I agree completely with you.

When did I say to look for the flag on the moon or foot prints? If you will reread my post, you will find that I said to look for the lower half of the lunar module. The lower half of the lunar module is the landing gear and the rockets and fuel tanks that slowed the lander and allowed it to land. Those were left behind when the asrtonauts left the moon. That assembly is much larger than the flag or foot prints. There is an observatory a little south of the town where I live. I'll go there and ask them if the landing assembly of the lunar module can be seen or not. I 'l post the answer as soon as they tell me.

Seafox14

They are also still conducting experiments from NUMEROUS observatories that are still receiving information from the module. They are able to shoot a laser from the earth to the moon and have it reflect off of the lunar space craft. They measure the speed at which the laser bounces back, and can calculate the distance, rotational speed, and lateral speed of the moon. They even showed how it was done and demonstrated the technology.

There have been many shows on tv regarding the plausibility of the space landing (discovery channel, national geographic, tlc, encore, hell, even Penn and Teller on showtime). NONE of these shows ended without 30-60 minutes of showing and examining the moon footage, talking to some of the heads of the conspiracy theory, gathering the "best" arguments they had, then blasting them to dust the size of lunar debris. NONE of the shows ended without stating that the US DID land on the moon

What spacecraft HM?

Darthy, The Lunar Excursion Module (or Lunar Lander), was built in 2 major sections. the top section was the crew compartment where the astronaut's lived while on the lunar surface. It also contained the rocket motors used to get the crew compartment back into orbit and link up with the service module that took the LEM from earth orbit to the moon. The lower half of the LEM consisted of the landing gear the descent rocket motors ( to slow the LEM for landing) and storage for equipment and scientific equipment. The lower half of the LEM was never meant to return to the earth. It was left behind on the moon. The lower half of the LEM also happens to be rather large. The lower half of the LEM is the lunar space craft that Heretic is referring to.
Hope this clears things up a bit.

BTW: I have not had a chance to ask the people at the observatory near where I live yet. I will post their answer when I get in touch with them.

Respectfully
Seafox14

Like I said in this post, the manned Apollo program never sent a man to the Moon.
Respectfully,
Darthy

Evidences that Man never landed on the Moon
1. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.

2. The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.

See more evidences in: http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=7
Note: These pictures and commentaries were taking off from the site above.

If you'd actually watched anything on tv about the moon landing conspiracy (believe me, it's on all the time), you'd see a clear explanation for the first one. I'm looking out my window right now and seeing a flag by my mailbox. The shadow of the flag is pointing in one direction, but the shadow of my mailbox is pointing in another direction.

As for the other thing, i really have no knowledge on that subject.

Have you every actually TALKED to an expert? Someone that deals with this stuff on an everday basis? Ever gone to the closest observatory, or do you not care enough to gather EVERYTHING about the subject? Hell, i'm probably one of the hardest people in these forums to persuade. However, i DO like to gather all the information i can from BOTH sides before i take a defining stand.

BTW: If anyone actually looks at the site she posted, about half of them can be debunked right now. The other ones really have no basis ("updated" photos?) The conspiracy site claims they have all these "confidential" files that show the truth, yet no one else does or has even heard of them.

Also, you gotta love how they're CHARGING people to order their video

What?! The shadows will be coming from the same direction.

The photo's of the sunlight I think are from relfections from the shuttle.

Now about the Van Allen belt.



Source

If you don't believe we went to the moon, why don't you go interview Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, or Neil Armstrong.

The shadows appear to be in different directions due to variations in slope of the terrain.

Shuttle?!?! That didn't come until quite a few years later. I'm sure you meant the LEM.

More evidences that Man never landed on the Moon

Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and responsible for the production and building of the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo Missions. He says 'Originally NASA made all the alterations themselves, then they presented what they had done to us and asked if we could do the same, to which we replied yes we can, and we can do it better. We proceeded to make the alterations that were accepted by NASA.' Protective plates were added to the case and film magazine.
An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?

We have to remember that the camera used didn't actually have any viewfinder, and the astronauts could not see the whole of the camera that was strapped to their chests due to the restrictions posed by their spacesuits. They had to use their body to point in the rough direction of their subject. The astronauts even had to change the lens whilst stood outside on the lunar surface, wearing their heavy gloves. A feat that is quite hard to believe considering the very awkward pressurized gauntlets that they were wearing. The precaution of changing the film inside the LEM was not adhered to and could have ended in disaster if the film had actually been dropped into the dust on the ground. And what about the exposure to the heat?
It would have been virtually impossible to change the film and adjust the lenses in such apparatus. However in certain films, they do seem to be wearing different gloves that do not seem to be pressurized?

Some of the lighting on 'official NASA film' are very suspect. The NASA picture to the left should show the astronaut in complete shadow because the sun is behind him, and yet the whole of the astronaut is caught in bright light? The shot should appear like the one on the right which was simulated by David Percy.

How can we see so much detail on the gold portion of the Lunar Lander in this picture? As is evident by the shadow in front of the module, the Sun is in the background and the gold area should be covered with shadow, not Sunlight? And why does the 'Sun' have a halo around it if the Moon has no atmosphere?
Regards and until the next.
Darthy

I dunno about the first "proof", since i don't claim to be knowledgable in information i really have no knowledge of. I'm not film scientist.

As for the pictures, look around at all the rocks. See how bright the surface is? See how much light they're giving off? Ever heard of "reflecting light"? The front of the man isn't nearly as bright as he would be if a light was shining directly at him, but he is still somewhat illuminated (same as the lander)

I've never seen the spacecraft w/ the "halo" around the sun, but it looks like a really crappy photo-edit. I'm not sure if the big white spot is just to HIGHLIGHT the flaw, or it's the actual "proof" you're speaking of, but a large part of that light seems to be coming from the lander itself (remember that reflective thing i spoke of earlier?)

Once again, have you spoken to your nearest professionals about the subject? Have you visited sites OTHER than ones support by the conspiracy theorists? Can you post your SOURCES for the pics you've been posting? Sources for your information and "proofs"? Or are you just copying and pasting from 2/3 sites?

