NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?

[Chief]

I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Return to your recliner in your smoking jacket and stroke your long haired cat then. Your plans for world domination may not succeed, but I wait with baited breath for this whistle blowing publication you a going to present to the world.

You are a phoney, you have no clue what you are talking about and you lost. To coin a phrase "Suffer in your jocks".

[Romulus]

I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Your delusion is not proof.

I can prove every word I said about you. You are among the most dishonest and unethical people I have ever met. You haven't made a single post that did not include a provable lie. You do NOT answer to the evidence honestly, you misrepresent your opponents words, attack his character and ability and ooze of contempt for the American people that do not believe NASA. Not believing the governemnt is not unpatriotic or a character flaw, Mr Windley and you are a good example of exactly why. 45 years later NASA is still employing people to lie about something that should have been admitted to long ago. It is destroying our country to have our children seeing things like this and wondering.
THIS WILL NOT BE ONE OF THEM THINGS THAT EVER GETS ACCEPTED AS HISTORICAL FACT BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH EVIDENCE THAT IT DID NOT IN FACT HAPPEN,AND IT WILL NEVER BE PROVED THAT IT DID

[ka9q]

An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light

Funny you should say that, because the Mythbusters did in fact duplicate the supposedly impossible shadow angles in that very same photograph in their 2009 episode debunking moon hoax myths. They only had to recreate the appropriate surface shape.

The moon is by no means flat, even in the maria (the so-called 'seas' where five of the six Apollo missions landed). This is often not readily apparent unless you look at some of the many stereo pairs also taken by the lunar astronauts. And guess what? A highly uneven surface is exactly what you'd expect to find on a small, low gravity airless world without the effects of erosion by wind or water.

[Romulus]

An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light

Funny you should say that, because the Mythbusters did in fact duplicate the supposedly impossible shadow angles in that very same photograph in their 2009 episode debunking moon hoax myths. They only had to recreate the appropriate surface shape.

The moon is by no means flat, even in the maria (the so-called 'seas' where five of the six Apollo missions landed). This is often not readily apparent unless you look at some of the many stereo pairs also taken by the lunar astronauts. And guess what? A highly uneven surface is exactly what you'd expect to find on a small, low gravity airless world without the effects of erosion by wind or water.

The "mythbusters" experiment is not valid because it used an artificial light source 93 million miles closer to the objects than the sun. The shadows were skewed  the same for the same reason and they didn't illuminate from an angle per perpendicular to the cameras direction, IT IS RIDICULOUS TO CITE TWO HOLLYWOOD  SPECIAL EFFECTS EXPERTS TRAINED TO CREATE ILLUSIONS AS EVIDENCE. TYPICAL NASA BULLSHIT

There is enough evidence to prove you are all conspiring to conceal a multibillion dollar fraud and hoax.

[Romulus]

You are a phoney, you have no clue what you are talking about and you lost.

ROTFLMFAO!

Look at this thread and the other I posted here.  There is only one thing any of you actually discuss and that is me! This pattern is repeated over many years with many different people that are extremely qualified and have a high degree of integrity ,credibility and honesty. Have you noticed that none of you have this reputation with anyone? Just wondering.

[beedarko]

I will not be posting here any longer using this ID

Fixed it for you.

[JayUtah]

Funny you should say that, because the Mythbusters did in fact duplicate the supposedly impossible shadow angles in that very same photograph in their 2009 episode debunking moon hoax myths. They only had to recreate the appropriate surface shape.

I actually gave them two possible scenarios to test for that particular photo.  The one they chose to replicate is not the one I believe is the strongest explanation.  (I didn't tell them that, though.)  However, it's the one they felt they could most effectively implement.  And they reproduced the observation without cheating, which is the goal.

Conspiracy theorists don't understand how that works.  They think we have to pick one explanation and stick with it.  That's not the case.  When their affirmative claim is that it's impossible to produce the observations without elements of fakery, the rebuttal is not that there is exactly one way to produce it.  The rebuttal is that there may in fact be several ways in which they could be wrong.  We may never be able to determine which of all possible ways was the one in force, but the mere existence of at least one way to do it falsifies their claim.

[Chief]

Well, that seems to be the end of him.

Coffee anyone?

[Romulus]

I will not be posting here any longer using this ID

Fixed it for you.

I assure you, when I am finished kicking you in the nuts, i won't be back here. there is nothing to be proved beyond what I already have.

