/images/misc/forum-image-missing.gif
And here we see the effects of our two Suns directly from NASA archives..

?t=350

The only fact is that the rest of the world is too stupid to get a human anywhere near the moon.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..
And here we see the effects of our two Suns directly from NASA archives..

I don't see anything wrong with the perspective of the shadows.

Here - I mocked up a 3D model with an 80 degree view cone with two poles, one 2m high in the foreground and the other 10m high in the background. In the plan, you can see the shadows are parallel, but in the 3D the shadows converge to a vanishing point left of view, just as in the moon shot. The "sun" in my model has an infinite distance, which for this experiment is very close to the physics of the sun's rays on the moon. In fact the sun's rays are so close to parallel on earth and the moon that Eratosthenes was able to calculate the earth's circumference and diameter thousands of years ago using poles.

The photo is totally consistent with physical optics and the principles of perspective.

The plan view:

Same objects in 3D view with an 80 degree view cone:

why do these photos have cross hairs obscured by things in the photo, remember it's the camera w/ cross hairs NOT the moon???

Once a conspiracy theorist always a conspiracy theorist . Even the truth won't set them free. If you took their leader (Pete) and showed them the landing sites they would just say they've been faked . Flatlanders , always with us.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..
why do these photos have cross hairs obscured by things in the photo, remember it's the camera w/ cross hairs NOT the moon???

Here's a deal. I'll answer your next question when you admit I'm right about your misinterpretation in the original post.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..
why do these photos have cross hairs obscured by things in the photo, remember it's the camera w/ cross hairs NOT the moon???

Short answer about the fiducials -- jpeg artifacts due to low resolution, and over-exposure.
Short answer about shadows -- camera lenses.
Short answer about the backgrounds matching exactly -- they don't. Clearly the photo was taken from a different place.

www.clavius.org/photoret.html

Jesus, these answers aren't hard to find.

Watch the mythbusters episode with the camera experts and lots of mucking around with lighting and angles etc

They show ALL the faked photo arguments to be a load of crap. NONE of the shadow etc arguments stack up to prove it was fake / studio shots.

You can see where we have been on the moon.

There's a mirror on there FFS, that people use to measure the distance with a laser. Not just NASA, normal (smart / geek) folks do it often.


Its a bloody fact.

Select to expand quote

rockmagnet said..
Once a conspiracy theorist always a conspiracy theorist . Even the truth won't set them free. If you took their leader (Pete) baa baa.

That's it attack the messenger, classic blind system supporter... the type that would turn in their own mother in if they questioned Stalin's propaganda.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..

rockmagnet said..
Once a conspiracy theorist always a conspiracy theorist . Even the truth won't set them free. If you took their leader (Pete) baa baa.

That's it attack the messenger, classic blind system supporter... the type that would turn in their own mother if they questioned Stalin's propaganda.

LOL yeah thats it -- you couldn't possibly be wrong.

I guess one way to really prove whether the yanks went to the moon or not is to point some powerful telescopes where they say they landed and look for evidence of the landings like the equipment left behind.

Has anyone done this? My six year old super zoom camera takes pretty good close up pictures of the moon with a 35x optical zoom.

In all honesty I was trolling y'all a little (I was bored), I googled all the above in 10 mins.
I'm on the fence about the landing, totally believe they orbited the moon, it's just the quantum leap in 9 years they had to perform in order to:
1.- take off with all that weight.
2.- land on the moon.
3.- take off from the moon.
4.- and the BIG one; dock w/ the orbiter and leave orbit.

I'm open to either possibility, and I would appreciate if anyone can point me to a doco that explains things like:
the fuel and speed req. to leave lunar gravity and enter a synchronous lunar orbit w/ the orbiter.
the orbiter's speed.
the dock mechanisms... fyi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project
the fuel and speed required to leave the orbit for earth.
the reason they scrapped the Saturn V's if they could lift such massive payloads.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..
why do these photos have cross hairs obscured by things in the photo, remember it's the camera w/ cross hairs NOT the moon???

It's well known fact ~ becasue of cost cutting NASA outsourced the fake moon photos and this is the result. google it!

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..
In all honesty I was trolling y'all a little (I was bored), I googled all the above in 10 mins.
I'm on the fence about the landing, totally believe they orbited the moon, it's just the quantum leap in 9 years they had to perform in order to:
1.- take off with all that weight.
2.- land on the moon.
3.- take off from the moon.
4.- and the BIG one; dock w/ the orbiter and leave orbit.

