Moon Landing

mickdw

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have to go offline but this should help shadows are caused by a light source. See where the blue line the light is in that direction. So yes you would see a shadow of his backpack on the ground.

If the guy in the visor was facing the visor square on, I would agree that his backpack would be shadowed onto ground when I consider the rest of his shadow. He appears to be standing at an angle roughly in agreement with your first red line though which would mean shadow isn't right.
Also if I agree with you re the way he is standing (red line), his backpack should be clearly visible on his person but it's not and considering these packs run to head height, it's odd.

Looking at it all again, I think guy in visor would have to be standing more square on towards his photo target meaning shadow looks right and backpack would be mostly hidden etc however the actual image does very much appear to be a guy standing at an angle to the shot.

pawdee

If the moon landings were fake don't you think that the Russians would have been all over it? They never said a word or questioned anything. What's so hard to believe about it anyway?

by8auj6csd3ioq

Full Buzz Aldrin interview https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/

I do not believe in the moon hoax but that small figure does not look like an astronaut to me.

King Mob

Mohammad Cold Mudslide wrote: »

I do not believe in the moon hoax but that small figure does not look like an astronaut to me.

What alternate explanation is there?

Which is more likely: You are just wrong about your assumptions about a blurry, distorted image.
Or there is an elaborate NASA hoax to alter one photo for no discernable reason, but they are also so incompetent, that the edit it badly, but then also leave that photo in the public domain after having released it in the first place.

I know which I think is the more likely...

gerrybbadd

There are hundreds of moon landing photos that require questioning.

This is not one of them

Cheerful Spring

Mohammad Cold Mudslide wrote: »

Full Buzz Aldrin interview https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/

I do not believe in the moon hoax but that small figure does not look like an astronaut to me.

Sounds to me he was just addressing the little girl question why we have not returned to the moon. His speech is slurred so it very hard to tell what he meant. There always been rumours they saw things on the moon and it was covered up.

King Mob

gerrybbadd wrote: »

There are hundreds of moon landing photos that require questioning.

This is not one of them

All of the ones that "require questioning" are exactly like this.
Some random person on the internet not understanding them, then assuming a vast nonsensical conspiracy from that misunderstanding.

gerrybbadd

King Mob wrote: »

All of the ones that "require questioning" are exactly like this.
Some random person on the internet not understanding them, then assuming a vast nonsensical conspiracy from that misunderstanding.

Except they're not

Explain the matching backgrounds in separate photos


And how could the crosshairs, that were hard etched into the camera's glass plate, appear behind an image?

endacl

no.8 wrote: »

The Internet allows for far too many outspoken fools with opinions. I suppose they staged the launches of all those Saturn V's as well?

The internet has allowed village idiots to form associations.

King Mob

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Except they're not

Explain the matching backgrounds in separate photos


And how could the crosshairs, that were hard etched into the camera's glass plate, appear behind an image?

No, you first.
Why did NASA do these things? Why did they fake or alter these photos? Or if they were staged, why?
Why would the do such an obviously bad job of them? And why then would they release obviously badly done/faked/edited photos?
How were they edited/faked/staged?

How do you know that they are edited/fake/staged and it's not just a case of you misunderstanding stuff about the image?

If you can't or won't answer these questions, what would be the point in going into the minutiae of claims that are long debunked?

namloc1980

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Except they're not

Explain the matching backgrounds in separate photos


And how could the crosshairs, that were hard etched into the camera's glass plate, appear behind an image?

If you actually look at the high resolution source images of those background shots you can clearly see the background is subtly but noticeably shifted. Using low quality conspiracy modified images doesn't help your argument. Anyway this is called parallax. If you've driven on earth and you look at distant hills or mountains then you'll see the same effect. The distant object appears motionless while the foreground rapidly changes. The background mountains in those Apollo 15 images are from 10-15km away.