Let's look to these 3 more photographs:

Photos of the Apollo 15 mission.
As you can see, the position of the astronaut, the flag, and the LM are virtually the same in the two photographs—the lateral displacement between the two camera positions is minimal. However, in the first Picture the mountain background is a perspective view (at an angle to the photographer) whereas the mountain in the second Picture is square on to the camera. It is important to bear in mind that the distant mountain is supposed to be over 13,000 feet high and more than four miles away. Therefore a camera located a few feet either to the left or right would make no practical difference to the perspective of the mountain.
The last Picture is a combination of these two images. Notice how the two mountain backdrops differ considerably in height—by as much as 20%—whilst the sizes of the other key elements of the scene remain essentially the same. In my view such a result is the consequence of the mountain backdrop having been physically replaced with an alternative backdrop scene.
Until next.
Darthy

This movement is so easily explained. It is called Parallax or Parallax view. Don't be so easily led.

parallax: The apparent motion of a relatively close object compared to a more distant background as the

location of the observer changes. Astronomically, it is half the angle which a a star appears to move as the

earth moves from one side of the sun to the other.

How Scientists Measure the Distance to Stars
Equipment Needed
Ruler, Pencil, or even a finger.

1. Pick an object which is some distance in front of you. Twenty to thirty feet is a good distance.
2. Hold the ruler/pencil/finger pointing up at arms distance in front of you, as you face the distant object you

chose.
3. Close your left eye and note where your ruler/pencil/finger stands in front of the distant object.
4. Without moving your body, head, or hand, open your right eye and close your left eye.
5. See how the ruler/pencil/finger has apparently changed positions. This is called Parallax.

Astronomers use this to determine the distances to stars. They note a star's apparent position when the Earth is

on one side of the sun, then measure the distance to its apparent position six months later, when the earth is

on the other side of the sun. The more distance between the two points, the closer the star is to Earth.

http://space.about.com/cs/backyardscience/...?terms=parallax

This parallax is often thought of as the "apparent motion" of an object against a distant background because of

a perspective shift, as seen in Figure 1. When viewed from Viewpoint A, the object appears to be in front of the

blue square. When the viewpoint is changed to Viewpoint B, the object appears to have moved to in front of the

red square.

from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax


The detail available in the other sun pictures is simple reflection of the sun off the light colored surface of

the moon.

I think you don't understand my post boopme. If you read it carefully, what I said is:

In these conditions, there are no Parallax phenomenon, because what cares is the position of the mountains and not the positions of the astronaut, the flag or the LEM.
Once more, I said, "Therefore a camera located a few feet either to the left or right would make no practical difference to the perspective of the mountain." "of the mountain"
You have to notice the yellow arrows boopme
Don't forget that you said:

What you report is really a Parallax phenomenon, but the mountain is more than four miles away and the other objects are very close to the observer, maybe a few yards away, and, as you can see the differences in the mountain are bigger than the differences in the other objects. Don't you find it strange?
So, as you see, is not so easily explained.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Darthy

Let's look at this logically.

You really think a multi-billion dollar organization like NASA, which is smart enough to create spaceships able to be shot into space, and have the ability to "fool" BILLIONS of people into "thinking" we landed on the moon would be stupid enough to make a mistake like changing the backround while trying to form the conspiracy?

Wouldn't you think that if these photos were legitimate, they wouldn't be stupid enough to let something like that slip?

I still have yet to see anything that suggests these photos are credible prints, and not some lame CT's attempt to support the fraud.

Darthy, again, have you actually TALKED to people knowledgable in the subject? Have you gone to observatories to see the work done w/ the spacecraft? Or are you too busy searching for biased, conspiracy laiden sites to care about getting ALL the information?

HM, for your information, the pics 1 and 2 are, by NASA's classification, the AS15-88-11863 and AS15-88-11866.
As you see, these photos are legitimate. You can ask for them in the NASA site.
Like I said in my post dated May 21 2006, 03:46 AM,

I think I own suficient knowledge to treat this issue by my own head.
Regards,
Darthy

Thanx for giving me info darthy, you actually just destroyed that argument. If you'd actually CHECK the NASA database, you'd find these pictures:

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fulli...d=AS15-88-11863

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fulli...d=AS15-88-11866

Notice the ANGLE difference between the photos. THAT'S why the mountain looks different. To show the the angles are in fact different, look at the flag in relation to the spacecraft. The first photo shows the flag off to the left of the craft (relatively). The second photo shows the flag overlapping with part of the craft. Did you ever take into account the idea that the camera could've been shifted horizontally AND rotated?

Again:

IMAGE # AS15-88-11863


IMAGE # AS15-88-11866

And by the way, the mountain is 3 miles away, not 4.

And once again, have you asked professionals and talked to those that have EXPERIENCE working with information based on space missions?
How can you be so sure about "truth" or information without hearing all viewpoints? If you hear both sides and disagree with the general opinion, you're a skeptic. If you focus on one side, ignore all statements from the other, and close your mind off to the answers of your questions, you're a rock.

A Gentle Mod Reminder

Let's try and keep this civil shall we?

Hi HM, let's follow the advice of Scarlett.

Where do you think that I get those pictures? Of course it was in the NASA database!!!
If you read my post dated Jul 12 2006, 01:55 AM, you will see the followed:

Of course they were taken from different angles, but as I said, the lateral displacement between the two camera positions is minimal.
Of course the 2 pics were resized and, as you can see, the right foot of the astronaut it's in the same position in the overlapping pics.
Of course I hear both sides and I disagree with the general opinion.
Of course I'm a skeptic rock HM, because I'm a retired old officer of the Portuguese Armed Forces.
I think that you are an young US Marine, am I wrong?
Regards,
Darthy

Yup, you are in fact wrong. I've never served in any form of military.

Now, let's try a little at-home, simple experiment. I shall take 2 pictures using my hacked eyetoy.

Picture 1

Let the Little Robot Dude represent the flag while the CD Storage represents the lunar lander. The flag is slightly to the left of the lander with no overlapping. Notice the placement of the air conditioning controls in the backround.

Now let's look at Picture 2

Look at the positions of the objects now. The flag and lander seemed to move a little bit (sorry, didn't have a stable platform), and the flag is now somewhat overlapping the lander. However, the AC control in the back has moved significantly in relation to the other objects.

Now, this is in fact a crude representation, but it's still clear that the objects in the photograph are behaving naturally, especially considering the SCALE of the actual photo. The distances in my pics are not to scale, so imagine if they were.

EDIT: Forgot to add that the photos were taken 30 seconds apart w/ the same lighting and the EXACT SAME positions. I did not move the items between the pictures, nor did i unbolt the control panel and move it across the wall.

EDIT 2:: If a mod finds that this page loads too slowly, i can re-edit it to show thumbnails instead of the full image. I just thought it'd be better to include the full image in the post, but it can be easily changed.

Hi again HM.
The distances are quiet different, don't you think?
Darthy

Hello Darthy

From Post #43

Sigh... there truly are much better things to do with a persons time than waste it either supporting or debunking this kind of garbage. But it is 99.7 degrees Fahrenheit outside right now so I will indulge myself in air-conditioned comfort and waste a little bit of my time.

Where to start, hmmm... lets see, I know, I will start with your contention that the two photographs AS15-88-11863 and AS15-88-11866 prove that the moon landings never happened. The conclusion that the form of logic you are using in this argument greatly disturbs me because applying this same logic to the two photos of Heretic Monkey's living room leads to the interesting conclusion that Heretic Monkey (HM) himself does not exist.

You doubt my conclusion?

Here is your proof (click thumbnail for larger image):

Notice how when I combine HM's photographs that the wall of HM's living room is significantly higher in one photo compared to the other. This is conclusive, absolutely 100% conclusive proof that HM's living room does not exist and that since his living room does not exist, HM himself is a hoax. A hoax probably concocted by a super secret government agency I might add.

My lord I have been reading HM's posts for a year and a half and never realized that he did not exist, he is a hoax. Everything HM has ever posted has been a lie, an attempt by a super secret government agency to control my thoughts. Thank you Darthy, thank you, thank you, thank you! for opening my eyes to the truth and teaching me the errors of my ways, I shall be eternally grateful.

Am I just being funny here? Maybe I am or maybe I am not but this is exactly the same logic you are using to support your claim that the two photos you have posted to us prove the moon landings never happened and this logic is why I am disturbed enough to respond to this thread.

Lets look at the photos you posted again but with a different twist:

My, my what a difference it makes when you align the mountain tops instead of the foreground image. What happened to this incredible height difference that NASA let slip through its censors? Why this is just absolutely amazing but it appears that it was the ground contours the astronaut was standing on and the cameras aiming point that created this illusion, the height difference doesn't exist at all.

Wh.. why wait a minute, can it be possible... let me check... Its true! its true! look here:

Lining up HM's photos the same way as the Apollo photos show that his living room is real after all. If the living room is real than HM must exist also. Who would have thought it, I never doubted that HM was real, not for a moment. Any information you may have heard to the contrary are just lies concocted by a super secret government agency to discredit me in your eyes.

Whether it is four miles or four feet to the background the distance involved in these two sets of photos makes no difference. The aiming point and the angle of the camera in relation to the background object itself are what makes the perspective change. It once again appears that this whole photograph thing was all a hoax (surprise, surprise) by conspiracy theorists to discredit the fact that man has actually walked on the moon.

With this thought in mind Darthy in post #56 you made this statement:


In this I agree with you 100%, the manned Apollo program never sent a man to the moon. The manned Apollo program sent 24 men to the moon (27 total but three of them went twice for a total of 24 individuals) and of this total 12 of them actually landed on and walked upon the surface of the moon itself.

I have spent enough of my time on this already and will provide the same link I provided earlier to anyone who wishes to carry on this issue.
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
All the answers to the points the conspirators are making can be found at this site if you feel like doing some reading. It explains why the Apollo astronauts (all 24 of them) were able to go through the Van Allen radiation belts and on to the moon (12 of them walked on it too you know). It shows how shadows can appear to point in different directions from a single light source. It explains how reflected light illuminates objects that would otherwise be in shadow.

Please don't let yourselves be taken in by this garbage (no offense Darthy). Don't discredit one of man's greatest achievements because of conspiracy theorists with who knows what agendas trying to make you believe otherwise.
Man has been to and walked upon the surface of the moon.

With that I am heading out to the pool for a quick dip and some sunshine.

Have a good day.

Edit: spelling and punctuation

Darthy, I do agree that man never walked on the moon. the gravity is too light to walk. Man bounced on the moon. So in that sense you are correct.

I do have one question for you. Why are you trying so hard to convince us that the Moon landings never happened? If it was a conspiracy (and I doubt it was) the conspiracy would have involved so many people that the truth could never have been hidden.

Seafox14

Hi Ronbo, here I am again

Like I said in my post #44

Let me tell you one more thing, this issue is garbage for you, not for me. Do you understand?
I like very much your post. It's a little bit ironic, but as you see there are, at least, 2 ways to overlap the 2 pictures I put in my post #63. Which is the valid one?
To apply the Parallax principle, the correct way of overlapping the pictures, I think it's yours.
Let's leave the two pics in peace and let's leave the other guys that read our posts take their conclusions. I think that's a fair position, don't you agree?
But, as you said in your post,
Let's take a look at these three pics:

In picture 1, Aldrin is in the shadow of the LEM, however he is shining like a Christmas tree and there is an hot spot on his boot. Why? The picture 2 it's a close up of the hot spot.(artificial light?) In these two pics the link "clavius" says that these anomalies are the result of the reflection of the sunlight on the lunar soil?
But, as you can see in pic 3, there is a photo of a lunar rock where we can see the shadow in the absolute blackness. Here there is no need of explanations because there is no reflected light. Why? This picture don't even appear in the link "clavius". Why these contradictions?

I am not trying to convince anyone that the Moon landings never happened. "The Speak Easy" forum, I think, it's a place where we can put our ideas without the purpose of convincing no one. Simply I put my ideas in the forum for the others can read what I think about the subject and to defend them, of course.
Regards,
Darthy

I am always amazed at the gullibility of man. Even when evidence so obvious is laid right out in front of them, do they still not believe. Magician's have been doing this for centuries. The most effective trick you can convince ANYONE of, is to simply show them the obvious. It's called, 'slight of hand'. That's the key. There is evidence so obvious, staring you right in the face, that we CHOOSE not to accept because of whatever reason(s).

Let me explain something to you, that scholars all over the world have been creating website's about, books have been written about, people have studied to the point of sheer boredom. Now pay attention. And I'm not trying to convince you of ANYTHING, you can believe what you want. O.k., here it goes.

WE ... DID ... NOT ... GO ... TO ... MOON!

