Moon landings happened to convince you they were faked...

[gillianren]

It is not a Spanish native speaker thing. Google is irrelevant. It is a term specific to certain individuals who are pleased to pretend to be linguistically challenged in order to promulgate their particular flavour of nonsense by means of pretending to be in possession of functionally inadequate English.

I have seen it many times and in each case, it has been a ruse. I see no reason to consider it different on this rotation of the hamster wheel.

I've seen it many times, too.  This is far from my first rotation of the hamster wheel.  My point was more, "A, that's not a term Google Translate would provide.  B, why would you argue all this on a site in a language you can't speak anyway?"

[ka9q]

I think you're harping too much on this. If the guy says he didn't feel comfortable writing in English, then I take him at face value. I think he did say he could read it. You don't need high proficiency in the language to read hoaxer forums and pick up the usual expressions like "astro-not" and sprinkle them into whatever you're writing in your own language. Google Translate will usually pass through as-is words it doesn't understand in the source language.

[tarkus]

o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?

No.  They were asked if they remember seeing stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare, not if they saw stars in general.  The asker of the question was referring to a specific experiment done.  As for being guided by stars, they even mentioned in their answer about looking through the optics (I don't remember the exact phrasing).

You lie, the reporter asking the question did not mention any solar corona, and this one 1970 interview Armstrong again lied by saying that the only visible objects in space are the Sun and Moon (?)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o

[tarkus]

o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?

The astronauts said they saw stars clearly when they were in the shadow of the Moon.

And why just behind the dark side? in space there is no air can scatter light as here on Earth.

Anyone who gets on a car and drive along the road to a place far enough away from a big city on a clear, clear, moonless night, will be ecstatic at the spectacle ... I can understand that an inhabitant of New York refuses to see the stars, but an astronaut, with the invaluable advantages enjoyed by the lack of atmosphere it says not see the stars? really?

Yes, on a moonless night you can see a lot of stars. But when the astronauts travelled to the Moon it was not night time. Also, they were inside a spacecraft with the lights on so they could see what they were doing. If you are inside a lit room at night time and look out the window you will not see many stars.

Of course there is no day and night as below in space, it is not necessary that you treat me like an idiot ... too weak your argument because NASA says astronauts were guided by the stars using a sextant but they deny remember seeing them not withstand scrutiny.

Also, if the problem was the lights inside the capsule ... enough to turn them off !!! and look out the window.
It is incredible to read the desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable, fly into space for a cruise of a week and not see the stars seem confession of a madman or a pathological liar.

We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.

What is the benefit of a camera on the Moon looking at the Earth? The Apollo astronauts took some photos of the Earth from the Moon, and there is some video footage of the Earth taken by the TV camera on the rovers of Apollos 15, 16 and 17.

And what was the benefit of playing golf on the moon?
You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space. Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.

But the main purpose of TV and photo cameras on the Moon was to take images of things on the Moon.

By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission ... on the website of Wikipedia and show the hidden side of the Moon Apollo 16, 1972:



... And so it did in 2006 LRO:



No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.

[tarkus]

There are dozens of cameras in space looking at the earth every hour of every day, and they have been doing it for over fifty years.

Photograph the Earth just 300 km altitude is like trying to portray the beauty of a woman focusing on 3 centimeters away from your skin ...

Weather, earth resources, espionage. What could a camera on the moon do that one in earth orbit couldn't do better?

No satellite orbiting at a distance great enough to appreciate the full scope of the Earth, hence the utility of using the Moon as an ideal observatory. Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.





Because it is much more difficult to manipulate videos while they retouch photographs are not able to equip a probe of a video system, and this despite the remarkable miniaturization respect to the Apollo era.

[onebigmonkey]

o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?

No.  They were asked if they remember seeing stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare, not if they saw stars in general.  The asker of the question was referring to a specific experiment done.  As for being guided by stars, they even mentioned in their answer about looking through the optics (I don't remember the exact phrasing).