The crosshair being not visible against white background is due to saturation from the bright white element on the image. Light bleed and dynamic range issues are pretty common in photography. Funnily enough if you could see the black crosshair then that would actually be evidence of potential photo tampering.

Cheerful Spring

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Except they're not

Explain the matching backgrounds in separate photos


And how could the crosshairs, that were hard etched into the camera's glass plate, appear behind an image?

Whats the conspiracy behind this I don't get it, like are they, not just two pictures of the same location on the moon?

Dohnjoe

I went to have a look on Youtube at the latest from moon-hoaxers - low and behold they've changed their algorithms, so instead of the conspiracy videos top-paging the results... they are virtually gone, and all the debunking/skeptic videos occupy the top-spot

Same goes for Sandy Hook and Boston bombing

About time

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I went to have a look on Youtube at the latest from moon-hoaxers - low and behold they've changed their algorithms, so instead of the conspiracy videos top-paging the results... they are virtually gone, and all the debunking/skeptic videos occupy the top-spot

Same goes for Sandy Hook and Boston bombing

About time

Any opposing views are going to be shut down this Nazi Germany in action. This from a country that introduced the patriotic act and spied on people and introduced malware to allies servers worldwide. Have you watched the film Snowden? Damn these people bugged everyone. Snowden even said if ally crossed the united states they could turn off the lights. America is modern day Nazi Germany.

Facebook partnering with the Atlantic Council. Now corporations are doing the work for corrupt governments.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/facebook-partners-hawkish-atlantic-council-nato-lobby-group-protect-democracy/242289/

This is the officialdom trying to censor opposing views. Get rid of conspiracy sites they can do want they like sceptics are not going to notice.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I went to have a look on Youtube at the latest from moon-hoaxers - low and behold they've changed their algorithms, so instead of the conspiracy videos top-paging the results... they are virtually gone, and all the debunking/skeptic videos occupy the top-spot

Same goes for Sandy Hook and Boston bombing

About time

Nowadays, most people who express doubt about the moon landings hedge their bets to avoid looking like a nutcase.
Usually it takes the form of "I believe we went to the moon, but I think they altered some photos."
But ask why the photos were altered or even which ones and how, all you get is deafening silence.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Any opposing views are going to be shut down this Nazi Germany in action.

Not in the slightest. Edit: due to the nature of search engines like Youtube and Google and how they ranked results, people could be seeking information on e.g. the moon landings, they'd type it in and a bunch of conspiracy videos would be top. That's insane, same with Sandy Hook, Boston bombing and so on. I am amazed it's taken them this long to address it.

by8auj6csd3ioq

"The internet has allowed village idiots to form associations." isn't it wonderful ,somethinmg positive for the village idiots though?

by8auj6csd3ioq

"What alternate explanation is there?

Which is more likely: You are just wrong about your assumptions about a blurry, distorted image.
Or there is an elaborate NASA hoax to alter one photo for no discernable reason, but they are also so incompetent, that the edit it badly, but then also leave that photo in the public domain after having released it in the first place.

I know which I think is the more likely..."

I am not wrong about my assumptions as i never made any. All i said is it does not look like an astronaut to me. You are so eager to be right you see an argument where there is none

King Mob

Mohammad Cold Mudslide wrote: »

I am not wrong about my assumptions as i never made any. All i said is it does not look like an astronaut to me. You are so eager to be right you see an argument where there is none

Lol, you guys get so touchy when people point out why your opinion isn't very valid or convincing.

It does not look like an astronaut to you. But you are wrong.
It does look like an astronaut because it is an astronaut.

Using the one photo you are wrong about to hint towards a vast, elaborate conspiracy is a bit silly.

If you don't believe that it is a vast, silly conspiracy and you can't possibly be wrong, how else do you explain the photo?

branie2

He's wearing a spacesuit

nc6000

Here we go wrote: »

Suprized you went with a very blurry pic and not buzz alldrean interview where he said they never went there when he was confused a month or so
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4uluUQXiji4

Looking at that I'd imagine he meant to say we "didn't go BACK there" rather than "we didn't go there"

HappyAsLarE

Faking a moon landing is much harder than actually going.