Did you read that correctly? If not, read it again. I'm not going to go into specific's with you regarding the earth's atmosphere and Ultraviolet rays, and with that the lovely little cotton suits the astronauts were wearing to protect themselves from those deadly Ultraviolet rays, or the fact that the majority of picture's pretty much show you that it was a hoax in-and-of-themselves simply with the obvious light source defects, because the people that want to believe that we did, are. So be it. I love when people say, "How could something so big be pulled off and not a lot of people finding out about this." Hmm, let's think about this. Well, technology aside, back then, the American People and pretty much the WORLD would believe just about, well, anything our leaders told them. Let's not forget all the technology there was to create movies back then. But you'll believe that, right? Oh no, they could have NEVER pulled that off. How difficult would THAT be? Hmmmm. They only had the media in their back pocket (which was what? The Newspaper, the radio, and some television, and still do!!), awesome power, and pretty much a budget that would make George Lucas wet his pants!!! But, they couldn't have pulled it off, oh no way! It's not to even be considered!! But then again, ... could they have? Hmmm. I mean, with the right amount of pressure, and pressure is what it's all about. The kind of pressure that comes from being in a race with Russia to get to the moon first. To be the first one's in HISTORY, that's HISTORY kids, to reach and walk on the MOON!!!! Come on! Not possible? No? A little slight of hand to take the "pressure" off. No? Not even maybe? Come on, there's got to be a possibility, no? Because if we did, how come we haven't been back, over, and over, and over, ever since? I mean, if they could do it back THEN, with the limited technology they had, why can't we do it now? I mean really, all butt!@#$ aside, why not with today's technology? Money? Did I hear money? Well, if we look at that, if we could do it back then, then we DAMN sure should be able to do it now, and cheaper!!!! But then again, maybe because the original mission never happened. And why haven't other countries went to the moon if it's so possible? Seriously, ... why?

Well, I'll tell you why. Because Outer Space is such a hostile place my friends, we wouldn't have a prayer in hell. Yes, that's a fact. And there is a difference between going into space, and going into Outer Space. BIG difference kiddies. Our atmosphere protects us from more than you'll ever realize. You get a small, earth made space craft made of man made metal, floating through Outer Space. Have that come in contact with a tiny meteor about the size of a baseball, ripping through space at about 6 or 700 hundred earth miles a second, trust me kiddies, there is nothing on this earth that's going to stop that, except, ... our atmosphere. Take away our atmosphere, and we are literally a shooting gallery for space debris. Take a look at the moons surface sometime. Pretty crappy isn't it. There's a reason for that. No atmosphere, ... get it.

You know what I really love, are these people that can explain EVERY single picture with regards to some mathematical or scientific explanation. Stop it, would you please. You're embarrassing yourself. A shadow is a shadow my friend. It's created by one of the biggest light sources in the universe!!! The UNIVERSE!!! You can't have a handful of objects with shadows pointing in different directions without having multiple light sources!!!! Stop it would you please!!! All you're doing is contributing to the gullibility of man. And you people are buying it!!! Lock, stock, and barrel!! It's pathetic!!! You guys trying to explain this obvious natural occurrence away, is just down right degrading to the common man. So basically what you're telling me is, a shadow is not really a shadow. You're going to try and dispute my 6th grade science teacher, right? Please, stop the mockery. You people can get as much data as possible, and it STILL doesn't prove a damn thing. FBI training goes over false evidence and real evidence, that's a MAJOR part of there training. And there is false evidence that is so life like, you wouldn't know it was false if you had every microscope or Photoshop program in existence, so just stop!

You're wondering how our leaders could pull off such a task? Are you serious? Back then (even TODAY!), if you got threatened by a higher power governmentally, especially how secluded our society was communication and information wise, you wouldn't even THINK of crossing that power for one split second. Everyone is up on there high horses today simply because they THINK they are commanders and chiefs of information (and that information actually means something) simply because they have cable and the internet. You, people, know, nothing. You are told and shown, what you are offered. And if anyone has had communications training in any way-shape-or form, you'll know that 95% of what you see on television, is bull@#$@!!! And let me tell ya, if the government DID come knocking on YOUR door, you'd buckle like a cheap accordion. And do you know why? Because THAT is the PRESSURE that can be applied. To take someone's freedom away. That's pretty powerful pressure my friends. Stick you in a whole somewhere out in the middle of the Mohave Desert, trust me, you'll do EXACTLY and think EXACTLY what that person wants you to think.

We are simply pawns informationally, being moved casually around the board. Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You will believe what you want to believe. Perspective is everything my friends. What you choose to believe can EASILY be manipulated, if you simply choose, ... to believe. That's the power in-and-of-itself. I bet you people are a great audience when it comes to card tricks. And I bet you actually believe you got a deal when you walked off that car lot, HAHAAHAH!!!! Do me a favor, give me your address, because I want to send you some literature on a bridge I have for sale in San Francisco. Trust me, I've had it in my family for generations and I just can't continue to manage it anymore. Believe me, you'll make your money back at the toll booths.

And no, I am not simply being paranoid. No, I don't believe everything is a conspiracy. No, our government isn't plotting against us. Actually, I believe in just the opposite. I believe that our government actually is on our side, and is doing what it can to protect our freedoms and protect our way of life. And I love this country! But I also believe, in the gullibility of mankind. Again, everything is perspective. How you look at something is what magician's make there living at. Size doesn't matter necessarily in the trick. A trick, is a trick, is a trick.

I wrote this simply because I just couldn't sit here and continue to read how people were explaining away these pictures as if this actually happened. If you really want to look into this, don't look at these pictures just yet. First REALLY investigate our atmosphere, Outer Space, the sun, meteors, gravitational pull, and a host of other scientific actual FACTS. Do some research. Don't be like the typical observer, who simply looks at a drawing and says it's so. Don't do that. Do your research, and THEN look at the pictures. Do THAT! Actually take the time to do that, and you'll see the hoax. It'll be so obvious, you'll just start to laugh at how obvious it really is.

45thronin

Well, i doubt i'm going to reply to everything in this extremely long post, i'm just going to "point out the obvious"...

Have you ever weighed the evidence that we HAVE landed on the moon against the "evidence" that we haven't? It's funny how people completely forget all the advancements we've made and just concentrate on these little hic-ups...


"Scholars" being used how, exactly? Do you know how many books and websites have been created that "prove" elvis is still alive? I still have yet to see a credible scientific mind refute the moon landing. Mainly because, as said many times before, they have better things to do with their time...


Was there supposed to be some sort of original thought in there? Just because people may have had the capability, which still seems doubtful considering the technology back in the day, it automatically means they wanted to lie to us? Any idea how many times in history we've been embarrased by other countries? You think the US would create such a huge lie to save face?


