The second biggest hoax of the last century

I’d just like to say a hearfelt thanks to Don for his civil, sensible and very understandable postings above.

They are exemplary.

I’m not a fan of locking threads, but I’d guess this one has gone about as far as it has to go.

Moggy

Am I telling you that “something that falls on earth from 3 feet that takes half a second to hit the ground, will not take 3 seconds to hit the moon’s surface if dropped from 3 feet also”

Yes, that is what I am saying. On the Moon, from 3 feet it does not take 3 secs. It takes 1.1 secs.

You are still trying to multiply by six, just because Moon g is 1/6 roughly. Free fall acceleration does not work that way: that is what the equation shows.

Are we clear now? Do, please, try to follow the material. I am not having a go at you: I have gone to some effort to help.

ps Suggest you delete the duplicate post.

Clear War, it might have helped if you had tried to read the material. Free-fall from rest: means I am not saying he pushed. I am saying he just dropped.

It does not take .05 sec. Who told you that? Not me.

It takes 0.5 sec. I have been polite, taken pains to be clear, and there is no trick here. My data is correct, my calculation is correct. Weight has nothing to do with this.

You may not accept it, but you are wrong. You may not wish to understand it, but you are wrong.

It was not necessary to re quote my material: please delete it.

Nothing more to say.

Are you telling me “something that falls on earth from 3 feet that takes half a second to hit the ground, will not take 3 seconds to hit the moon’s surface if dropped from 3 feet also”

——————————————————————————–

EDIT: Clear War queried the result, including whether I meant the astronaut “pushed” and repeating the erroneous .05sec fall

Clear War, it might have helped if you had tried to read the material. Free-fall from rest: means I am not saying he pushed. I am saying he just dropped.

It does not take .05 sec. Who told you that? Not me.

It takes 0.5 sec. I have been polite, taken pains to be clear, and there is no trick here. My data is correct, my calculation is correct. Weight has nothing to do with this.

You may not accept it, but you are wrong. You may not wish to understand it, but you are wrong.

It was not necessary to re quote my material: please delete it.

I agree that it seems clear (although SSS-666 suggested otherwise) that he has no intention of forming a fresh view on his supposed “hoax”. He applies a different standard of proof to his own posts, and dismisses, ignores or abandons as “unimportant” all other rational references, even those independent of the Apollo programme.

Propositions abandoned
The trail of propositions abandoned by SSS-666 now includes

Those that SSS-666 raised himself, but now declares “not important”
[INDENT]Sand, no footprints in sand without water and air
Flag does not wave
Error of LM mass out by a factor of 1000[/INDENT]
Those that SSS-666 raised himself and silently abandoned after clear proof against:
[INDENT]”Wires” lifting astronauts (LPSS telescopic aerial)
No dust, no crater from descent engine blast (dust and crater, both present and reported or photographed)
No heat transfer in a vacuum (ie suppose heat transfer can only occur by conduction and convection, ignoring radiation (which actually cuts both ways, thank God, thus cooling the CSM en route and (without checking) in suit cooling, both surface and via coil). If radiation did not transfer heat across the vacuum of space, this would be one dashed cold ball of ice.[/INDENT]
Basic physics
Gravity
“Newton’s laws do not apply on the Moon because of gravity”. Not so. See post to Clear War, above.

Temperature
Maximum surface temp on the moon, as on earth, is reached at local noon. SSS-666 is approximately right at 240-250C. The Apollo shots were selectively landed in the “early morning” on the moon – which has a much longer “day” than earth, giving milder temps (data not to hand) and the long shadows. He has not attempted to grapple with suit design, despite being pointed at a good reference for it, he prefers flat inaccurate denial.

Thrust
From his recent and earlier remarks about weight and thrust, it is apparent that SSS-666 is of the view that thrust must be equal to or greater than mass in order to make a lunar landing. This is not so. The LM weighed 33,200lbs and the throttle-able descent engine, produced a maximum thrust of 9,800 lbs. A parallel on earth: The Saturn V at launch weighed approx 6.3 million lbs. The 1st stage S -1C engines developed 7.5 million lbs thrust: for take-off and acceleration in 1g to near escape velocity. The thrust/weight/velocity equation for landing from lunar orbit in 0.17g (sic – I rounded down to 0.16g previously, in error) is markedly different. He is also ignorant of thee fact that eg the CSM engine was restartable.

