1
The Hoax Theory / Re: Lunar surface models
« Last post by AtomicDog on December 20, 2025, 06:18:50 PM »As I've said before, WHY would NASA proudly show the "props" that they used to fake the landings with?
Recent Posts
2
The Hoax Theory / Re: AI making debunking harder...
« Last post by Jason Thompson on December 18, 2025, 04:12:14 AM »Someone recently claimed, in that sneering 'of course it's fake, moron' way so many have, that the Apollo 15 lunar ascent TV was AI. Yes, people are now claiming that TV from the 70s was AI. We're doomed....
3
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by Jason Thompson on December 18, 2025, 03:52:36 AM »This is the sort of argument/question I see a fair bit from hoax believers when they're "just asking questions". It's as though if some task is objectively difficult to do while wearing a spacesuit, they can't conceive of engineers designing and testing the relevant equipment to make it easier for the astronauts to do that task while wearing a spacesuit.
Yes, they seem to be utterly unable to grasp the concept of integrated design programmes as part of the overall project. It's like they think they just went out a found a spacesuit to use rather than the reality of the spacesuit being designed specifically with the kind of tasks they would have to do on the Moon in mind, and the things they would have to use on the Moon taking into account the spacesuit in their design or modifications.
The simplest version of that argument is the old chestnut about spacesuits ballooning in a vacuum. The idea that this would render the suit completely useless for any kind of activity and would therefore be designed out by the simple expedient of adding a restraint layer (which they all have experience of in their life since many pneumatic and hydraulic systems, and even simple garden hoses, use restraint layers) just doesn't seem to occur.
So here we have another variation on a decades old theme.
4
The Hoax Theory / Re: Charlie Duke (Legend) meets Bart Sibrel (I have nothing polite to say)
« Last post by TimberWolfAu on December 17, 2025, 10:24:27 PM »Dave McKeegans two cents;
Our favorite (Great
) Monkey gets a mention too.
You're getting popular, first MCToon, now McKeegan's shouting your work out for people.
Our favorite (Great
) Monkey gets a mention too.You're getting popular, first MCToon, now McKeegan's shouting your work out for people.
5
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by Peter B on December 17, 2025, 03:20:55 PM »Not being on FB or ChatGP, I work with my hand behind me. But how does not being able to take gloves off prove that Apollo didn't happen?
The idea is that the astronauts had to be able to put on and remove their EVA gloves, but apparently, according to 'Rasa', you need a "bare hand" in order to utilise the locking ring.
His "proof"? A ChatGPT conversation. No docs, no examples, no videos of people trying to use the locking rings while wearing EVA gloves to show it couldn't happen, nope. Just a conversation with an AI that can be convinced the Earth is flat without too much difficulty. Colour me shocked, but I don't find that in the slight bit convincing.
This is the sort of argument/question I see a fair bit from hoax believers when they're "just asking questions". It's as though if some task is objectively difficult to do while wearing a spacesuit, they can't conceive of engineers designing and testing the relevant equipment to make it easier for the astronauts to do that task while wearing a spacesuit.
Hard for astronauts to adjust the settings on the camera? Put a large button and paddles onto the camera for their fat fingers.
Hard to aim the cameras without a viewfinder? Get the astronauts to practice using the camera.
6
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by TimberWolfAu on December 17, 2025, 08:57:34 AM »Not being on FB or ChatGP, I work with my hand behind me. But how does not being able to take gloves off prove that Apollo didn't happen?
The idea is that the astronauts had to be able to put on and remove their EVA gloves, but apparently, according to 'Rasa', you need a "bare hand" in order to utilise the locking ring.
His "proof"? A ChatGPT conversation. No docs, no examples, no videos of people trying to use the locking rings while wearing EVA gloves to show it couldn't happen, nope. Just a conversation with an AI that can be convinced the Earth is flat without too much difficulty. Colour me shocked, but I don't find that in the slight bit convincing.
7
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by bknight on December 17, 2025, 12:38:51 AM »In a similar vein, the worlds greatest quantum physicist, 'Rasaviharii', is currently crowing that he got ChatGPT to agree that Apollo didn't happen, because the astronauts couldn't take the gloves off, over on his FB group (where I'm currently suspended).Not being on FB or ChatGP, I work with my hand behind me. But how does not being able to take gloves off prove that Apollo didn't happen?
So now the high level of research performed by the worlds greatest quantum physicist is to prod ChatGPT until it says what he wants it too.
Maybe he should just stick to how shadows and triangles work.
8
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by TimberWolfAu on December 15, 2025, 09:51:18 PM »In a similar vein, the worlds greatest quantum physicist, 'Rasaviharii', is currently crowing that he got ChatGPT to agree that Apollo didn't happen, because the astronauts couldn't take the gloves off, over on his FB group (where I'm currently suspended).
