Well this thread seems to have derailed back to being personal again...
I only came on a few days ago to post about moon conspiracy's and now i find myself reading personal attacks.

[iYou're quite correct tigerman. It's a trait thats common in Cyborgs when they're angst through cognitive dissonance. They can't stand their narrative being challenged so they blurt out ad hominems.[/i

You do realise that you typed exactly what Tigerman was complaining about?

Another thread that has run its course?
Twas fun while it lasted.

Let's go back to two posters posting crap and telling us how smart they are and how the rest of us are so dense.
I prefer the gravitas of being dense then!

Sadly, it has I fear indeed run its course. Stan has retreated into his shell, and is now totally impervious to questions, while his bizarre quotient increases by factors daily. The fun there was is rapidly disappearing.

However the big boss (not Stan) has gone off to revise his science to come back refreshed with squillions of references and links to amaze us.
Can't wait.

Quote ="Mugwump"=#BF0000[iThe laws of light and photography are cast in stone. Anyone who understands them can immediately spot problem lighting. Even you. Or are you saying these laws don't apply on the moon?[/i '" [iPhoto Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories) There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two[/i [size=150[iAgain those with a keen eye on photography would no doubt spot the glaring anomalies.[/i[/size

Quote ="Mugwump"=#BF0000[iThe laws of light and photography are cast in stone. Anyone who understands them can immediately spot problem lighting. Even you. Or are you saying these laws don't apply on the moon?[/i '" [iPhoto Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories) There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two[/i [size=150[iAgain those with a keen eye on photography would no doubt spot the glaring anomalies.[/i[/size

[iIn one Apollo 17 shot (AS17-140-21370) the moon rover is shown still packed up, not yet unloaded, but there are clear wheel tracks going across the foreground of the entire photo. Also there is one Apollo 12 shot that shows the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light, and another (AS12-49-727icon_cool.gif which shows two lens flares from overhead lighting[/i


[iThese NASA discrepancies are glaringly obvious. Anybody who's ignorant to these fallacies have cognitive bias issues and obviously not truth seekers.[/i

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iPhoto Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories) There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two[/i [size=150[iAgain those with a keen eye on photography would no doubt spot the glaring anomalies.[/i[/size'" There is plenty of stuff explaining all that .... but you are not interested. Do you honestly think that the developers of these photos and those that released them would NOT have noticed what you point out? Isn't that in a way showing how real they actually are and how things are not as straightforward as people like you try to point out? Stick two poles in the ground ... one vertical, one at forty five degrees to it as you look at them. Let the sun cast a shadow ....what do you see in all but two orientations? Two parallel lines? Grow up!

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iPhoto Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories) There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two[/i [size=150[iAgain those with a keen eye on photography would no doubt spot the glaring anomalies.[/i[/size'" There is plenty of stuff explaining all that .... but you are not interested. Do you honestly think that the developers of these photos and those that released them would NOT have noticed what you point out? Isn't that in a way showing how real they actually are and how things are not as straightforward as people like you try to point out? Stick two poles in the ground ... one vertical, one at forty five degrees to it as you look at them. Let the sun cast a shadow ....what do you see in all but two orientations? Two parallel lines? Grow up!

A very good argument for me was this.
If you type Moon Hoax - latest proof July 2015 in a well known video sharing site it is a video by wakeman449
It is a very informative video and proves 100% we never went to the moon and nobody can really argue the fact of the video.
Main steam media at its best



P.S sorry i don't know how to post links like others have done above as i know links to said video site is against AUP

[iYou're ignorance and cognitive bias is blinding. Regardless to the above anomalies I'll provide many more blindingly obvious fraudulent pieces of yet unanswered questions or queries from NASA[/i
[i
NASA made all networks record their feed for TV broadcast, so that’s why we only ever see the grainy recording of a recording on TV, and now[/i=#BF0000[u[i NASA says they lost the original high-definition video and data telemetry tapes so they can never be verified.[/i[/u [iNice coincidence.
[/i
[iBlueprints and designs of certain machines are[/i [u=#800000[imissing [/i[/u[ifrom both NASA and the companies which supposedly constructed them such as the Apollo Lunar Module and rover[/i

[iVan Allen Belt, Russians could never get beyond because of intense radiation that requires 4 feet of lead shielding too heavy to rocket into orbit; and in 1969-70 the Van Allen Belt was at it’s 11 year cycle peak radiation[/i =#BF0000[u[iyet somehow American astronauts and their film was able to survive this without shielding[/i[/u

=#BF0000[i[uThere are no stars in any of the moon pictures/video, just complete darkness; [/u[/i[ithey couldn’t make a perfect model in a studio, even a planetarium layout can only be seen in absolute darkness, spotlighting from the “sun” would block out the “star” lighting; so they cover this by saying the sun is SO bright on the moon that the astronauts couldn’t remember seeing stars either[/i
[i
The moon walk is in half-speed slow-motion; if you speed it up x2 the astronauts are clearly in Earth gravity walking normally with long strides[/i
[i
The flag in many photos and videos is shown flapping in the wind on the supposedly atmosphere-less moon[/i

[iWerner Von Braun took a NASA team to Antarctica in 1967 and was purported to be collecting “moon rocks.” Later Bill Kaysing (author of “We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle”) hired his private investigator friend Paul Jacobs to check with the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington and ask, “did you examine the Moon rocks, and did they come from the Moon?” The geologist simply laughed and insinuated that people high in the US government knew all about the cover-up.[/i

[i11 Apollo astronauts were mysteriously killed before making their missions, 3 had oxygen pumped into their test capsule until it exploded, 7 died in 6 separate plane crashes, and 1 died in a car crash, highly unlikely coincidence, points towards a cover-up[/i

[iThe astronauts rarely give public interviews or take questions at speaking events and were very unconvincing on their first interview back from the moon[/i
[i
Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel who called him out on the hoax after he wouldn’t place his hand on the Bible and say he went to the moon[/i
[i
Buzz Aldrin Jr. (Apollo 11), Gordon Cooper Jr., (Mercury 9, Gemini 5), Donn Eisele (Apollo 7), John Glenn Jr., (Mercury 6), Virgil Grissom (Apollo 1&15, Mercury 5, Gemini 3), James Irwin (Apollo 15), Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14), Walter Schirra Jr. (Apollo 7, Sigma 7, Gemini 6, Mercury, Thomas Stafford (Apollo 10&18, Gemini 7&9), and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2, Challenger), all these astronauts are Masons[/i
[i
The first director of NASA was Werner Von Braun one of hundreds of NAZI rocket scientists brought into America through the OSS Project Paperclip[/i

[iNazis and Masons are not the most historically trustworthy folks[/i
[i
Why didn’t NASA make some sort of light/flare display from the moon that people could see without their TVs to prove they were there?[/i
[i
Why no colour video on Apollo 11 when we know the astronauts had a colour camera with them?[/i

[iIn reply to s to[/i=#800000 tigermans comment [url=https://youtu.be/awrYcYZYxX4Is This It.[/url

Classic .... more like a spoof video.

I can just imagine the narrator finding out that they had overshoes ...'vell vere are dey?' .....'I zuppoze dat dey left zem on ze moon, exzept dat dey didn't go in de first plaze'.
Quality.

Do you speak like this in real life?

Are you some sort of pseudo Bond villain?

Cut the bullcrap, Van Allen himself has dismissed these sort of illiterate-science objections as nonsense. I'd take his view over yours




One of the most infantile objections, the Sun is an extremely bright star. All other stars from the Moon are in comparison astonishingly faint. You can set an exposure to photograph in extremely bright sunlight, which obviously they did, and that will obviously not be enough to show anything as faint as a star. The brightest star (Sirius) is around magnitude -1.44 on the scale (which is a logarithmic scale) whereas the sun is around mag -26.8. Given that the Sun is roughly 400,000X brighter than even a full moon, even those ignorant of magnitude should be easily able to work out why stars are not visible. If they want to.




It looks speeded up if you speed it up? Wow! Who'd have thought!
Except they couldn't walk normally with long strides if on Earth, as the huge weight of their kit on Earth would make it utterly impossible.


REALLY? You actually believe that? FFS. Despite there being categorical evidence that once the flag stopped moving it never moved again, (hich you ignore) OBVIOUSLY the forces applied to the flag and pole as the pole was twisted into the ground would continue to make the flag oscillate precisely BECAUSE of the absence of atmosphere, until the energy was spent.





You can't use that one, Stan. You don't accept Antarctica exists! But, the moon rocks (like Mars meteorites) are indeed a smoking gun, due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, these rocks are certainly extra-terrestrial. Even you have to concede that one. it's not as if enough of them haven't been examined and tested by enough independent researchers.


Disgusting rot. And anyway why wouldn't they bump off the ones who were to be the hoax landers?


I would imagine that since being on the Moon the astronauts have between them spoken a zillion words and attended a million events. Your claim is inexplicable tosh.


Indeed he did, and he had good reason to, after the vile provocation, which fact was accepted by the authorities as Aldrin was not prosecuted.


I would imagine that they never dreamed any human would ever be so stupid as to doubt it! But, even in the illogical state you are in, you KNOW that had they done so, it would have been a 100% utterly futile thing to do, since you and your ilk would no more have accepted that as any sort of proof or evidence than anything else! there is NOTHING they could have or can do or say that would convince people like you, even if they took you with them, you would persuade yourself it was a false memory inserted by drugs or anal probes or something, and rightly they waste little time on delusionals, recognising the futility.


Er, because the colour camera was a still camera not a video camera?

The TV camera was (and is, you can go see it for yourself) a Westinghouse, which

Here is a photo of it once deployed on the lunar surface. Where it stands to this day.


And here is a recent image from the LRO. This shows the Apollo 11 landing site, with all kit deployed, exactly where it was and will forever remain, nicely labelled for you. Including the said camera.


China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2 also photographed the site, with the same results.

How inconvenient for you moon hoax delusionals

[iHahaha Caught Red Handed Actornaughts using Wires and Harness's.this video [url=https://youtu.be/pKPKDabZcucExposes Their Fakery[/url These Freemasonic actors should be locked up. And you NASA apologists have the cheek to call me gullible.. [/i [iIf you dismiss this footage well the Goverment has done a fine job on you[/i.

[iWay Hay more ad hominem.. Glad you found that material informative. As for the earth's magnetosphere, the Van Allen belts, you need only realize that they are composed of matter bombarded by the most toxic radiological pulses and high frequency waves produced by our sun since the beginning of time. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude what effect these ionic fields can have on radio signals, telemetry and the fine copper etching that make up the electrical conduits of computer printed circuit boards.

To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment here on Earth in your kitchen (you can see the results online without risking damage to your home equipment) by placing a CD or DVD in the microwave oven and turning that on for a few seconds. The same thing that happened to that disk in the oven will occur much more violently in the Earth's magnetosphere.

Simply put, if the circuit boards get fried and radio signals torn to shreds by the radiological fields then how can man, probe or anything get through? Of course the NASA moles are made up mostly of sun's energy deniers that think the belts are just a minor inconvenience with negligible effects on man, radio signals and electronic circuitry because that it the fastest means to line their pockets with public treasure. Now observe the desperation of the moles as they twist this post and it's meaning every which way they can. It's worth a good laugh observing them at work foaming at the mouth denying elementary physics[/i.

[iSo. While i'm on a roll. Lets carry on exposing more NASA Bull. For those readers unfamiliar with my claims from other threads here i will expose more of the way the deep space hoax works:

First I believe they never launched a rocket from the surface of the earth into low orbit or anywhere beyond with people on board. The only real part is the glorified firework lifting off the pad. Empty capsules everytime. How do they do that you may ask justifiably? Well, they film the crews going into the capsule in a studio and broadcast this as if it were live. Then they launch the rocket firework and when we see the minute viewing of it's telemetry curving out of sight it simply falls back to earth in the deserted ocean somewhere all frizzled out. whilst the missions are faked in studio's and with pre-recorded audio tracks people are made to believe originate from deep space.

Now, when the time comes for re-entry the hoaxsters load the Masonic Actoronauts in a capsule on earth, load that onto a Starlifter-type high altitude cargo plane and they drop that out of the back of the aircraft to simulate re-entry. This is a good reason why all the night time re-entries were shifted over to the Pacific ocean from the Atlantic ocean. The hoaxsters needed to have a firm control over the potential witnesses to this forgery. If they had planned the night time re-entry over the United States for a splashdown in the Atlantic the gig would have been outed instantly. By placing the night time e-entry hoax in the middle of the Pacific they could control the potential for masses of eyewitnesses to the deception.

What about that so-called radio silence upon re-entry? We are told this is the effect of ionization caused by the friction of the capsules re-entering the atmosphere. I don't buy it. When did they ever show the public a spectrum analysis of the ionic trail left in the wake of those capsules or any other object burning up in the atmosphere? I estimate the radio silence is caused by the fear the hoaxsters have that the public would hear the rumble of the high altitude aircraft engines in the background. No doubt Ferociouse Aardvaark or his sidekick TheButcher will bellow their usual cranial ramblings. Reading their abuse filled rhetoric babble is equivalent to listening to a hamster gnawing at the metal nib of its cage or water bottle all night long.[/i

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iWay Hay more ad hominem.'" You really should look up what "ad hominem" means. You propund many claims and theories which are delusional. Maybe in every other respect of your functioning you are not delusional - I wouldn't know - but I am only commenting on what you say. You propound delusions. In that respect, you are delusional. That much is just stating the same thing in a different way. It is hardly "ad hominem". It is simply calling a delusion a delusion. Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Glad you found that material informative. As for the earth's magnetosphere, the Van Allen belts, you need only realize that they are composed of matter bombarded by the most toxic radiological pulses and high frequency waves produced by our sun since the beginning of time. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude what effect these ionic fields can have on radio signals, telemetry and the fine copper etching that make up the electrical conduits of computer printed circuit boards. '" Actually, to have an understanding of the Van Allen belts, you do firstly need a very deep understanding of the science involved, and the theory, and secondly you are much helped by actual craft, unmanned and manned, then travelling through said belts, and actual readings being taken. One of the problems with you coming up with such a delusional and frankly childish summary is because you aren't actually interested in the facts, you want to pick some superficial "it's obvious innit" madcap point which you can then pin to your head and claim it supercedes all intelligent discussion. But it doesn't. I have read much about the Van Allen belts issue, and that includes claims and science, from both sides. You, on the other hand, haven't. I have considered both the claims made by madcap theorists and hoax proponents, which in the light of the science, all unravel almost immediately, but that is because I have read about the subject and learned enough to be able to say that your theory is asinine rubbish. You will not consider ANYTHING unless it fits your preconceptions, and that is the only reason you could cut'n'paste such childish drivel. Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment...'" No, you absolutely can't, you only claim to THINK you can. The scientific analysis is detailed, thorough, exacting and precise. As such, those far better qualified than me to carry out the science and to explain it in words we can understand, have thankfully and painstakingly done this already. You COULD have considered this sort of cold hard factual evidence, but you never do, as you don't want to know. But for anyone who wants to understand the actual facts, here is a rather long and rather detailed inch by inch fact by fact exposition of the actual truth of the matter. I know Stan has no interest in it and will dismiss it without looking as just another reptilian sheeple or something, but he cannot argue against it so that will do for me. Knock yourself out, Stan, and when you are qualified to explain to us where Mr. Braeunig is in error, please do feel free to publish your corrections www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iWay Hay more ad hominem.'" You really should look up what "ad hominem" means. You propund many claims and theories which are delusional. Maybe in every other respect of your functioning you are not delusional - I wouldn't know - but I am only commenting on what you say. You propound delusions. In that respect, you are delusional. That much is just stating the same thing in a different way. It is hardly "ad hominem". It is simply calling a delusion a delusion. Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Glad you found that material informative. As for the earth's magnetosphere, the Van Allen belts, you need only realize that they are composed of matter bombarded by the most toxic radiological pulses and high frequency waves produced by our sun since the beginning of time. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude what effect these ionic fields can have on radio signals, telemetry and the fine copper etching that make up the electrical conduits of computer printed circuit boards. '" Actually, to have an understanding of the Van Allen belts, you do firstly need a very deep understanding of the science involved, and the theory, and secondly you are much helped by actual craft, unmanned and manned, then travelling through said belts, and actual readings being taken. One of the problems with you coming up with such a delusional and frankly childish summary is because you aren't actually interested in the facts, you want to pick some superficial "it's obvious innit" madcap point which you can then pin to your head and claim it supercedes all intelligent discussion. But it doesn't. I have read much about the Van Allen belts issue, and that includes claims and science, from both sides. You, on the other hand, haven't. I have considered both the claims made by madcap theorists and hoax proponents, which in the light of the science, all unravel almost immediately, but that is because I have read about the subject and learned enough to be able to say that your theory is asinine rubbish. You will not consider ANYTHING unless it fits your preconceptions, and that is the only reason you could cut'n'paste such childish drivel. Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment...'" No, you absolutely can't, you only claim to THINK you can. The scientific analysis is detailed, thorough, exacting and precise. As such, those far better qualified than me to carry out the science and to explain it in words we can understand, have thankfully and painstakingly done this already. You COULD have considered this sort of cold hard factual evidence, but you never do, as you don't want to know. But for anyone who wants to understand the actual facts, here is a rather long and rather detailed inch by inch fact by fact exposition of the actual truth of the matter. I know Stan has no interest in it and will dismiss it without looking as just another reptilian sheeple or something, but he cannot argue against it so that will do for me. Knock yourself out, Stan, and when you are qualified to explain to us where Mr. Braeunig is in error, please do feel free to publish your corrections www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

PS, given that you now strenuously advance the existence of the Van Allen belts - how come, if we aren't on a globe, it has belts?
Just sayin' ...