Volumes
SSS-666 has great difficulties not only with weights, but also with volumes. On the LM, he is convinced it is too small for two (let alone the three in Apollo 13 emergency) he says
“DR Who. His “Time Machine” was a British style phone booth, measuring about 6 feet on each side. But inside of this 6×6 thing [snip] …the inside of the LM, and it is roughly 6×6 foot.”
That is, SSS-666 believes that the “Tardis” and the LM are effectively the same size.

A simple check can readily be done if SSS-666 has the energy. Pick any Tardis still image with people, online. There’ll be scads. The phone box may be 6+feet high, but its base is about three feet by three feet. Fact: not six by six. The resulting difference for area and volume is profound: its a factor of four. So, SSS-666 is utterly wrong for the Dr’s Tardis. Seemingly a small point…but he insists that the LM is also 6x6x6 and that we should compare the two.

By this point we can see the problem: SSS-666 cannot judge volumes by eye. Remedy: get four friends, about 6 feet high. Stand them at the corners of a square, 6 feet each side. Stand yourself in the middle. How many more people can fit in this space and work? Can two people in bulky suits move in this space?

One man can just “work” in a phone box 6x3x3. If we accept his approximation of the LM as 6 feet x 6 feet x 6 feet (its too big, but no matter) then we have a volume 6x6x6, four times greater than SSS-666 supposes. We must be able to fit at least two, and workably. In fact the LM is a cylinder, diameter 7 feet 8 inches, depth 42 inches. Cramped. Big enough. In the LM, the crew wore their suits, but without the PLSS, and for much of the time, without helmet. Check the photos. Check the post-mission briefing.

Light
For Apollo 11 its early morning on the Moon. The sun is at a low angle, but its bright. 7% reflective on average. And that’s just the average. Its so bright at the full Moon that you can see by it’s light on Earth, 380,000 km away. And then there’s the Earth. It’s albedo is 39% average – that’s even brighter. And it’s at what, 3rd quarter? So its going to be bright too, on the Moon. Very bright. So what is the source of light in the shade? a combination of lunar surface reflection, earth reflection and (very locally) the astronauts suits themselves. SSS-666 can believe it or not. There are the facts. Readily checkable.

Blue reflections
For starters, the LM windows were double paned, the inner pane coated with 58 layers of metal oxides to reduce infrared and ultraviolet, a roller shade and a glare shield. Polarized or not – not to hand. Optical coating then, as suggested by Grey Area. Interior cabin lighting: colour not to hand. The possibilities are: earth light, reflected moonlight (possibly including the horizon), reflection off the interior blinds, or interior light. Whatever it is, it helps SSS-666 not one jot. His LM mockup can’t in fact have blue reflections at all: it is supposedly secure from prying eyes in a vast darkened warehouse. Or does he want the roof open, and the main doors open? Not credible.

Onwards and upwards
On his latest batch of images, there is little if anything that hasn’t been dealt with already, though he flatly rejects all reasoned analysis.

On method
On his method overall, he complains that deductive reasoning doesn’t work here. Well, deductive reasoning is certainly dangerous if you start from a false premise. And on making assumptions, SSS-666 is pretty consistent. He makes assumptions about physics, geology and photography that have been shown to be simply wrong whether he denies it or not. Not to mention his assumptions and patronising remarks on the state of mind, motives, and expertise of readers. Data and independent references beyond his focus or understanding are dismissed, ignored, or sneered at. This brings us to a final point.

Tediously, SSS-666 started this whole sorry business with posts that made assumptions and sarcastic, sneering, patronising remarks. Most of his posts have carried the same dead weight – though they do not add to his argument. Yet he complains when the readers get a little impatient with his repeated rhetorical tricks, and hand a little back. Worse, there are hints in his latest posts that more than one “hand” is at work under the SSS-666 “handle”.

In the end, it makes no difference to SSS-666 – whether an answer is coolly rational, civil, gently humorous or ended with coin in kind, nothing is accepted at the same standard of proof as his own posts. In short, he never had any intention of accepting anything other than his poorly presented muddling, now largely confined to endless annotated photos, most without the least courtesy of even a recognisable filename. His intention is to post endless pictures, expecting to be endlessly spoon-fed with goodwill and good data, for him to dismiss with more rafts of pictures.

