Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[little grey rabbit]

Oh! My! God!

The Google Moon images were from the landing in 1969. The LRO pictures were from this century.

Are you seriously suggesting the Moon doesn't rotate?

Edit: I nominated that quote for a Stundie.

The question was, is the photo fake. The answer must surely be beyond any doubt.

 

[BTMO]

So is Apollo 11 on the photo or not?

In the photo of me as a kid or the other one?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Which photo?

The one with the large white arrow on it which shows the shadow of Apollo 11 that isn't there.

Or something like that.

 

[matt.tansy]

The question was, is the photo fake. The answer must surely be beyond any doubt.

Because the shadows are on different sides of the craters?

 

[AdMan]

The one with the large white arrow on it which shows the shadow of Apollo 11 that isn't there.

Or something like that.

Something tells me you haven't quite thought this through...

 

[little grey rabbit]

Because the shadows are on different sides of the craters?

Its a fair point. But when I saw a photo which said Apollo 11 and a white blob with a thin black shadow. I immediately assumed that it was Apollo 11 and that was its shadow and this had been taken from the part of the mission that remained in orbit.
I was looking for a subtle mistake.

It never crossed my mind that Nasa would so stupid to put a shadow of something that disappeared from the surface 35 years previously. Not for the first time I have overestimated the intelligence of Hoaxsters.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic portion

 

[BTMO]

Jeeeee... sus.


(ETA: That was aimed at the post above yours, Roger)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It never crossed my mind that Nasa would so stupid to put a shadow of something that disappeared from the surface 35 years previously.

You haven't really looked into how the lunar lander actually worked, have you?

 

[matt.tansy]

Its a fair point. But when I saw a photo which said Apollo 11 and a white blob with a thin black shadow. I immediately assumed that it was Apollo 11 and that was its shadow and this had been taken from the part of the mission that remained in orbit.
I was looking for a subtle mistake.

It never crossed my mind that Nasa would so stupid to put a shadow of something that disappeared from the surface 35 years previously. Not for the first time I have overestimated the intelligence of Hoaxsters.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic material

The shadow is from the Descent Stage! You know, the part that remained on the Moon? Michael Collins took pictures of the landing site but the camera was not up to the task to resolve the LM. So you post a picture and didn't even recognize it came from the LRO. Classic!

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic material

 

[CptColumbo]

I suspect that you are refering to Magnificent Desolation, which has already been suggested and commented on previously.

Was it this one?

Probably.

 

[matt.tansy]

Notice how only the Ascent Stage lifts off? At pitch over you can see the Descent Module.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iziumcklDbM

 

[little grey rabbit]

The shadow is from the Descent Stage! You know, the part that remained on the Moon? Michael Collins took pictures of the landing site but the camera was not up to the task to resolve the LM. So you post a picture and didn't even recognize it came from the LRO. Classic!

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic material

I am always willing to learn. So would you have a photo of the descent stage so I can have an idea of what kind of shadow it would suppose to cast, because to my untrained eye there doesn't look there is much left over from this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5927_NASA.jpg

As I have learnt with my other Hoax, you need to fully master the material until you can understand its weaknesses. I doubt I will ever bother with Apollo but its a rainy day here and I feel disinclined to work.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic material

An to the original question: is this photo fake. Answer: still yes.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Notice how only the Ascent Stage lifts off? At pitch over you can see the Descent Module.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iziumcklDbM

And assuming Apollo 11 descent stage was the same as Apollo 17 descent stage it would not cast that very long shadow.

So in answer to the original question. Yes the photo is fake.

I am sure there will be an official answer to this, but I ask to find out what it is. Why on earth does the camera appear to be able to track the take-off of Apollo 17 from the Lunar surface.

Edit: it doesn't take much to move something off the lunar surface, does it? They can't even be bother to give it some kind of explosive force that might tear apart the socalled Descent Module. O brave new world, that has such people in it.

 

[matt.tansy]

I am always willing to learn. So would you have a photo of the descent stage so I can have an idea of what kind of shadow it would suppose to cast, because to my untrained eye there doesn't look there is much left over from this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5927_NASA.jpg

This thread at apollohoax.net shows a Lunar Lander simulation used to recreate the shadows seen by the LRO. It shows just the Descent Module.

 

[matt.tansy]

And assuming Apollo 11 descent stage was the same as Apollo 17 descent stage it would not cast that very long shadow.

So in answer to the original question. Yes the photo is fake.

I am sure there will be an official answer to this, but I ask to find out what it is. Why on earth does the camera appear to be able to track the take-off of Apollo 17 from the Lunar surface.

Of course, I am going to ask to see the math on your claim the shadow is too long.

The TV camera on the rover was remote-controlled by Mission Control.

Explosive bolts and guillotines were used to separate the modules. Overall, an Apollo/Saturn V rocket used over 400 explosive devices.

 

[Cavorite]

It never crossed my mind that Nasa would so stupid to put a shadow of something that disappeared from the surface 35 years previously. Not for the first time I have overestimated the intelligence of Hoaxsters.

Half of the LM was left on the surface at the end of the mission, only the top half took off. This fact is blatantly obvious in the Apollo 17 takeoff video. The captions to all of the LRO shots of the landing sites point out that they are imaging the descent stage that was left behind.

So have you ever done any research at all on any of your claims ? Given many of your nonsequitur responses from the last couple of pages I stand by my assessment of your motives in posting in this thread. You are a troll.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Half of the LM was left on the surface at the end of the mission, only the top half took off. This fact is blatantly obvious in the Apollo 17 takeoff video.

It is blatantly obvious that a squat frame like that won't cast a long thin shadow. If and I repeat IF the Apollo 11 is the same as Apollo 17.

If someone has something better, let them post it here. At the moment the answer to the original question remains: the photo is a fake.

Seriously, why ask these questions if you don't want to hear the answers?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

And assuming Apollo 11 descent stage was the same as Apollo 17 descent stage it would not cast that very long shadow.

How long do you calculate the shadow should have been, exactly?

So in answer to the original question. Yes the photo is fake.

I'm afraid that assertion lacks credibility without better evidence.

I am sure there will be an official answer to this, but I ask to find out what it is. Why on earth does the camera appear to be able to track the take-off of Apollo 17 from the Lunar surface.

Remote control.

Edit: it doesn't take much to move something off the lunar surface, does it? They can't even be bother to give it some kind of explosive force that might tear apart the socalled Descent Module. O brave new world, that has such people in it.

They did use explosive bolts to separate the two sections, but sadly weight limitations and the desire to avoid destroying the ascent module and killing its occupants limited the spectacle. I'm sure NASA regret that they couldn't put on more of a show for you.

 

[BTMO]

I am sure there will be an official answer to this, but I ask to find out what it is. Why on earth does the camera appear to be able to track the take-off of Apollo 17 from the Lunar surface.

Edit: it doesn't take much to move something off the lunar surface, does it? They can't even be bother to give it some kind of explosive force that might tear apart the socalled Descent Module. O brave new world, that has such people in it.

Gidney and Cloyd.

 

[BTMO]

It is blatantly obvious that a squat frame like that won't cast a long thin shadow. If and I repeat IF the Apollo 11 is the same as Apollo 17.

If someone has something better, let them post it here. At the moment the answer to the original question remains: the photo is a fake.

Seriously, why ask these questions if you don't want to hear the answers?

I am 183 cm tall. Sometimes, my shadow is about 2cm long, other times, it is closer to a kilometre.

I (clearly) have some weird-**** adaptive geometry happening, right? Or.....?