks..  totally fake ,staged incident .
3) third .............. Today world covid-19 pandemic event.. not a seasonal chinese virus..
but a US bioattack on China and nations cooperating with china ,to destroy its economy..
and attack that failed..because china recovered very fast.. and so they inflating now their numbers
and staging a crisis in america , to hide their hands in the attack on china.. by showing the virus also
attacking heavily them.
-mars rover program..also fake..  major research i saw.. very convicing.. says the mars shot are in north east canada and iceland.. there is a military no go zone,, that nasa film all their fake mars shots there .. with rovers they claim are in mars. but filmed on earth.. this is why mars looks so earth like. is on earth the shots..
-NATO war against terrorism.   100% fake.... what they are doing is arming terrorist ,and use them as weapons to fight enemies.. as Russia ,syria and iran are..

More fakery during the alleged Apollo 11 Moon landing mission. The explanation given in this video as to the alleged
remote image of the Earth is right on. There are not identifiable continental features. And no cloud formation would
form the three vertical bands around some fake vertical median. If it really was an image of the Earth from beyond the
Van Allen belts, then the cloud bands would not be vertically aligned but horizontal since the module is traveling in the
Moon's orbital plan. The Moon does not have an orbit which is perpendicular to the Earth's equator. Aside from the
Earth being relatively tilted in its rotation the Lunar orbit is basically around the equatorial band. So the fakery of
of the image is clear. It would require the Moon to be orbiting over the Earth's poles.

There are cloud bands in the tropics and subtropics. The primary one is the so called ITCZ (inter-tropical convergence
zone) which is located where the Hadley circulation is producing vertical uplift and driving cloud formation. Then there
are more chaotic bands in the subtropics closer to middle latitudes where one can see the roughly zonal wave number six
baroclinic eddies.



These are images taken by GOES geostationary satellites and are real remote images of the Earth compared to the Apollo-11
fakes.