Jack Moore

Which moon landing is the pic from

namloc1980

Jack Moore wrote: »

Which moon landing is the pic from

The OP image is from Apollo 17.

4068ac1elhodqr

Let's hope they actually landed, or it'll be very embarrassing indeed, for all concerned.

The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that 'a proposed mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real'.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/russia-space-agency-chief-aims-to-verify-us-moon-landings-887557.html

Cheerful Spring

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Let's hope they actually landed, or it'll be very embarrassing indeed, for all concerned.

The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that 'a proposed mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real'.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/russia-space-agency-chief-aims-to-verify-us-moon-landings-887557.html

Russian propaganda let's be honest. There was more than 1 mission to the moon so they obviously went.

I still think 1969 moon landing is not fully explained. There were always reports they saw stuff like UFOS on the way and even on the Moon watching them. Who's knows if that accurate, but the press conference after they came back was odd and weird they looked and acted like they were told to keep quiet about things they saw.

namloc1980

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Russian propaganda let's be honest. There was more than 1 mission to the moon so they obviously went.

I still think 1969 moon landing is not fully explained. There were always reports they saw stuff like UFOS on the way and even on the Moon watching them. Who's knows if that accurate, but the press conference after they came back was odd and weird they looked and acted like they were told to keep quiet about things they saw.

Just because they weren't whooping and hollering at the press conference people put 2+2 together and come up with, well they obviously must have something to hide. These guys were ex military, trained to within an inch of their lives. Armstrong was infamous for how stoic and unemotional he was.

Ashbourne hoop

namloc1980 wrote: »

Just because they weren't whooping and hollering at the press conference people put 2+2 together and come up with, well they obviously must have something to hide. These guys were ex military, trained to within an inch of their lives. Armstrong was infamous for how stoic and unemotional he was.

That really comes across in the First Man movie. Great film too

Harika

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Let's hope they actually landed, or it'll be very embarrassing indeed, for all concerned.

If they didn't get there, there was a big chance 50 years ago for Soviet Russia (the ones that didn't really like the US at the time) to expose them with their pants down. They didn't what should give it away already.

4068ac1elhodqr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Who's knows if that accurate, but the press conference after they came back was odd and weird they looked and acted like they were told to keep quiet about things they saw.

A similar expression to when Donald came out of the private chat with Barry O' after handover for the role of POTUS, a bit pale and shell shocked.

Unexplained interactions (references to 'santa claus', dark-side audio bursts and moon tracks) are all different issues to whether or not they actually landed and walked about.

More importantly however than all this, is who is going to actually land and create a permanent base there first. There's only 3 players, maybe 4 if India develops exponentially.

King Mob

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Unexplained interactions (references to 'santa claus',

What's unexplained about the Santa Claus reference?

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

What's unexplained about the Santa Claus reference?

Wasn't SC the coded radio transmission reference for seeing anything of an intelligent nature that should'nt be there, presume it wasn't for sightings of St.Nicholas himself, or the Coca-Cola promotional figure.

King Mob

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Wasn't SC the coded radio transmission reference for seeing anything of an intelligent nature that should'nt be there,

Where are you getting this notion from?

The astronauts were making a joke. They were not claiming that they saw aliens.

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Where are you getting this notion from?

The astronauts were making a joke. They were not claiming that they saw aliens.

And maybe their intentions of using this 'phrase' were fulfiled.
i.e. Just having a bit of a laugh up while messing about in space.

Maybe they did some knock knock, and 3 men walk in bar jokes too, during the singularly most time-sensitive, most fiscally expensive, and most reported scientific event in history, at that time.

Harika

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

More importantly however than all this, is who is going to actually land and create a permanent base there first. There's only 3 players, maybe 4 if India develops exponentially.