I'm open to either possibility, and I would appreciate if anyone can point me to a doco that explains things like:
the fuel and speed req. to leave lunar gravity and enter a synchronous lunar orbit w/ the orbiter.
the orbiter's speed.
the dock mechanisms... fyi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project
the fuel and speed required to leave the orbit for earth.
the reason they scrapped the Saturn V's if they could lift such massive payloads.

Petemac33 and Adriano are the ones you want to ask about this stuff.
They have all this incredible inside information that the rest of us are blind to.
Apparently it's something to do with drinking distilled water gives you all the answers.
It can't hurt to send them a private message, they're always looking for new members.

Select to expand quote

hoop said..
Petemac33 and Adriano are the ones you want to ask send them a private message.

How about you stop drinking the fluoride and give us some of the answers.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..

hoop said..
Petemac33 and Adriano are the ones you want to ask send them a private message.

How about you stop drinking the fluoride and give us some of the answers.

Ok, but you're not going to like it.

42

Fly surfer is slowly but surely coming around.

Now if they faked the moon landing there's a pretty big chance the rest of their story is a croc too.

Most however like Bono see themselves above such deception. He thinks he understands science - which also includes non verifiable science like modern cosmology and their theory of evolution. If it's non verifiable it ain't science.

The lie of cosmology - starts at 44 minutes.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..
In all honesty I was trolling y'all a little (I was bored), I googled all the above in 10 mins.
I'm on the fence about the landing, totally believe they orbited the moon, it's just the quantum leap in 9 years they had to perform in order to:
1.- take off with all that weight.
2.- land on the moon.
3.- take off from the moon.
4.- and the BIG one; dock w/ the orbiter and leave orbit.

I'm open to either possibility, and I would appreciate if anyone can point me to a doco that explains things like:
the fuel and speed req. to leave lunar gravity and enter a synchronous lunar orbit w/ the orbiter.
the orbiter's speed.
the dock mechanisms... fyi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project
the fuel and speed required to leave the orbit for earth.
the reason they scrapped the Saturn V's if they could lift such massive payloads.

1. The Saturn V rocket was (is?) the most powerful device man has made.
2. Relatively easy -- no atmosphere, less gravity and they had Armstrong.Youtube video of him and the "Flying Bedstead".
3. Even easier -- hypergolic fuel, open the taps and there's no way it's not igniting.
4. Done and dusted -- that's what the Gemini missions were about.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini

Saturn V was finished because it was ****ing expensive and wasteful -- the Shuttle was developed to reduce costs per kg of getting stuff to orbit. All that came back to Earth was the CM, out of all the hardware they chucked into the sky. Everything on the shuttle was reused.

A Saturn V launch would cost $1.23 billion in today's dollars. Shuttle cost $450 million per launch. SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch costs $90 million.

"They" simply don't need to lift so much weight into space any more, and most of what the Saturn V was lifting was ... fuel.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/s. Lunar is 2.38km/s.

Questions about fuel are meaningless without knowing how much you weight you want to lift and where you want to put it.
www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..

Now if they faked the moon landing there's a pretty big chance the rest of their story is a croc too.
Most however like Bono see themselves above such deception. He thinks he understands science - which also includes non verifiable science like modern cosmology and their theory of evolution. If it's non verifiable it ain't science.
The lie of cosmology - starts at 44 minutes.

Cosmology and evolutionary biology are sciences - because you can't understand them doesn't change that fact.
We wouldn't exist without science

The videos and conspiracy links you post are evangelical, childish, gibberish.
Would be sort of ok if they were a little funny, but they're just embarrassingly stupid

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
I guess one way to really prove whether the yanks went to the moon or not is to point some powerful telescopes where they say they landed and look for evidence of the landings like the equipment left behind.

Has anyone done this? My six year old super zoom camera takes pretty good close up pictures of the moon with a 35x optical zoom.

skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

The second photo in the original post shows shadows from three directions - BUT, the photo is taken with a fish eye lens (very wide angle), which takes a flat subject and makes it somewhat round. If the horizon had been in the photo, it would have looked like a dome. Legit photo on the moon.

Select to expand quote

hoop said..Petemac33 and Adriano are the ones you want to ask about this stuff.