Well, it won’t do. He can post as much as he likes but it will not make him right. He can ignore all contrary evidence but that won’t make him right either. In the end, he cannot and will not win: the vast tide of history, charting the depths and triumphs of the human condition, will sweep this disappointing misconception away.

Conclusion
I’ve never been a fan of locking threads. But still less do I approve of uncivil posting, of which the anonymous SSS-666 has contributed more than his fair share. Other readers will know that in the past I have pursued bad board behaviour with considerable vigour.

And for the record, I am not in the slightest upset or angry. Disappointed, perhaps. But cool and detached to the last. Ther is little new in the dpeths and heights of the human condition, and nothing remarkable in SSS-666 method.

So I’d agree that it is now time to close this thread. SSS-666 has nothing new to say, and by his arguments and methods he stands discredited.

For JonathonF:
You have it pretty right, except to add that the rock shadows are not only further away and appear sharper: they are closer to the ground and are sharper.

SSS-666 can test this for himself. Pick a sunny afternoon. Stand out in the street next to a tall object (lamp-post, parking sign). Observe a) your shadow, from the feet up. b) the pole’s shadow from the base up.
Where are they sharp? Where are they fuzzy? What happens to the fuzziness with height?

On photographs, the shadow effect will depend on height above the ground. Higher equals fuzzier. However, it is also the case that an object close in front of the lens and unlit will produce a fuzzy-edged dark image. The photographers thumb is a classic example. How close to the lens this effect works depends on the focal length of the lens and the light falling on the object. Which is which? On the moon, it can be hard to tell, as the camera could be either fixed high on the chest mount or hand held.

It is certainly the case that images taken out of the LM windows include the thrusters in the field of view. Note: the attitude thrusters themselves, as opposed to their shadow on the ground. It is possible that instances of both may be present in the Apollo set. If SSS-666 doesn’t know this, he can readily check by more observant trawling through the two Apollo archives – particularly the Lunar Surface Journal, where many images have extended commentary. We could check this, but again SSS-666 has “lost” the image reference, even in the tooltip filename.

“Glow”: Clear War, assuming that the posted image is an original Apollo 11 photo (hard to be certain without a file reference), what you are seeing is lens flare. Intense light sources produce this effect even with high quality coated optics. Well known to photographers of every level.

As for “no glow around the sun”, there are regular observations of the solar corona at various wavelengths. Frequently to be seen online, in Scientific American, and even in New Scientist. One way of achieving these is by an obscuring disc in the observing instrument, to cover the Solar disc, leaving only the corona to observe.

Without knowing exactly to what you are referring to, Clear War, it is difficult to add more. With respect, your references to books or information are mostly so difficult to understand, or so brief, as to defeat easy understanding.

Note, please: it is not necessary to quote the whole of a long post to reply to it. Simply cut and paste the bit you want and put ” ” around it.

With respect, if you are seriously interested in how this stuff works, find a local astronomical society and join it. Or get yourself on a tour of a working professional observatory. Or find some good magazines in the newsagent.

Part of the problem here is that hoax proponents lack basic physics and maths, expect simple explanations from other readers, but dismiss their information as “Pro-NASA”.

I’m not pro-NASA. I’m pro-data, pro-fact, pro-history, and pro-discovery. The “closed mind” here is that which slides away from established basic physics and calls its arguments “common sense”.

On the other hand, for me, any fellow (American, Australian or Russian) who volunteers to sit in a closed capsule, alone or with one or two or 6 mates, atop a 300-odd high set of tanks containing over 6 million pounds of kerosene, liquid oxygen and hydrogen waiting to ignite, is not a coward. He’s a brave man, setting out on a great adventure.

I had retired from this thread but cannot let good data stand misquoted and good method go misunderstood. As a gesture of good faith to Clear War, who without being impolite is clearly struggling with the physics and the maths, it may help to go over the mathematics in plain language.

The correct free-fall time formula is:
Fall time in secs = Square root of [(2x(Height of drop in metres))/(g in metres per second squared)]
If you dispute this, check the independent reference previously provided (see Equation 27)

Let us now check my calculation, using that formula, again applied in plain words. I’ll choose metric, and approximate 3 ft as 1 metre. You can substitute imperial if you wish. It will make practically no difference. You can check the values of g yourself, they are readily available. Try Wikipedia. or the source above.