To do what? A permanent base, with humans will be extreme expensive with no return of investment. Helium 3 is SciFi at this point of history or mining in general.

King Mob

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

And maybe their intentions of using this 'phrase' were fulfiled.
i.e. Just having a bit of a laugh up while messing about in space.

Maybe they did some knock knock, and 3 men walk in bar jokes too, during the singularly most time-sensitive, most fiscally expensive, and most reported scientific event in history, at that time.

Yes, they made jokes up there a lot.

So what source are you using to conclude that the astronauts coded phrase for aliens?
Where does this idea come from?
Why is the idea of aliens on the moon and a massive decades long conspiracy to cover that up more likely than guys making a joke?

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, they made jokes up there a lot.

So what source are you using to conclude that the astronauts coded phrase for aliens?

Where does this idea come from?

Why is the idea of aliens on the moon and a massive decades long conspiracy to cover that up more likely than guys making a joke?

You've never heard of this concept before?
Time to brush up on your reading material, instead of utube lols.

Guess the big question (in your godless, alternative-life less view) of things, it all goes back to simple probability.

Just in our own local galaxy (certainly not entire universe) there are 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs.

Assuming there might be the chance of inteligent life among these, would they not take 'a bit of observational interest' in humans setting foot, outside of earth?

King Mob

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

You've never heard of this concept before?
Time to brush up on your reading material, instead of utube lols.

Yes, I have heard of people trying desperately to make that one comment proof of aliens.
I have never seen it substantiated at all, ever.

Where do you get the information from and how do you know it's not just something someone dreamed up?

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Guess the big question (in your godless, alternative-life less view) of things, it all goes back to simple probability.

Sure, and what's more probable?
Giant silly conspiracy that lasts decades?
Or
Dude made a joke?

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, and what's more probable?

Exactly, and so which IS more probable?

That humans are the only form of life in the entire universe (nevermind our small galaxy), or that they're aren't? hmmm...

King Mob

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Exactly, and so which IS more probable?

That humans are the only form of life in the entire universe (nevermind our small galaxy), or that they're aren't? hmmm...

Lol, that's a bit of a misdirect there.
We aren't talking about the possibility of alien life, we're talking about your very silly claim that astronauts used a reference to Santa Claus as code to mean that there was aliens on the Moon.

Even if your arguments were sound, it doesn't really have a baring on this claim.
It doesn't make it any more real or likely and it doesn't make it sound less like it's been plucked out a desperate conspiracy theorist's arse.

So, what's more probable? Please answer directly and honestly.
Giant silly conspiracy that lasts decades?
Or
Dude made a joke?

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, that's a bit of a misdirect there.
We aren't talking about the possibility of alien life, we're talking about your very silly claim that astronauts used a reference to Santa Claus as code to mean that there was aliens on the Moon.

Based on the data (which YOU won't acknowledge any reply to, for fear of upsetting your own godless, athiest, closed, human-only universe mindset)...

The Astronouts were 'likely' breifed in a variety of coded words for 'unexpected event reporting'. Is that so hard to believe?

Bearing in mind, they couldn't e-mail or txt a slow, live, recorded audio transmission was their only option. The answer is no-one can say for sure, but it is 'very likely' that facility and method of reporting existed.

Now your turn...:

Based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way.

and with 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe…

Is there a chance of life outside of Earth?

Let’s see… (fumbles with calculator) 40,000,000,000 X 100,000,000,000.
'possible habitable planets', the Casio calculator return says ‘4E21’ think it’s broken now, thanks.

King Mob

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

The Astronouts were 'likely' breifed in a variety of coded words for 'unexpected event reporting'. Is that so hard to believe?

Yes, as
1. There's no evidence any such code ever existed.
2. It doesn't make any sense for them to use such an obvious, blatant code that anyone can figure out apparently.
3. The more likely explanation of it being a simple moment of humor is far more reasonable and much much less silly.

