Lunar lander?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try, NASA!
This obviously faked photo shows many of the inconsistencies spotted by the hoax theorists!
Notice the absence of stars (indicates a "studio shot"!).
The arrows show inconsistencies with shadows, indicating multiple light sources.
The relative sizes of the astronaut and the LEM suggest the former was 8 feet tall.
Nice try NASA, but we aren't fooled by this photo!
Just way too many things wrong with this picture!
Fake Moon Landings The moon landings are fake!
NotiJust way too many things wrong with this picture!
Notice the absence of stars again.
The arrows indicate the various directions in which shadows are falling, again showing evidence of inconsistent scene illumination. Yet there is something even more obviously wrong with this picture.
If the length of the lower support column of the lunar lander was 4 feet tall, this would indicate that the astronaut was over 8 feet tall, which none of the astronauts were.
ce the absence of stars again.
The arrows indicate the various directions in which shadows are falling, again showing evidence of inconsistent scene illumination. Yet there is something even more obviously wrong with this picture.
If the length of the lower support column of the lunar lander was 4 feet tall, this would indicate that the astronaut was over 8 feet tall, which none of the astronauts were.
Last edited by sharksandwich; 17th Oct 2009 at 09:18.
If that photo had been faked NASA would not have included a Clanger, a species unknown in the USA at the time. This photo actually proves the landings really happened!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed Groundloop - in fact these never-before-seen pictures showing the presence of Clangers on the moon in the late 60's/early 70's dramatically overshadow any significance of possible water discovery.
I see SS has the audacity to suggest the photos are actually fakes - pah!
I see SS has the audacity to suggest the photos are actually fakes - pah!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Leeds
Age: 67
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the old standby 'lack of stars'. Whatever the hoax supporters come up with, can be rebutted with the 'appliance of science'. The problem is they don't want to know. If they put forward a 'theory' (and that's all they are, nothing ever seems to be backed up with facts) and you show them that it can't possibly be correct, they instantly leap to another 'theory', much like a lumberjack leaping from rolling log to rolling log on a river.
It's struck me from this thread that there a lot of pilots and non-pilots alike who clearly have some knowledge of, and interest in spaceflight and astronautics. Is the subject one that merits, and could be considered for, a section of it's own, as opposed to a thread in 'Spotters Corner'?
Just a thought
Steve
It's struck me from this thread that there a lot of pilots and non-pilots alike who clearly have some knowledge of, and interest in spaceflight and astronautics. Is the subject one that merits, and could be considered for, a section of it's own, as opposed to a thread in 'Spotters Corner'?
Just a thought
Steve
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daz daz: Why let a few facts get in the way of a good conspiracy eh? Apollo 20 was cancelled in about 1970 and 18 & 19 in short order after - was it a fiendish plot? Yep Nixon wanted no part of spending big chunks of wonga on what he perceived as a Kennedy programme. Ergo chopsville for the last three and most of the AAP programme.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I am really an anti-anti-conspiracy-theorist at heart. I much prefer to see reasoned argument 'demolish' the CT theory than the rabid "you are an idiot" retaliation which must amuse the CT gang somewhat and possibly give them incentive to come back again, whilst doing absolutely ZERO to support the actual facts. I do not know the OP (SS), or whether in fact this thread is a sneaky way to launch another CT attempt. I would, however, give the OP the benefit of the doubt and 'innocent until proven' etc having stated his/her position on the CT and asked here for 'learned' input
. I always feel that those that splutter without reason are candidates for a touch of 'William' - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." What are they so worried about? Is it indeed a sort of 'closet' doubt they harbour themselves?
......or am I starting another CT.........................?
Anyway, SS - do you now feel able to convince those whose theories you have produced here?
. I always feel that those that splutter without reason are candidates for a touch of 'William' - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." What are they so worried about? Is it indeed a sort of 'closet' doubt they harbour themselves?......or am I starting another CT.........................?
Anyway, SS - do you now feel able to convince those whose theories you have produced here?