Repeating the formula for clarity
Fall time in secs = Square root of [(2x(Height of drop in metres))/(g in metres per second squared)]

On Earth
Calculation for a 1 metre free-fall gives (working from the inside out)
Height = 1 metre,
Multiply by 2 = 2
1g on earth = 9.81 metres per sec squared
2 divided by 9.81 = 0.20387
Square root of 0.20387 = 0.45secs
Result comparison
You said (Post 216) “fallin from 3 feet would hit the ground (on earth) at about 1.5 seconds” You could have checked this at home and seen the error for yourself – I did.
I said (Post 217): “approx 0.5 sec” Correct – though you misquoted me, above, as “.05 secs”.

On the moon
Height = 1 metre,
Multiply by 2 = 2
0.1654g on moon = 1.622 m/sec/sec
2 divided by 1.622 = 1.233
Square root of 1.233 = 1.1secs
Result comparison
You said (Post 216)
“6 or a little more than 6 seconds” Your result is plainly wrong, isn’t it?
“Armstrong hit the moon’s surface around 1 to 1.5 secs for his drop on the moon”….but your observation is about right
I said Post 217 “about 1.1 sec” (correct, and consistent with what you saw)

Summary
As I said originally, a 1 metre drop on earth takes 0.5 secs approx, and on the moon 1.1 secs. You were wrong in calculated Earth and Moon times, but your observation of Armstrong’s step is probably correct and consistent with the correct calculated result – from 1 metre he reaches the surface in 1.1 secs.

Explanation
As previously explained, the mistake that you are making is to think that acceleration is a simple multiplication (linear) function. Acceleration (g, for example) is in fact a power function: increase in speed (metres/sec) each and every second (ie metres per second per second: ie time squared). To resolve a power function you need its root: for secs squared you need the square root to get secs.

Also, this is a free-fall problem, with the bodies at rest to start with. A six fold difference in g does simply does not result in a simple six-fold change in fall-time over this distance. Mass is also irrelevant. And for short distance drops (a book, say, or a golf ball, or a man), air resistance doesn’t count, either.

For lighter objects where air resistance is large, the situation is different, as it is for horizontal motion. For example, with horizontal speed on the moon, if we do the golf-ball experiment, given the same muscle power applied to the hit, lack of air resistance will come into play – resulting in a higher average speed. The lower gravity should also result in a longer flight. Likewise for a powered vehicle: lower gravity allows the same car to travel faster on the Moon, not least up hill. At some point, lack of air resistance might also be an influence, though whether the Rover could reach speeds on Earth or the Moon where this would be measurable I have no data.

I do not know how well this relates to your Encyclopaedia reference. I am only saying that in thinking about speed, you must understand acceleration from rest, and how that differs in free-fall (g only operating) vs surface motion.

In conclusion
To repeat, you are wrong in your thinking about gravity and fall-times on the moon. What you saw is consistent with lunar gravity, and with my calculations.

If you are still puzzled, pm me. Please use clear simple language and keep it short. I’m only an old retired fellow, and I do not tolerate personal abuse.

Newtonian footnote
This also points to a fundamental error in the recent propositions of SSS-666: that “Newton’s laws do not apply on the Moon because of gravity”. This is unutterably wrong. Any physics reference will tell him so. The applicability of Newtonian physics for Earth and Moon alike is shown, pristine and undeniable, by the Moon’s vast cover of craters and its serene ageless orbit of the Earth. And by these calculations, matching lunar observation. SSS-666 can ignore it, deny it, or claim that it doesn’t matter after all, but he is totally, irretrievably wrong.

A I don’t know that much about what I’m about to talk about but, from what I’ve read by those NASA/PRO-NASA Supporters, they’ve ALL said that there can NOT be a GLOW around the sun in space, they’ve said that is caused by the atmousphere. 1. Can someone explain why there seems to be a glow?????????? 2. Who’s this picture of coming out of the LM?, From what I’ve read Buzz was the first one out, and the famous picture of him coimng out of the LM was “supposedly” taken by the LM’s Camera, this picture is from a different angle, and it’s not by the LM’s camera, also if you look closely why is there different light sourse lighting his top half of his suit when you can see the sun is in front of the LM? One more thing, the picture with the sun also “contradicts” NASA’s explaination when asked, “Why didn’t the astronauts take pictures of the sun?” NASA and people like you say, “because the picture would mess up.”