I am not going to respond to random off topic nonsense when you still haven't answered my direct question:

What's more probable?
Giant silly conspiracy that lasts decades?
Or
Dude made a joke?

Harika

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way.

and with 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe…

Is there a chance of life outside of Earth?

Let’s see… (fumbles with calculator) 40,000,000,000 X 100,000,000,000.
'possible habitable planets', the Casio calculator return says ‘4E21’ think it’s broken now, thanks.

So what? If there are that many civilisations there, where are they? Where is their BBC or RTE broadcast to watch, where are their signals? Congratulations, how you have discovered the Fermi Paradox.
If there actually was some stuff on the back of the moon, then one of the later probes from different countries would have picked that up.

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, as
There's no evidence any such code ever existed.

Of course, that's it's purpose by using coded messages it wouldn't be advertised to the masses. As already said, it's very likely such a facilty existed for unexpected reports, but only those in the know (not you or I), would be able to say if it was used.

Of course you won't answer the other question, as you know 'it's likely', that other more intleigent life exists outside of earth (40,000,000,000,00,000,000,000 / 1 probability).

It's likely your head would melt, being a godless, 'human-only universe' believer. I understand it's an internal conflict you have, hence the refusal to answer the question.

But of course you've already previously agreed in other posts, that it is indeed likely, ah well....

Obvs any higher inteligence would't send a fancy telegram, but merely observe and study, until a time of their choosing.

King Mob

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Of course, that's it's purpose by using coded messages it wouldn't be advertised to the masses.

And the only code they could use was to say "Santa Claus" out of no where for no reason and they expected that no one would think that was strange or out of place? And that they thought that no one might be able to twig that they might be referring to aliens?
It's not a very good code.

It's obvious to you as well as most other rational people that it was a joke made on Christmas Eve.
You know that's the likely explanation.

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Of course you won't answer the other question,

Nope, no interest as it's off topic and a bit ranty and you've been unable to answer a simple direct question put to you.

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, no interest as it's off topic and a bit ranty and you've been unable to answer a simple direct question put to you.

You've been unable to answer a simple direct question put to you, which is directly associated and of interest to this event.

This is because you know the honest answer you would give, conflicts directly with your very existance, very interesting.

Come take a seat on this nice black leather couch and chat all about what event(s) caused you to dismiss any concept of god, or existance of alternative life in this (known) universe of 40,000,000,000,00,000,000,000 habitable planets...

King Mob

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

You've been unable to answer a simple direct question put to you, which is directly associated and of interest to this event.

But it's not though.
Even if your rantings made sense and held up, it doesn't help your claim that the Apollo astronauts were using a super secret code you cracked.

You know they were making a joke.
You know that's the most likely explanation. That's why you dodged the very direct question put to you.

Cheerful Spring

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

A similar expression to when Donald came out of the private chat with Barry O' after handover for the role of POTUS, a bit pale and shell shocked.

Unexplained interactions (references to 'santa claus', dark-side audio bursts and moon tracks) are all different issues to whether or not they actually landed and walked about.

More importantly however than all this, is who is going to actually land and create a permanent base there first. There's only 3 players, maybe 4 if India develops exponentially.

From my short time looking this up the Santa Claus claim was made by a woman called Donna Hare. She alleges she worked for a contractor at Naza where she claims she saw Naza smudge and fudge images with UFOs and objects on the moon and mars? I don't know if you can just trust just one person claim about this. She could be a loon if all we know.

namloc1980

So basically we have:

1. Apollo astronaut references Santa Claus
2. Kepler mission,
3. ??????
4. PROOF OF ALIENS

Some people have very vivid imaginations.

Ipso

namloc1980 wrote: »

So basically we have:

1. Apollo astronaut references Santa Claus
2. Kepler mission,
3. ??????
4. PROOF OF ALIENS

Some people have very vivid imaginations.

They’re not saying it’s aliens . . . . But aliens.