[onebigmonkey]

I will not be posting here any longer,

Excellent. Your pomposity was as annoying as your arrogance.

 I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did),

You came to forum full of people who defend the Apollo landings and people who defend the Apollo landings replied to your nonsense. Your powers are incredible.

if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint)

I described my methodology, you never bothered to dispute it.

and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint).

You were expected to produce the same old hoaxtard crap - you didn't disappoint - or surprise.

Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Once again: learn the difference between defending Apollo and supporting NASA.

In my opinion you've done nothing but post garbage from websites run by liars and fruadsters, You have trotted out the same party line as all the other hoaxtards out there. You have claimed expertise but not provided any support for it, so we can only assume that you lied about that - your superpowers extend only to copying, pasting, and swallowing whole.

I have nothing but loathing and contempt for people claiming Apollo was a lie behind the safety of their keyboard. Back to the swamp with you, you coward.

[Romulus]

Well, that seems to be the end of him.

Coffee anyone?

I wouldn't bet on THAT, cretin. This is"your house" as you put it, and I DON'T BELONG HERE for the same reason I don't belong at a gay pride parade . But I'll be around. And I will be there when NASA is exposed. And you will all be doing the same things you are now in the meantime, losing ground with every day that goes by .

[onebigmonkey]

Physicist Oleg Oleynik's detailed experiments involving parralax proving backgrounds in Apollo photographs is projected onto a screen using frontscreen projection:
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.390
[notice:Handwaving not allowed. If you can debunk this mans work, do so.Your say-so is not evidence, it is not appreciated,  and it is not desired here]

If you can prove his work, do so. Copying and pasting and simple "Because I say so" is not desired here.

In fact, if you can prove he is a physicist, do so. Once you've done that, you can prove how expertise in physics somehow qualifies him to discuss photography. His "work" has been discussed here, go forth and read it for opinions on how bad his research is. Clue: it mostly consists of made up numbers.

An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light  because if one shadow is perpindicular to the cameras field of veiw in the forground they all will be,  and in this case on is an another is not. The only explanation is that the light source is coming from the opposite direction that the shadow is projected. In this example is is very easy to see where the artifical light source is positioned. Notice the difference in my analysis and the "multiple light source" theories. I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

The only thing I will accept is experimental duplication, in other words a photograph taken with one shadow perpindicular to the cameras perspective and another at a 45 degree angle. NO HANDWAVING.It is simply not possible.  Granted, if the shadows (and light source) are much closer to parallel with the cameras field of veiw as in the example above that I have quoted, it is obvious the shadows will appear to converge, but never can. This is simply a matter of perspective, the same distance further away looks shorter.

You have never taken a photograph, and may well never have been outside. You can not spell perpendicular. A genius would be able to.

[sts60]

I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you hdidn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

I was hoping you would explain why you claimed those photographs on the first page were "totally undeveloped", but I guess that won't happen now.

Well, goodbye and good luck, then, but should you choose to come back and learn something, I would be happy to help.

BTW, I'm not Jay, Bob, or Phil, and although I am a NASA contractor, there is nothing in our Statement of Work about "representing NASA".  There's lots of stuff about systems and software engineering, performance measurement, quality management, design reviews, reporting, etc.  But nothing at all about arguing with people.  Sorry.

[Romulus]

You were expected to produce the same old hoaxtard crap - you didn't disappoint - or surprise.



In my opinion you've done nothing but post garbage from websites run by liars and fruadsters, You have trotted out the same party line as all the other hoaxtards out there. You have claimed expertise but not provided any support for it, so we can only assume that you lied about that - your superpowers extend only to copying, pasting, and swallowing whole.

I have nothing but loathing and contempt for people claiming Apollo was a lie behind the safety of their keyboard. Back to the swamp with you, you coward.

There are disqualifications of the NASA moonlandings and yes, they are repeated and refined.And the reason for that is because they are valid.

You admit that you have contempt for those who want NASA to admit they hoaxed the moonlandings and then you call them hoaxters. YOU ARE THE HOAXTER, it is YOU defending this hoax.

This is just exactly why you have no credibility. You lie as a matter of course and reverse the truth, putting the onus of proof on your opponent claiming Apollo stands as proved. It DOES NOT, and it never will be.

[Romulus]

should you choose to come back and learn something, I would be happy to help.

You know, out of tens of thousands of words posted here not a one of you has said a single thing that was truly informative. This is because when you are defending a lie, informing is not you mission description.