Wow, how many times did i count "kiddies" in that paragraph? Do you have any idea how many UN-manned space craft have easily made it oustide our atmosphere, undamaged? Severly weak "no way" argument.... kiddy


What's more pathetic, people that have to EXPLAIN pictures to the theorists, or the theorists that keep pulling out these pictures pointing out the littlest discrepancies? Do you see the irony here?


Credibility - 1. There are millions, maybe BILLIONS of stars out there bigger than our sun. Nice try though.


See previous posts, and physics books....


Credibility - 1. Notice how you condemn everyone for listening to scientists or authorities in general, then start preaching about what you think other people should believe.


Credibility - 3 (you get negative bonus points for insulting everyone with a logical/scientific mind).


.........i really have nothing to say, the contradictions are suffocating me


Well, it seems you've taken the time to read about every scientific book you can... from the conspiracy theorists' side, anyway. Have you talked to astronomers? Of course not, you automatically have a presupposition that they're lying. Have you read scholarly journals? Of course not, they're from the "lying" scientific, peer reviewed community. Have you done research outside independent websites and poorly produced conspiracy videos?

I love how you state that "you're not telling people what to believe", then haul off and call everyone morons for not seeing it your way. I love even more the number of times you've contradicted yourself in your own post. So why do you trust one side's "facts" regarding space more than the other sides' "facts"? You explained absolutely nothing regarding the plausibilty (or lack there-of), and merely berrated all those that think logically with the information available. So, what's next, we shouldn't believe that there's a war in iraq? That can be faked, especially with all the "awesome" points you've brought up.

Bravo, very mature post. I wonder if anyone (including darthy) would take this post seriously.

***The preceding passage was written in a tone i felt appropriate for the person in question****

And to Darthy: Can you please post the entire pic of the astronaut in the first set? There's really not enough material to conclude where the sun is in relation to the lander.

Wow those of you whom do not believe that man landed on the moon have put a lot of
thought into your comments. Oddly enough, more so than even those who believe it to be true.
Misspent energy. IMHO
But then again this is a debate. ;)

Personally I do not wish to become involved in this discussion.
I've niether the time nor the energy.

I will say though that my Dad was involved behind the scenes
of the space program at one time. I will not go into details.

And his life was not a lie and never will be.
It is something that I have always been proud of.
And I refuse to believe any different.

To Heretic Monkey and Scarlett,

Monkey, I was sitting here compiling a response, but I decided why bother. As I stand on my statement regarding the gullibility of mankind. You are obviously one of those individuals. With that, your bitterness is well taken. If your goal was to insult me or discredit my statement, bravo. I applaud your composition. But MY post wasn't to mock or portray people or to belittle them as you did me. I have nothing to gain with my statements. But, then again, it doesn't shock me, as I expected someone to respond in this tone as you did, and probably will do again.

We did not go to the moon, I know this. Your attack on me neither deminisihes this truth, no qualifies your tone. And to Scarlett, I don't doubt you had someone who had first hand knowledge of this project. But there was a big window of opportunity that was taken once the astronauts got into space (Not Outer Space mind you). From there, anything could have been manipulated because of the lack of technology to track the entire mission, which it was I believe.

But that doesn't take away from the efforts and commitment that the men and woman had regarding there efforts to go to the moon. Show me a picture of the flags that were left on the moon, or the LIMS launch pads, or the Rovers, and I'll totally change my toon. Convince me the astronauts could have survived out of our atmosphere, got through the Van Allen Radiation Belt without not only experiencing severe radiation to themselves but to their equipment, and I'll agree it happened without hesitation. And my statements were NOT to take away from the talented men and women at NASA. Again, I only commented on this debate because of the knowledge (be it limited, I'm sure not even close to Monkey's intellect on the subject), that I have with our atmosphere and space (not Outer Space), and some brief research I've done regarding the Sun's radiation. I don't expect you to believe me Monkey, and honestly I don't care if you do. I wasn't trying to jam anything down anyone's throat. I was simply stating my opinion while explaining that it was not my goal to convince anyone. If you want to turn that around and manipulate my words, have fun. I'm sure you have much experience with this in some odd way, and probably enjoy doing that.

But, my words are not meant to discredit you or attack you in any way. It's unfortunate that this forum is here for that reason. I was unfortunately under the assumption that views could be expressed here and be debated. But there is a distinct difference between debating and debasing.

Thanks for letting me use your forum to express my views. I'll think twice next time.

45thronin

Wow I wonder what they're gonna say when we find out this mid east war we're watching on the news this month was all contrived by the sponsors to keep us watching. Just like the whole world did during the MULTIPLE moon landings. The only thing fake here is Kofi Annon ( Oopps ,for another topic)

No, sad to say that that war is real. How it was started and why we are fighting it, that's an entirely different discussion. One that unfortunately you, nor from what I can tell, anyone else that visits this forum could grasp even with the finest of instruments.

Then, fromt he most previous post:

So you really expect me, and everyone else that supports NASA (the REAL nasa, not your interpretation) to believe that you weren't insulting and belittling those that believe and gain information from the moon landing? Are you serious? I really hate to make this a personal attack, but i merely responded to your first post the way your tone made you out to be. If you'd like to read other posts of the forum, you'd realize that i usually don't take posts personally.


If it's a set-in-stone truth, you should be able to prove it, correct? You've done nothing but repeat arguments that have already been discussed and overturned. The "deadly radiation" was taken care of quite a few posts back.

Your post neither SUPPORTS the "truth", nor provides any reasonable evidence for said "fact".

As for the "attack" and the "tone", once again, it was directed at you due to your mockery of those that support the landing.


Read through the first pages of this thread, and you will find your answer.

*EDIT*: I got bored, so i did the work for you:
Van Allen Belts (Credit goes to Yano: Post 59)
Clavius' Belt Explanation (from: Clavius) (Credit goes to Ronbo: Post 43)
Now, whether you actually read websites/information that doesn't support your view isn't up to me, but hopefully you'll take a look.

I would gladly believe your claims if they were backed up with credible sources. However, none are present, and you still have yet to post any REAL information.


See above quotes at the beginning of this post.

There's a HUGE difference between presenting your views and criticizing the opinions of others. There's no way that guilt trip you tried to pull will work on me. Your entire first post was made for the sole purpose of pointing out the "folly" of those that support the landing, and to belittle those that follow the evidence. In no way did your first post present anything objectively. Because of your mocking tone throughout the first post, i replied in kind. If you took offense to it, try viewing your post from the perspective of someone that has the opposite view of you. "Kiddies"? "Gullible"? The idea is "laughable"?

Please, if you find information and data from credible sources that support your claims, you're welcomed to post them. Until then, your credibility is still around -6 (for me, anyway).

***I would've gladly taken this to a personal message. However, i wanted to make sure you wouldn't speak the same way 45th did in his first post again. As i've said before, the only reason there was a tone in my first post was to match his. I also wanted to make public the clear contradictions regarding his attitude towards supporters of the landing***

Monkey,

Obviously you have a personal vendetta against me, so be it. You will believe what you will believe. Nothing I can say will sway you from that. But if you expect me to admit to something that I believe didn't happen, just because you rip apart everything I say and belittle me in the process, just to impress your readers, you will have no qualification here.

I know people that were in the military that have shown me pictures of events, that if I were to describe them to you, you wouldn't believe in your wildest dreams. But for me to have to qualify every single piece of evidence, especially to a person that is ripping apart everything I am saying while laughing in my face the entire time, I would be setting myself up to be humiliated. No thanks. It's your forum. You win. Uncle. Happy?

Had you simply asked me about things that I said, instead of directly attacking me, I would have been more inclined to engage you. Who knows, you might have been able to REALLY made me look like a bigger ass then what you've already done. You are a marksman with your spite. I was very passionate when I wrote my original post, and if it came across as bitter or spiteful, or as if I was picking on those that DO believe, then my humblest apologies to those individuals. I think they are o.k. though. It is o.k. for THEM to speak up if they were that hurt or humiliated, as you did to me.

You have a wonderful knack for taking apart something someone says, and crafting it to your liking. I have a distinct impression regarding your character. Debating with you would not be my first choice, as a good debate is when each side is heard and "debated", not argued or demoralized. Big difference.

Am I a scholar of the NASA Moon walk? No. Do I have all the answers? No. But it seems that you do. It seems that you believe, so therefore because you believe so passionately, I should just give up on my belief and say, "Oh, I should believe the government, simply because, why would they have any reason to fabricate such a lie." But there are explanations that as far as I'm concerned, CAN'T be explained. And as I stated in one of my posts, show me a picture of actual proof that we were on the moon, and I'll be a believer as you are so passionately. Show me a picture of the LIMS landing gear. Show me a picture of the three flags that are supposedly on the moon. Let's forget all the scientific crap and get down to the real issue here. We have telescopes that can see into the vastness of space. Looking at the surface of the moon shouldn't be a problem. So someone, ANYONE, please show me what we left back on the moon. After all, I'm sure it's still there, no? The foot prints, the Rover, anything!

For me to qualify my efforts with pictures or debates regarding scientific facts, would again, be setting myself up. And you obviously have an addiction with quoting what I say and tearing it apart. You can put 10 scientists in a room and come out with several different theories regarding what happened. Blah, blah, blah. Let's just chuck all that away, as at this point, it is all moot. Let's just make believe for a second. Let's make believe that I never interacted with you and we don't have this bad charma between the two of us. Here's my question to you. Your so hot on evidence, qualify it yourself. Show me evidence (which is supposedly still there), that we landed on the moon. Show me a picture of the equipment that was left behind. Show me that evidence, and I will believe every, single, word, you, say. That goes for any believer of this NASA mission, all sarcasm aside (for Monkey's sake, so he doesn't attack me again, which he probably will anyway). I am simply asking for evidence that we DID walk on the moon. Honestly, no bull. If there are so many passionate believers, then maybe 'I' am the one that is wrong. Unlike Monkey, I can admit when I'm wrong. I am not driven by my pride. I am a passionate person, but can concede when I've found my perspective was askew. I am honestly asking all those that DO believe that this event happened, please don't preach scientific facts, please, honestly, show me pictures of the equipment that was left behind. I honestly want to see it. Because short of that, nothing you say can convince me that this Moon Walk took place. The flight did! Absolutely. But I believe and it is my contention, that this Moon walk ... never happened.

45thronin

Just in case anyone is interested.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._moon_walk.html

Thank you for the link Scarlett, I appreciate that. I have seen that before. Unfortunately that just doesn't do it for me. One of the biggest problems I've always had with pictures and video from the Moon Walk, was I never saw panned pictures or video. That's always been a question for me.

If I was going to the moon, call me crazy (as I'm sure Monkey will), but I would want as much footage of that place as humanly possible. From every angle, every bend, every dip, panning, tripod, everything! But oddly enough, most of the shots, look the same. Honestly, that's what I see, I'm not trying to be difficult. I've been to the Nasa site and looked at the pictures over and over. Let's keep away from the scientific aspect of this, as I will be over run with scientific facts from Monkey who must teach this stuff on the weekends at some Community College. I'm honestly just looking at this purely from a spectator's position. Seriously, no condescension what-so-ever. If I was going to go to the moon, and I had my camera AND video. Why not take shots from every angle, top to bottom?

Also, I honestly do have a problem with the shadows going in different directions. You can line up the directions of the shadows in many of the pictures, and triangulate different positions the light source would be coming from. I have a photography background so understand film exposure, etc. Why is that? And yes, I do realize that the sun is not the biggest light source in the Universe, I meant to say our solar system (for Monkey's sake).

Also, I must say, that the pictures that they took, are for the lack of a better description, ... perfect. I mean, lighting, composition, shadowing, exposure, everything! Now, I've shot with some pretty ancient equipment and find it VERY difficult to get a great shot with equipment from the same era as when they supposedly went to the moon. I have to tell you, even when you ARE looking through the lens, it takes quite a cameraman to get the shots that these guys got. AND got without looking through the lens!!! Nice shooting!!! That's pretty darn good!!

One last point. There was some footage of the capsule launching off of the moons surface. Question: How did we get that shot? If the capsule launched back to earth, then how do we have that footage? It would be left behind, yes?
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-8518
I understand the Rover took the footage, but here's a question. How did the Rover know when to pan up? And, again, how did WE get the footage? Wireless? No such thing back then for video. ALSO, how come there was no thruster blast from the engines? It just looks like fireworks going off when it launches, and also looks like something is pulling it upwards because it kind of rocks side to side as it lifts up. When something launches, it doesn't wobble like this does. Wobbling would demonstrate an inconsistancy with the engine's firing.

Honestly Scarlett, maybe you can help me understand this, because maybe I am incorrect regarding my position on this. Maybe I am looking into to this WAY too much. These are the types of questions that no television show pumped into my head. These are legetimate questions I have. I honestly would like your opinion.

Ok all this is probably more than you wanted to know but, I thought I would
throw it out there anyway.

Apollo Experience Report - Simulation of Manned Space Flight for Crew Training
Technical Note TN D-7112, March 1973
by C.H. Woodling
PDF Doc: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...NASATND7112.pdf





Apollo 11 Video Library



Apollo 11 Mission Reports

Apollo 11 Mission Report (5.7 Mb)
PDF Doc: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...ssionReport.pdf

Apollo 11 Mission Operations Report (12 Mb)
PDF Doc: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...ionOpReport.pdf



http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/geoscience/a...Lunar_Rover.jpg




Now a gentle mod reminder:
Please let's play nice.
What do ya say?

For you Scarlett, I will definitely play nice. No problem.

Thank you much for the links and info. I like the picture of the Rover, however the lack of stars in the background just don't make any sense to me. I understand what the user before was describing regarding the glare from the moons surface, but if you really look at that backdrop, there literally are no stars. No matter what kind of glare you have, as I know my photography, you will see at the very least a handful of stars. If you really think about it, that's got to be some kind of glare, no? And, if the glare was really that bad, why is the picture so clear everywhere else?

There is no atmosphere on the moon. There is nothing to hide the stars on the moon. No sunny sky, no clouds, no smog, nothing. Clear, open, space. To not see at least a handful of stars seems a bit odd, don't you think? I mean, I can understand glare distorting the picture, sure. But at the very least, you would see something at the top portion of the picture where there is less glare. In that environment, with hundreds upon hundreds of bright stars glaring in that type of open-ended skyline, not one handful of stars? I'm sorry, but I just can't believe this was taken on the moon. From a photography standpoint, it just doesn't jive.

Plus, if you look at the tires, there are no tracks. Look at the front left tire. You clearly see a foot print in back of the tire. But there are absolutely no tire tracks in the front or rear of the tire. Actually, there are no tire tracks anywhere to be seen! So, my question is, how did it get in this shot? And again, nice shot!!! With such an antiquated camera from today's standards, that's one hell of a shot!! Again, lighting, composition, exposure, ... perfect!

If someone could please be so kind as to tell me why there are no tire tracks, but clearly foot prints in the back of the tire, clearly showing that the dirt is soft enough to actually show a tire track had one been made, where are the tire tracks? Can someone explain that to me please? Again, not being sarcastic here, I'm honestly curious if someone out there (and it seems like there are tons of people who seem to be up on there science) can explain to me why there are clearly no stars OR tire tracks.

I took a digital picture of the night sky and clearly saw stars, without hesitation with city lights and all helping to distort my view. And I doubt my cheesy little digital camera is better than there multi-thousand dollar 35mm camera. So, again, where are the stars?

Again my sweet Scarlett, I promise to play nice.

45thronin

Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_l...oax_accusations

Hey Scarlett,

Great link! I loved it. Interesting perspectives on many of the issues brought up. However, again without being technical here, I still would love to know in the link you supplied to the rover supposedly on the moon, why there are no tire tracks in front of or in back of the front left tire (driver side). And yet, there is visibly a foot print in the back of the tire, showing the dirt would be soft enough to show a tire track had one been made.

Also, the lack of stars. I have a very big problem with this. I'm sorry, but outter space just isn't that black. It actually is blueish depending on the light. Nothing is totally void of color in space, except a black hole. So, again, why isn't there any indication what-so-ever, even with magnification, of there being any sign of star activity.

Those are the two questions I have about that shot. The other question was to why we have footage of the Lunar Pod taking off from the moon. How we got that footage, and how the Rover new when to pan up as the pod took off.

Unless someone can provide me with images of the equipment and flags left on the moon, I don't care WHAT scientific explanations people come up with. I can't remember, but there is a country that has a telescope large enough and has begun mapping the moon, section by section. Close enough to see rocks, so easily enough to see the American Flag, Rover, etc. One of their goals is to look for ANY evidence of the lunar landing. I bet you they come up with nothing! And I'd LOVE to hear NASA talk themselves out of THAT one! That's going to be a very interesting day my friends (nothing sarcastic meant by that 'friends' comment Monkey).

So, as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on NASA's shoulders. The unfortunate thing for them, is one day someone is going to prove them wrong. And then what? There are going to be some pretty pissed off people.

:-)
45thronin

Hi there, me again. Mind if i pick apart your post again? It's so fun

"Outter space just isn't that black"...... says who? Since when does a vacuum and emptiness have color? Where did you get the information that "nothing is totally void of color in space"?


I still have yet to see that photograph, so i can't comment.

The same way we had footage of the landing itself. We didn't have to wait for the magical spacemen to return to earth before viewing their landing, so that must mean they were broadcasting a signal, correct? Or, if you don't believe that, there's really no point in asking the question anyway.


Funny, you'd EASILY take any word of a foreign country that claimed they scanned the moon and found nothing over your own government. So why should their claims automatically be accepted while the us's is scrutinized beyond any reasonable point? This is coming after the "I believe the government knows what's best" statement from you a few posts back. Do you see the double standard here? Single claim from foreign land = undeniable truth, but video, pictures, information, personal memories, interviews, and the acceptance by millions of scientists in america = stupid conspiracy.......... right.......

Scarlett is handing you site after site, yet you continue to play the "pathetic believer" as you call it (from post 76):

You criticise the supporters for "trying to explain away" everything, when you continue to do the exact same thing. Hypocricy, anyone?


Somehow, i seriously doubt that if there were telescope images of the equipment left there, you'd start believing it. You've already said that:

..... yet you didn't agree that it happened, in the face of Van Allen himself. So if you were to see pictures of the equipment, would you agree then, or continue to make claims? You keep saying "If _____ is true, i'll admit!!", then completely blow it off. HOWEVER, you would automatically declare yourself triumphant if a foreign country claimed they performed a scan.... What kind of logic is in play here?

Hello 45thronin,

As to the stars not showing in in the moon shot pictures, that can be easily explained. When there is a lot of ambient light in the area it does prevent stars from being seen. There have been many times that I have been in a just a midsized city at night and could not see the stars due to the light around me. the same thing allies to cameras. Look at this picture from the International Space Station. It is a picture of Tropical Storm Chris. If you look above the curve of the earth you will also not see any stars due to the light reflecting off of the earth.

Tropical Storm Chris


I have also see the same effect on the space walk footage from space shuttle missions and from images from the space station.