Despite it being a negative proposition, wherein the onus should be upon you to prove your case, I answered your “blue reflection” point with the possibility that it was a reflection of the lunar landscape. I used the reference of another debunk because it was clear in the images that the lunar landscape can appear blue, and because it explained how it was possible to have landscape features in pictures where one might not expect them to be caught.

Yet you have failed to reply to this possible explanation. Why is that?

I’ll also bite on your “fuzzy shadows” claim. See this page http://library.thinkquest.org/28160/english/diffraction/waves.html

That help at all? I’m no photographer, so I could be talking ******** here, but might it also not have something to do with the LM shadow being photographed “close-up”, whereas the rock’s shadow is further away from the lens and so appears to be sharper?

[edit] – this site http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov98/912136118.Ph.r.html

gives this explanation:

“Besides being the basis for imaging optics, pinhole optics explains many odd little things in the everyday world. For example, why are shadows on the ground so very sharp if the opaque object is near the ground, but the edges of the shadows are fuzzy whenever the object is far from the ground? Why is the shadow of a crawling bug so sharp, yet the shadow of a flying airplane is totally fuzzed-out? And during sunset, why don’t we see the sharp shadows of distant hills racing across the ground? It’s because that “fuzz” on the edge of the shadows is composed of overlapped sun images, all lined up along the shadow edges. The edges of opaque objects acts as “half of a pinhole”. The greater the distance between the object and its shadow, the larger the sun’s disk-image becomes, and so the band of “shadow fuzz” is also larger. The hill-shadows DO rush across the ground at sunset, but because their band of fuzz is so enormous, we only see an increasing darkness and we never see any motion. Look at the shadow of a chain-link fence. The shadow of the top of the fence is fuzzy, while the shadow of the bottom of the fence is not. It’s because of pinhole optics and sun-disk images. If the sun was a “dot,” all the shadows would be sharp, and in many ways the world would look like a very different place.”

Once again… can we PLEASE have some damned references for these pictures that you keep INSISTING on showing us, hoping that we’ll all fall for your twisted logic and insensible ramblings. You ahve shown time and time again that you havn’t the foggiest idea what you’re non about and have had your ‘arguments’ trashed by many people on here who deal with issues like those adressed as a JOB.

Please… admit defeat, lower your standard and give us sane people some peace and quiet yes? I hear theres a conspiracy involving the moon being made of cheese that you could jump at trying to prove.

Apparently Aliens lanted in the US a whiule back. Why dont you try and prove that that was all real- you’ll have more chance of convincing us of that that these. You actually do a dis-service to these hoax websites with your continual avoidance of the answers given to you by skilled professionals. A little while back you responded to several people who had taken time to refute your ‘evidence’ by asking whether there was an ‘ignore this person’ button. You continually don’t accept any evidence to the contrary from SEVERAL international organisations and instead rely on a few rubbishy websites- that have been scoured by the industry, comprehensively blowing all hoax theories out of the water.

Please… just give it up… please?

BARNOWL

Here we go, the first reply points out an insignificant error, but offers no challenge whatsoever.
And, yes, I should have said a few thousand kilos/pounds. That is just so trivial, and has no
baring on the “unused” exhaust fact.

Okay, I am being accused of ignoring some proofs about the legitimacy of the pics. I certainly
don’t remember which ones. So, here are just about all of the pics with anomalies. Lets make a
quick run through to refresh my memory. Just a quick mention that aside from passing
references, I have not used any pics that been discussed in the many Hoax web sites. All of these
pics are put forwards by me only.

Pics go from left to right and top row to the bottom.

– Pic 1 Aldrin is kneeling to back down the ladder. The light source is directly opposite on
the other side of the LM. This is supposed to be the shady side. Yet, not only the entire “shady
side” is lit up so damn brightly, but also, some spots are reflecting a very bright light source.
That just can’t be possible without additional lights. The Yellow arrows at the bottom left are
reflecting directly from the light source and all those Red arrows are the brightest reflections of
the “other” light source(s). Conclusion, there are multiple light sources and reflectors.

– Pic 2 Same guy coming down, and same fakery. Same colour scheme plus Blue arrow is
pointing at the “Blue Sky” reflection. The sky is blue because the pic is faked.

– Pic 3 Just about everything in this pic has crisp shadow edges, except the LM. Probably
because the LM shadow was painted on.

– Pic 4 This exhaust nozzle was supposedly used to land a few thousand ton LM, and the fire
passing through it a few thousand degrees. Considering that I have yet to see one single Jet
exhaust that could remain even remotely intact after the first engine run, this exhaust has never
been used. Probably because it is attached to a dummy LM.

– Pic 5 Although there was a good attempt to disprove this pic, it was not convincing that the
Command Module would change orbit and go down a few thousand feet, before returning to a
higher orbit. Or, alternatively, the Landing Module moved to a higher orbit, before descending
back down to the surface. Keeping in mind that according to NASA there were only 60 second
of thrust remained in the LM before touch down. So it would be utterly illogical to fire up the
engine to go up, before going down. Therefore, this pic was a mistaken fake. I think the
Command Module mockup is superimposed on the Moon photo.

– Pic 6 There were hardly any challenge to this pic whatsoever. The red arrows point to the
crisp shadows and the yellow arrows point to the fuzzy LM shadow, again. As well, we can see
the LM has cast a shadow from about 100 Miles away, which essentially makes the LM as big as
the “Death Star”. “May the force be with you,” because this pic is such an obvious fake that it is
not even funny. Some idiot faked this pic while drunk.

– Pic 7 This pic has been used at other web sites to point out the Crosshair screw up. But, we
don’t. Because there are another screw up. The parallel lines show the direction, and the height,
of the light source. However, because the shadows are apparently drawn on the picture, the
shadow of the LM seems to be too short. As we see, the parallel line goes right through the LM,
where in fact the end of the LM antenna shadow should have been tens of feet further up.
If someone ids thinking about suggesting a dip on the ground, think again. The next pic shows
that the dip is minimal, and impossible to reduce the shadow length by almost half. As well, I
pointed out before, that the shadow of the landing strut mysteriously goes over the hose, or
whatever it is, instead of under it. A close up shows the hose/cable does not turn sideways to be
too thin to be seen. So, that theory is false. It appears the shadow, at the least, has been drawn by
hand.

-8 This pic accompanies the one before. It shows the hose without shadow distortion of the
last, so it essentially renders the idea of thin sideways shadow null. The red line shows the
direction and the height of the light source for comparison to the last pic.

There has been a few sarcastic replies, accompanied by whimsical photos. But no one has been
able to rebuff these claims.

Yet again you post without punctuation or paragraphs when you have been warned previously.

Do not do it again.

If you can post anything resembling sense you are welcome to try again, but please make it intelligible.

And just to clarify what everyone except you seems to know. 1/6 and 0.16 are approximately the same value.

Moggy
Moderator Well he made a mistake because if a 60 LB wieght drops from 3 feet at .05 seconds on earth then on the moon it would be 3 seconds, so did Armstrong take 3 seconds to land on the moon’s surface from the ladder he supposedly jumped from?, I didn’t think so, go back and watch it.

There has not been even one (1) single post even coming close to explaining why the window of the LM supposedly on the Moon, is blue. Not even one (1). As a matter of the fact, with the exception of the flag shadow, none of the anomalies I have put forth have been disproved, none whatsoever.

They most certainly have – by myself and by others.

You have, however, refused to accept it. While that’s your inalienable prerogative, it’s a far, far cry from indisputability.

Like Papa Lima, I tire of the dull headache caused by banging my head against this particular wall…….

I just can’t get someone who actually discusses a photo that seems to be faked, instead of sarcasm.

The images you allege to have been faked have been discussed here endlessly. As soon as you have an explanation you ignore it and post another picture that may or may not be a NASA original or a conspiracy loony’s Photoshop work with some fatuous “What’s wrong with this” comment.

Could be why people, including me, are losing interest.

Moggy

The other week I caught a bit of the film “Apollo 13″…in which the three astronauts take refuge in the LEM for their long flight back to earth.
If it was big enough for three guys, I would think oit would be big enough for two in suits.
Or…
Do you also believe the entire Apollo 13 flight never took place?
Did NASA stage the “emergency”?
If so why would they if the whole point of the program was supposed to be a PR piece about thge superiority of American technology?
Would they really write a story where a couple of bad wire connectors blow the whole mission and put lives in danger?
Just wondering.
If so, it’s unlike any PR I’ve ever heard of.
I’ll look forward to your answer.

I used to watch a British show called DR Who. His “Time Machine” was a British style phone
booth, measuring about 6 feet on each side. But inside of this 6×6 thing the dimensions were
about 100×100 feet, if not bigger. I wouldn’t go inside one of those booths expecting to enter an
alternate dimension, and I think neither should you.

So, watching a movie should not convince you of anything. I posted a photo of the inside of the
LM, and it is roughly 6×6 foot. In that space, there are equipments and control panels as well.
Then you got the 2 Astro guys outside of their suits supposedly flying the thing. Then they have
to get the suit and the backpack from wherever, put it on, and make sure it is sealed to withstand
the radiation of Space and the 250 degree heat of the surface. Lets remember that in every photo
provided by NASA, these guys are being helped by 2 or 3 “helpers” with donning their space
suits in practice.

As for the rest of your “good” post (thank you for being civilised), it has been asked before. I
don’t get into the philosophical questioning of this Hoax. Just one quick note that this thing was
done in the 60s. Back then the Flash Gordon “special effects” seemed pretty real. Today, we
laugh at it. “We” have become much more sophisticated, and obviously technologically more
advanced. The task of “saving face” in failing to do what an idiot president announced the US
would accomplish (which we still can’t) was enormous. There are thousands of photos, and of
those hundreds of anomalies.

I just can’t get someone who actually discusses a photo that seems to be faked, instead of
sarcasm.

Well, the argument about the flag still waving was disproved with simple physics…

Nobody has actually proved that the background was faked, either. Also, I showed you earlier how you can be in two different locations with different foregrounds yet have a damn near identical background in the distance. You can jump in a car and prove that one to yourself easily, provided you can find a straight stretch of road with some mountains a good bit off in the distance.

That’s a pretty good point right there.

The flag waving was not a major argument. Nevertheless, no one agreed on anything and it was
left as it were. Some of us believe a flag can keep on waving after the initial disturbance, as in
Newton’s law. However, we tend to overlook the fact that we are not talking about the Space.
Newton’s Law of motion does not apply to the flag because Moon HAS Gravity. But I guess I am
wasting my breath, again.

The background argument can not be disproved, regardless of any earthly, or heavenly,
examples. The same background was used in 2 different missions and in 2 different segments of
the same mission. That’s it.

However, the point of discussion here, for the time being, is the pics I have been attaching.
((( Why is the reflection on the LM Blue. Where the Blue sky in an Earthly phenomenon ??? )))

Here are a few interesting points, worthy of scrutiny. Keep in mind, these are not tangible arguments. Those will come later.

– The lander has a pressurised cabin volume of 235 cubic feet. That is about 6feet. Is there anybody out therethat would really believe 2 Astronauts with their pressurised suits and backpack could doanything but stand against the bulkheads immobile

The other week I caught a bit of the film “Apollo 13″…in which the three astronauts take refuge in the LEM for their long flight back to earth.
If it was big enough for three guys, I would think oit would be big enough for two in suits.
Or…
Do you also believe the entire Apollo 13 flight never took place?
Did NASA stage the “emergency”?
If so why would they if the whole point of the program was supposed to be a PR piece about thge superiority of American technology?
Would they really write a story where a couple of bad wire connectors blow the whole mission and put lives in danger?
Just wondering.
If so, it’s unlike any PR I’ve ever heard of.
I’ll look forward to your answer.

none of the anomalies I have put forth have been disproved, none
whatsoever.

Well, the argument about the flag still waving was disproved with simple physics…

The site never disproves the fact that the mountain backdrop was used for 2 different missions.

Nobody has actually proved that the background was faked, either. Also, I showed you earlier how you can be in two different locations with different foregrounds yet have a damn near identical background in the distance. You can jump in a car and prove that one to yourself easily, provided you can find a straight stretch of road with some mountains a good bit off in the distance.

Why would an organisation like NASA that can put people at least into orbit and operate Space Shuttles be sooo crap at faking photo’s then?

That’s a pretty good point right there.