FlySurfer said..
In all honesty I was trolling y'all a little (I was bored), I googled all the above in 10 mins.
I'm on the fence about the landing, totally believe they orbited the moon, it's just the quantum leap in 9 years they had to perform in order to:
1.- take off with all that weight.
2.- land on the moon.
3.- take off from the moon.
4.- and the BIG one; dock w/ the orbiter and leave orbit.

I'm open to either possibility, and I would appreciate if anyone can point me to a doco that explains things like:
the fuel and speed req. to leave lunar gravity and enter a synchronous lunar orbit w/ the orbiter.
the orbiter's speed.
the dock mechanisms... fyi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project
the fuel and speed required to leave the orbit for earth.
the reason they scrapped the Saturn V's if they could lift such massive payloads.

Petemac33 and Adriano are the ones you want to ask about this stuff.
They have all this incredible inside information that the rest of us are blind to.
Apparently it's something to do with drinking distilled water gives you all the answers.
It can't hurt to send them a private message, they're always looking for new members.

You really need to stop lumping me in with PM33. I know it suits your lack of imagination, but really, we're not even living on the same planet!

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said....The Saturn V rocket was (is?) the most powerful device man has made.

Well your sentiment is right, but in truth the Saturn 5 is a blip in comparison to this horrendous device....

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..

Kamikuza said....The Saturn V rocket was (is?) the most powerful device man has made.

Well your sentiment is right, but in truth the Saturn 5 is a blip in comparison to this horrendous device....

We still needs to wait to see that device in action.How quickly could disassemble city like a London or NY?

I propose a future iteration of the seabreeze platform that allows individual users options to drag & drop certain topics into heavy weather, a trash/recycle bin or similar?

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..

FlySurfer said..
And here we see the effects of our two Suns directly from NASA archives..

I don't see anything wrong with the perspective of the shadows.

Here - I mocked up a 3D model with an 80 degree view cone with two poles, one 2m high in the foreground and the other 10m high in the background. In the plan, you can see the shadows are parallel, but in the 3D the shadows converge to a vanishing point left of view, just as in the moon shot. The "sun" in my model has an infinite distance, which for this experiment is very close to the physics of the sun's rays on the moon. In fact the sun's rays are so close to parallel on earth and the moon that Eratosthenes was able to calculate the earth's circumference and diameter thousands of years ago using poles.

The photo is totally consistent with physical optics and the principles of perspective.

The plan view:

Same objects in 3D view with an 80 degree view cone:

Geez u have too much spare time on your hands!!! Does this all go on the bill of some poor client?! Hope u don't charge an hourly rate.

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..

Kamikuza said....The Saturn V rocket was (is?) the most powerful device man has made.

Well your sentiment is right, but in truth the Saturn 5 is a blip in comparison to this horrendous device....

Yeah good point. "Most power device that didn't destroy itself and did something useful" then.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

We still needs to wait to see that device in action.How quickly could disassemble city like a London or NY?

You mean, all the footage of test detonations doesn't impress you?

How quickly? Light at the speed of light, over-pressure at almost the speed of sound.

Question should be, how many do you need to level the city. One Tsar Bomba would do for Sydney, or a couple of Chinese warheads.

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

The youtube vid of the guy debunking a fake purely from. The filmography point of view was very interesting. Someone posted it here ages ago.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
. . . . Everything on the shuttle was reused. . . .

Strictly speaking, this is not the case. The two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) were jettisoned and parachuted into the Atlantic. They were retrieved, refurbished and reused.

When the Shuttle had achieved orbit, the main engines were shut down, and the external tank (ET) then jettisoned. The ET would burn up when its orbit decayed sufficiently.

How did they hide the double shadows that should be cast by everything, if there are two light sources? E.g. night footy match?

Damn those yanks are clever


The softer edge on the astronaut shadow, all the way down legs to the ground, compared to the rocks etc, is a little confusing. I'd have thought he'd need to be quite a bit closer to the light source or a long way from the ground for it to be that different.

If he's standing up on the edge of a bowl shaped crater, maybe that explains the difference, and the varying angles of shadows from left to right in the pic?

If you cast a shadow onto a sheet of paper, and flex the paper, you can bend the shadow to a degree

Select to expand quote

myusernam said..
The youtube vid of the guy debunking a fake purely from. The filmography point of view was very interesting. Someone posted it here ages ago.

her u go. really interesting