Not a bit, Stan, that's comedy platinum perfectly good enough to stand on its own three alien feet, I couldn't make it funnier if I tried

[iThe Van Allen Belts exist on any model. Durrh[/i

The Van Allen layer/s using your flat Earth ....

So Twelve actornauts whilst on the Moon’s surface took =#800000[i[ua TOTAL of 5771 exposures. [/u[/iHere is an astonishing actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:
[i
Apollo 11…......121 Apollo 12…..... 504 Apollo 14….....374 Apollo 15….....1021 Apollo 16….....1765 Apollo 17….......1986[/i
[i
That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the actornauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:[/i
[i
Apollo 11…...1 EVA …..2 hours, 31 minutes…...(151 minutes) Apollo 12…...2 EVAs…..7 hours, 50 minutes…...(470 minutes) Apollo 14....2 EVAs…..9 hours, 25 minutes…...(565 minutes) Apollo 15…...3 EVAs…18 hours, 30 minutes….(1110 minutes) Apollo 16.....3 EVAs…20 hours, 14 minutes….(1214 minutes) Apollo 17….....3 EVAs…22 hours, 04 minutes….(1324 minutes)[/i

=#BF0000[i[uTotal minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes. Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos[/u[/i.

[iHmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let’s look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:[/i
[i
Apollo 11….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.[/i

[iApollo 12….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.[/i
[i
Apollo 14….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.
[/i
[iApollo 15….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRVLEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to [/i

[iApollo 16….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)[/i
[i
Apollo 17….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRVLEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to [/i
[i[u
Let’s arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:
[/u[/i
[iApollo 11…subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos Apollo 12…subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos Apollo 14…subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos Apollo 15…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos Apollo 16…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos Apollo 17…subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos[/i
=#BF0000[i
So do the math:[/i
[i
Apollo 11…..121 photos in 031 minutes….....3.90 photos per minute Apollo 12…..504 photos in 230 minutes….....2.19 photos per minute Apollo 14…..374 photos in 385 minutes….....0.97 photos per minute Apollo 15…1021 photos in 750 minutes….....1.36 photos per minute Apollo 16…1765 photos in 854 minutes …....2.06 photos per minute Apollo 17…1986 photos in 844 minutes …....2.35 photos per minute[/i

=#800000[i[uOr, to put it more simply:[/u[/i

[iApollo 11….....one photo every 15 seconds Apollo 12….....one photo every 27 seconds Apollo 14….....one photo every 62 seconds Apollo 15….....one photo every 44 seconds Apollo 16….....one photo every 29 seconds Apollo 17….....one photo every 26 seconds
[/i
[iSo you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?[/i
[i
Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible…made even more so by all the documented activities of the actoronauts. Imagine…1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon - that’s one picture every 50 SECONDS!

The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Nobody went to the Moon. It's truly One of the greatest hoaxes ever?[/i

Stanley, ive debunked every silly conspiracy theory you have come up with. I make it 3-0 to me. Ready for round 4? Ding ding.

You are talking about shadows on the moon. I would have thought that an educated man such as yourself would know primary school science and that light behaves differently within the earths atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere so relfection would be different. I know, I know, we shouldnt believe what we are taught as its all lies. What about the rocks that were brought back, rocks that every single scientist who has examined them has agreed, are non terrestrial in origin? Are they all in on it? Dont say they are from meteorites, the first one wasnt dicovered until about 30 years later.

Do you know how many people were involved in the moon landings? About half a million people. If they were fake, how would you keep that many people quiet. All the idiots claiming they were faked, were not involved in the project (and please dont link to some kid on youtube who claims he has a "source" at nasa, no he doesnt)

Stanley is on the ropes, think I will deliver the knock out blow......the moon landing was at the height of the cold war, if it was faked, why did the russians not dispute it. Goodnight

Regards

King James