You lie, the reporter asking the question did not mention any solar corona, and this one 1970 interview Armstrong again lied by saying that the only visible objects in space are the Sun and Moon (?)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o

You are completely wrong and again showing your ignorance of the subject. In the post-mission conference Patrick Moore specifically asked about the solar corona. In the Sky at night interview, Armstrong replies to a question about what he could see from the lunar surface with an answer about what he could see from the lunar surface, which was the sun and the Earth.

[onebigmonkey]

And why just behind the dark side? in space there is no air can scatter light as here on Earth.

Because there was no sun or glare from the lunar surface.

Of course there is no day and night as below in space, it is not necessary that you treat me like an idiot ...

You could give us some evidence that this isn't true...

too weak your argument because NASA says astronauts were guided by the stars using a sextant but they deny remember seeing them not withstand scrutiny.

They saw them. They referred to them a lot. They photographed them.

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/starryskies.html

Also, if the problem was the lights inside the capsule ... enough to turn them off !!! and look out the window.
It is incredible to read the desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable, fly into space for a cruise of a week and not see the stars seem confession of a madman or a pathological liar.

They did turn them off - they turned them off to take photos of the stars, like this one:

And what was the benefit of playing golf on the moon?
You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space. Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.

Only morons are discussing the real shape of the Earth. Hey - did you know other people put satellites and astronauts up there?

By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission ... on the website of Wikipedia and show the hidden side of the Moon Apollo 16, 1972:



... And so it did in 2006 LRO:



No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.

Really?

This is pretty desperate stuff. Go look at the India, Japanese, Russian and Chinese images and see how different they are. I can tell you why those two images are different, if you're too dumb to work it out using just Google Moon there's no point even trying to explain it.

PS - I found lots of identical craters. You just haven't looked hard enough for Tsiolkovskiy, Fermi, Litke and Delporte amongst others.

[onebigmonkey]

No satellite orbiting at a distance great enough to appreciate the full scope of the Earth, hence the utility of using the Moon as an ideal observatory. Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.

If you weren't so lazy and didn't just spew up the nonsense being peddled around idiotic conspiracy sites you would actually read the information about that photograph, and you would know that it is a composite image taken over several months. No-one ever claimed it was anything else.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723

Because it is much more difficult to manipulate videos while they retouch photographs are not able to equip a probe of a video system, and this despite the remarkable miniaturization respect to the Apollo era.

You have evidence of the Apollo photographs being retouched, obviously?

So the TV pictures they broadcast back live from Apollo showing time and date specific images of Earth are genuine? Excellent.

[Zakalwe]

You lie, the reporter asking the question did not mention any solar corona, and this one 1970 interview Armstrong again lied by saying that the only visible objects in space are the Sun and Moon (?)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o

Tarkus,
I hope you realise how obnoxious you are making yourself appear? There are two Sir Patrick Moore questions asked about visibility: The one that you linked and the main A11 press interview:

In the latter, Sir Patrick specifically asks about visibility in the solar corona. I'm not going to show you the exact spot- go and do your own research.

Regarding the 1970 Sky at night interview, please explain exactly what you would expect to see when stood on a high-albedo surface, in full sunlight and with an illuminated Earth disc on the sky. Please show your workings.

You are completely wrong and again showing your ignorance of the subject. In the post-mission conference Patrick Moore specifically asked about the solar corona. In the Sky at night interview, Armstrong replies to a question about what he could see from the lunar surface with an answer about what he could see from the lunar surface, which was the sun and the Earth.

Now, in your original post you were not specific and you did not qualify which interview you were referring to. To then accuse someone of lying is extremely bad mannered, especially when you did not frame your question correctly. You owe OBM an apology.

By the way, can you please answer this post?

You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.

And what about commenting on the other areas that you were so sure of in your original post?

• The number 13?
• The filming of Haise?
• The use of the LM motor?
• The heatshield?

Why ignore the answers that you were given on these to comment only on your erroneous interpretation of the photos of the CSM/LM stack? I wouldn't like to assume that you have now conceded the other points......I'd much rather hear you say that.

[Zakalwe]

There are dozens of cameras in space looking at the earth every hour of every day, and they have been doing it for over fifty years.

Photograph the Earth just 300 km altitude is like trying to portray the beauty of a woman focusing on 3 centimeters away from your skin ...

Ridiculous straw man argument.

No satellite orbiting at a distance great enough to appreciate the full scope of the Earth, hence the utility of using the Moon as an ideal observatory. Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.

Please explain why the moon would make an "ideal observatory". Detail your workings out on maintenance of equipment, data transfer speeds and the science that would make such a location "ideal".

Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.

But then, you'd distrust the images from your "ideal" Lunar observatory too....

Because it is much more difficult to manipulate videos while they retouch photographs are not able to equip a probe of a video system, and this despite the remarkable miniaturization respect to the Apollo era.

Excellent. To reiterate OBM's point, you have no problem with the video from the Moon and the Apollo videos are exactly as described.

[Echnaton]

It is incredible to read the desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable, fly into space for a cruise of a week and not see the stars seem confession of a madman or a pathological liar.

Except of course for all the photographs that were taken of the stars during the Apollo 16 mission.  You seem not to regard these as important.  Why?

[Jason Thompson]

You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space.

What would you expect to see in a live video feed of the Earth from lunar distance?

Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.

Morons will always debate it, because there will always be a portion of the population who refuse to accept what is right in front of them. Why would a live feed counter this fringe movement when literally thousands of images of the Earth from deep space doesn't?

By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission

Yes, do you really not understand that the view of a spherical object will be different depending on where it is taken from?

No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.

Show your rigorous work to show that not one single crater matches up, taking into account illumination angle, position of the camera, and so on.

[Zakalwe]

You seem very boring to see the Earth from space, as if NASA hign us the ability to view real-time Earth as viewed from space. Instead what we have is filming the ISS to Earth so low in internet forums in the XXI century still discussing what the real shape of the earth.

For clarity tarkus, are you one of the raving loonies people who claim that the Earth is flat, or are you just using one of their forums as source material?

I ask because the post below would suggest that you cannot understand that an oblate sphere will show different aspects when photographs of it are taken from different positions. You have already shown that you have a clear problem in understanding perspective (the CSM stack)...should we add this to the list of things that you can't get your head around (you and hunchbacked would make a fine pair in this regard!)

By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission ... on the website of Wikipedia and show the hidden side of the Moon Apollo 16, 1972:



... And so it did in 2006 LRO:



No matches not a single crater between the two pictures.

Because both are FALSE.

Just because you say something it doesn't follow that it is the case.

[frenat]

But the main purpose of TV and photo cameras on the Moon was to take images of things on the Moon.

By the way, the face of the Moon, just that no mortal can see from Earth, has been portrayed in very different ways depending on the time and mission ... on the website of Wikipedia and show the hidden side of the Moon Apollo 16, 1972:



... And so it did in 2006 LRO:



No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.

WRONG.  They are harder to match because one shows the entire back side and the other shows part of the front and is rotated.
But they do match. 

[frenat]

Weather, earth resources, espionage. What could a camera on the moon do that one in earth orbit couldn't do better?

No satellite orbiting at a distance great enough to appreciate the full scope of the Earth, hence the utility of using the Moon as an ideal observatory. Moreover, there is every reason to distrust the photos released by NASA, cloned clouds are evidence of photographic manipulation.





Because it is much more difficult to manipulate videos while they retouch photographs are not able to equip a probe of a video system, and this despite the remarkable miniaturization respect to the Apollo era.

so weather satellites don't exist now?  Are you going to claim the Earth is flat next?  Are you one of those types of hoaxies?

I love how the hoaxies love to show the SAME photo of Earth to prove cloned clouds in ALL photos. All you've proven is the clouds are the same in that ONE photo.