So now the high level of research performed by the worlds greatest quantum physicist is to prod ChatGPT until it says what he wants it too.
Maybe he should just stick to how shadows and triangles work.
So now the high level of research performed by the worlds greatest quantum physicist is to prod ChatGPT until it says what he wants it too.
Maybe he should just stick to how shadows and triangles work.
9
The Reality of Apollo / Apollo 17 Blue marble and 16mm comparisons.
« Last post by onebigmonkey on December 13, 2025, 04:56:13 AM »Some HBs were making ridiculous claims about the S-IVB being used to take Apollo photographs, so I was looking through the archives for photos and footage of the empty stage that, for obvious reasons, can't possibly have been taken by the S-IVB!
While doing that I looked at magazine AA from Apollo 17
That magazine captures several shots of Earth. One set is a pan across the face of Earth just after transposition. Then there is a sequence of frames after the S-IVB has been discarded, followed by a longer sequence of the empty rocket part floating off into the distance. The final couple of frames of the magazine show another view of Earth.
Two things should have happened between that view of Earth immediately after extraction anf the final shot: Earth should have receded further into the distance, and there is a possibility that (if the time gap is long enough) there should be some rotation.
Here are the two frames superimposed:
So the Earth is definitely smaller. Here's a segment of the two sequences and the same area in the 'blue marble' shot.
There is a long strip of cloud that has moved between the two frames (left and centre) and the 70mm Hasselblad view shows the cloud nearer the edge than the first 16mm view.
It's also worth comparing that later 16mm view with a composite of frames from the transposition sequence.
The view is different again, because they've only just 'gone for TLI',
Add that to the long list of details in the blue marble photograph that proves it was taken exactly when and where it was claimed to taken.
While doing that I looked at magazine AA from Apollo 17
That magazine captures several shots of Earth. One set is a pan across the face of Earth just after transposition. Then there is a sequence of frames after the S-IVB has been discarded, followed by a longer sequence of the empty rocket part floating off into the distance. The final couple of frames of the magazine show another view of Earth.
Two things should have happened between that view of Earth immediately after extraction anf the final shot: Earth should have receded further into the distance, and there is a possibility that (if the time gap is long enough) there should be some rotation.
Here are the two frames superimposed:
So the Earth is definitely smaller. Here's a segment of the two sequences and the same area in the 'blue marble' shot.
There is a long strip of cloud that has moved between the two frames (left and centre) and the 70mm Hasselblad view shows the cloud nearer the edge than the first 16mm view.
It's also worth comparing that later 16mm view with a composite of frames from the transposition sequence.
The view is different again, because they've only just 'gone for TLI',
Add that to the long list of details in the blue marble photograph that proves it was taken exactly when and where it was claimed to taken.
10
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on December 10, 2025, 05:07:56 PM »The above Stellarium screenshot has been pointed out to the little doggy. He has dismissed it, because he has this idea that Stellarium references the horizon in the picture, not the true horizon. He's absolutely deluded in that, because all the scenery consists of is a png file. There's nothing in it for the software to reference other than it's location on the lunar surface. The figures it is quoting are from a datum. The standard issue of Stellarium (as I pointed out earlier) has the Apollo 17 site incorrectly plotted and it will still give the same values as the one in my corrected model.
He has never used the software, and has no idea how it works. Just to please him, however, here's exactly the same location and date with zero landscape.
He's also claimed that there are functions in the LRO's quickmap that can show the Earth in the lunar sky, and that it shows Earth at 70 degrees,
It does not. You can display an image of Earth with data describing its location, but it doesn't place it in the correct location.
Here's a snip from a recording I made of Taurus Littrow with the date set at the Apollo 17 EVA, and with the Earth showing. The elevation angle is blurry, but it is very definitely around 44 degrees. It's kind of ironic that straydog02 is putting such faith in the accuracy and fidelity of the LRO when elsewhere he's claiming it's all faked.
Fetch doggy, fetch.
He has never used the software, and has no idea how it works. Just to please him, however, here's exactly the same location and date with zero landscape.
He's also claimed that there are functions in the LRO's quickmap that can show the Earth in the lunar sky, and that it shows Earth at 70 degrees,
It does not. You can display an image of Earth with data describing its location, but it doesn't place it in the correct location.
Here's a snip from a recording I made of Taurus Littrow with the date set at the Apollo 17 EVA, and with the Earth showing. The elevation angle is blurry, but it is very definitely around 44 degrees. It's kind of ironic that straydog02 is putting such faith in the accuracy and fidelity of the LRO when elsewhere he's claiming it's all faked.
Fetch doggy, fetch.