Respectfully
Seafox14

Thanks for your comments Seafox14, much appreciated. As for Monkey, I give up. I'm tired of going round and round. I ask simple questions and all I get from you is consistant deliberate banter. If you were paying any attention to my last post, as Seafox14 was polite enough to comment on (again, thank you Seafox14), you will see that I'm just simply asking a question regarding one of the picture's Scarlett so kindly posted. Out of respect for Scarlett, I promised her I'd be nice. So, I'm going to keep my word, and be nice.

I give up. I don't care if we actually stepped on the moon or not, honestly. It seems as though there are more people that are willing to believe it and defend it unwaveringly, than there are people willing to at least give it the bennifit of the doubt and answer some simple questions. That is, aside from Seafox14 and Scarlett, again thank you both.

There is just one question I have for you Monkey, as I won't drone on therefore giving you less to peck away at. Regarding the picture Scarlett gave of the Rover sitting alone with the Moon's landscape in the background, I am wondering why there are no tire tracks anywhere to be seen around the Rover? Again, you can clearly see a foot print in back of the front left tire track, showing that the dirt is soft enough to show a tire track had one been made. So if there are no tire tracks, how did the Rover get to where it is now in that photo? Did they pick it up and place it there? How?

45thronin

I wouldn't consider it "banter", i'd consider it pointing out logical falacies in your hoax defense, and exposing your lack of honesty. I'm still not forgetting the trash you posted about supporters in your very first post, and the way you tried to bs your way out of it. I don't care what view you have of me, as long as i have my word.


*Bolded part mine*
How many "simple" questions have been answered NUMEROUS times already? How many sites have been posted that explain almost everything that has already been discussed? How many times are you going to ask these questions, and when are you going to realize that you're playing the same role as the picture of the "pathetic believer" you described in your very first post?

Question: Have you talked to the experts? Have you been to your observatory to see how the landing had impacted astronomers?


Uh oh, do i sense someone trying to pick away and explain every photo again? (*post #76)


I couldn't find the picture she posted on the official apollo xi mission site ( Image Gallery), but i did find it again on the JRBasset site posted below. Now, let's examine the most common scenario from both sides.

Scenario 1: The moon landing is actually a hoax, and they used a crane to place the lander there. It probably took a lot of effort for them to place the lander in that specific position WITH THE INTENT of not leaving tiretracks. The geniuses at NASA wouldn't notice that there are no tracks there, after their exhaustive effort of lightly placing the lander in frame, then they would release the photo exposing their fraud.

Scenario 2: The tires of the lander are a soft rubber, made for traction, and lightly inflated to aid in the gripping of any larger rocks they would have to drive near. This texture and underinflation, along w/ the low gravity, would result in there being very light, or almost no tracks in the dust. However, the heavy feet of the astronaut, walking on hardened rubber (i'm assuming, don't know the materials) soles would pack a print into the light layer of dust. For the argument of "the weight of the astronauts would cause tracks", how do you know they didn't push the rover out there, then snap a pic? They had to get it off the lander somehow.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...6-s72-37002.jpg There are pretty much no distinguishable tracks from this apollo 16 mission, even WITH the rover in motion.
As for apollo 11:
http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APRV23.JPG (faint hint of tracks there)
http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APRV22.JPG
http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APRV17.JPG
http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APRV25.JPG (tracks BARELY visible)
http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APRV20.JPG

However, i also found one where tracks are clearly visible:
http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APRv12.JPG

Actually, now that i look closer, how do you know that the print you're seeing ISN'T a tire track? If you look on the tires, the treads hold a striking similarity with those of the shoes of the astronauts (as seen by clear photos of footprints). So, another scenario is that it actually COULD be a tire track on a soft spot of dust. Have you seen other pictures of the rover with tiretracks?

I think it depends on the kind of surface the rover rolls over.

Also, as seen by this photo: http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APRV32.JPG , the dust was thick, but there was so much foot traffic in the area the tracks were covered up. Same as this photo: http://www.jrbassett.com/apollo/APRV15.JPG.

Then of course, there's always the option that the astronauts wanted a cleaner picture, so they smoothed out the track. This probably isn't LIKELY, but it definately isn't impossible, and there's always the chance they wanted the tracks out of the shot.

So, as you can see, there are actually NUMEROUS explanations besides the "They used a crane and carefully placed it there to take a freudulent (sp?) photo".

So, NASA, the ones that are able to "fool" billions of people, must have released a photo with a HUGE blow to their hoax that EVERYONE could see. Do you really think they would've handed over their extremely good hoax like that? That'd be like the area 51 supporters of the cover up showing a picture of an empty hanger with a UFO sticking out of the background.

Again, ronin, i really don't care WHAT picture you have of me. In the end, it's your hypocritical rants and illogical defense that i'm pointing out. Believe me, if you want me to be mean and heinous, i can step it up a notch This is really just basic criticism of your accusations and contradictions.

Oh, and i'm still expecting you to say that you admit that it happened. Remember, you said ...

... and it was proven that they COULD survive leaving the atmosphere and the slight dosage of the radiation. So are you going to completely blow off this entire post again, or face up to what you've said? Just like the observations of my previous post, i'm guessing you're going to ignore it, cover your eyes, and just tell me i'm not worth your time.

Blah-blah-blah Monkey, now your just acting like an a-s. And you only supported my point with not even being able to answer my question without being a jerk. It's sad though I must say, as you have points I would love to debate with you from your last comments, but unfortunately you did remind me of something I had forgotten when this got going. Something you are absolutely right about. You definitely are NOT worth my time.

Scarlett, to you I keep my promise.

45thronin

And yet you didn't answer my question? I posted exactly what you wanted me to post, which was an explanation (many, actually) to your question. Are you just using the "I don't like you so i don't have to face up to the evidence" to dodge the issue?


I'm only a "jerk" because you acted the same way in your very first post. Had you entered the discussion rationally without insulting everyone on the opposite side, i wouldn't be replying to you like i have been. Darthy was able to express her points and opinions in a very respectful manner, and even though she holds a different view than me, i did my best to return her tone in kind. You, however, created an entirely different first impression with THIS post. Hypocricy is disgusting thing, you know, and i LOVE to point it out to expose people for what they are.


However, examining and doubting every single little thing (a-la your definition of a "pathetic believer") IS worth your time? Gotten your priorities straight there bud?

Well, i guess i truly understand how your logic works now. It doesn't matter how much sense something makes. If you don't like it, you won't recognize it or take it into consideration.

I know i've been acting like a jerk, but i believe in the "eye for an eye" principle. I admit that i