• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
little grey rabbit said:
And assuming Apollo 11 descent stage was the same as Apollo 17 descent stage it would not cast that very long shadow.
Click to expand...
"Just when I thought you said the stupidest thing ever, you keep on talking."

Why is it that hoax believers are so much less observant of the world aroud them than the average person?
little grey rabbit said:
So in answer to the original question. Yes the photo is fake.
Click to expand...
You are manifestly unfamiliar not only with the Apollo record, but also with the most basic behavior of the Moon and, well, lighting in general. Any such object can cast a shadow from zero to infinite length, depending on the Sun angle.

Which changes when photographs are taken at times days or years apart. Any reasonably intelligent third-grader would already know this.

little grey rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because an engineer on the Earth timed the LRV camera to pan upward by anticipating the launch count, getting it right after trying it on two previous missions.

Of course, that would have taken you at least a minute to find out if you had actually bothered to try to learn something, rather than flout your ignorance.

little grey rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're raving. Please stay away from sharp objects and firearms. Back to the ignore list you go.
 
little grey rabbit said:
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?
Click to expand...


It's not squat. It's about 12 feet high.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg

The shadow reaches about half way to Little West Crater, which is about 150 feet away. The Sun was low to the west in the LRO photo. Do some trig and figure out low low it was.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
If the angle of the sun is low enough, it could be nearly as thin as your argument.
Click to expand...

It could be but it wasn't

I seem to have stumbled into some bizarre game. Someone wanted to know if the photo was fake and the answer is obviously it is.

Surely the question was supposed to be "Can you prove something that we know is fake really is fake?"

If that was the question, you should have phrased it thus.
 
little grey rabbit said:
My dear boy, if I ran around trying to clear up every little mess you clowns left, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day.

I make no apology for not paying much attention to the particulars of your fictions, just like I make no apology for not mastering Klingon. Although I understand their are some excellent dictionaries available these days.
Click to expand...


LOL

OK, I'll play along.

What is your principal piece of evidence showing that the Apollo missions were a hoax? You've obviously not looked at anything in much detail, as you've admitted.
 
little grey rabbit said:
It could be but it wasn't

I seem to have stumbled into some bizarre game. Someone wanted to know if the photo was fake and the answer is obviously it is.

Surely the question was supposed to be "Can you prove something that we know is fake really is fake?"

If that was the question, you should have phrased it thus.
Click to expand...

If you can't show it is fake, you don't know it is fake.

Believe != Knowledge.
 
[
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed off topic material

So you can't answer the question?

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

What is your principal piece of evidence showing that the Apollo missions were a hoax? You've obviously not looked at anything in much detail, as you've admitted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal attack


Prove you aren't by giving a serious answer to one of the many, many outstanding questions raised about your allegations. To choose the most current one, why specifically do you believe that a 12 foot structure couldn't cast a 150 foot shadow at a low sun angle? We all know that all you will do is handwave and come out with more mocking non sequiturs. Becasue you aren't interested in the actual content of any of the arguments, just that you be getting attention and (in your mind) engendering a swagful of negative emotions in other readers. What personal reasons you have for needing to do this is anyones guess.

Prove me wrong. Back up your assertion with anything other than mockery and tangential ranting. Why was the shadow impossible as you claim?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
matt.tansy said:
Non-explosive bolts.
Click to expand...

aren't all bolts non-explosive?

Edit: you are confusing me here. I thought explosive bolts were the secret ingredient that enable a Lunar Module to lift off from the surface yet still leave this lovely shadow casting structure intact. Presumably there was some local relaxation of Newton's third law.

Before you seem to be saying the secret to lift off was explosive bolts. Now they are non-explosive. Can I get clarification here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom