Finally...Unequivocal Proof That the Apollo Moon Landings Were Staged on Earth

Alan Bean, now beyond the moon. Thanks and Godspeed Mr. Bean.

Someone doesn't understand PPI...

https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/image-resolution

Generation PPI wrote:

Someone doesn't understand PPI...

What does that have to do with Bean? ?

RIP wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44268960

Alan Bean, now beyond the moon. Thanks and Godspeed Mr. Bean.

Alan Bean was a fraud who never walked on the moon. NASA sold you a bill of goods.

Facts:

The LM never passed a flight test on the earth's surface before being deployed on Apollo missions

Neil Armstrong was almost killed when the LM crashed during it's flight test on earth

NASA posted faked photos of training flights, there was no smoke from the rocket (notice this pattern of NASA's faking photography?)

Oh yeah, the whole thing was faked back in 1969. They even made a movie about it called Capricorn One back in 1977.

I'm no photo expert by any means. So, in response to this "debunking" video' here are my inexpert thoughts on three particular things (and one overall thing) that stand out to me:

1) REFLECTIVITY OF LUNAR SOIL: Video claims that the Lunar surface is highly reflective - which explains why the non-Sun-lit side of the Lunar Module was so lit up.

Pablo: Then why are lots of that same side completely dark (despite such would-be reflected light hitting them too)?

2) NOT ONE SINGLE PHOTO OF THE STARS: Video claims that you can't have an exposure that both allows for decent lighting (but no over-exposure) of details on the Moon's surface WHILE showing the stars.

Pablo: Seems reasonable to me - so let's assume that's true. BUT, 100s and 100s of photos were taken "on the Lunar surface". Why could not even ONE of them have had its exposure parameters set so as to capture the stars - proving without any reasonable doubt that the photos were, indeed, taken from the Lunar surface? Not one!

3) "LOTS OF ALUMINUM, ALUMINUM FOIL AND TONS OF TAPE":

Pablo: As I demonstrated by linking to photo-analysis from Dave McGowen's (RIP) "Center for an Informed America" series, "Wagging the Moondoggie"; the aluminum foil and tons of tape look totally un-space worthy.

OVERALL) BEGGING THE QUESTION: The video claims that they modeled everything.

Pablo: But IF the video's makers INTENT was to "prove" the Apollo Moon-landing claims; couldn't they have fudged whatever they needed to? In other words, they assume as true what they're supposed to be proving is true.

+1

If that epinomy of true-blue American honest politicians, President Trickie-Dickie Richard Nixon was talking in real-time to Neil Armstrong traveling in his Flash Gordon movie prop on his Disney-inspired lunar space mission, who are we to argue?

People should learn about science more.

The LM was designed to fly in space, and land on the moon, which has no atmosphere and 1/6 gravity of Earth. A true space craft built to be used once does not need to be a durable as an aircraft that flies in Earth's atmosphere. The foil was just insulation wrapped and yes taped onto the outside of the LM.

The LM trainer "flying bedstand" was just a bad way to train because they were flying it in Earth's atmosphere. The computer simulator was better and safer real world training for the LM pilots.

In vast majority of photos and videos from space you can't see stars due to sunlight. This goes for Apollo, ISS, Shuttle, Soyuz, etc. "No stars." Duh! Dumbest argument the conspiracy nuts have and they keep making it.

Science bro wrote:

People should learn about science more.

The LM was designed to fly in space, and land on the moon, which has no atmosphere and 1/6 gravity of Earth. A true space craft built to be used once does not need to be a durable as an aircraft that flies in Earth's atmosphere. The foil was just insulation wrapped and yes taped onto the outside of the LM.

The LM trainer "flying bedstand" was just a bad way to train because they were flying it in Earth's atmosphere. The computer simulator was better and safer real world training for the LM pilots.

In vast majority of photos and videos from space you can't see stars due to sunlight. This goes for Apollo, ISS, Shuttle, Soyuz, etc. "No stars." Duh! Dumbest argument the conspiracy nuts have and they keep making it.

Precisely!

These incredibly dumb scienceless conspiracy nuts even ask for recent color HD video (or even just a single non-monochrome image) of the Apollo landing sites showing the shedloads of debris (including the LUNAR CAR we managed to fly up there and drive around).

Sure there exist satelites and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that acquires images at only 30 miles aboves the crystal-clear atmosphere-less lunar suface. But why should NASA showcase the USA Apollo conquest of the moon using advanced onboard optics? What's the point in that?

Next thing they'd be asking for a real-time streaming webcam from the site, pointing at the Stars and Stripes that we all know is there! Okay, we have glorious HD multispectral (subsurface) imaging of Mars which admittedly is around 140m miles away compared to only 240k miles for the Moon. So what if it is 580+ times the distance?

Persons of Science would unanimously agree that NASA has supplied more than enough evidence to sway any sincere unbiased observer as to the merit of the Apolo Space program.

Indeed....................however as you know there are also still fools that think the earth is flat.

Science bro wrote:

People should learn about science more.

The LM was designed to fly in space, and land on the moon, which has no atmosphere and 1/6 gravity of Earth. A true space craft built to be used once does not need to be a durable as an aircraft that flies in Earth's atmosphere. The foil was just insulation wrapped and yes taped onto the outside of the LM.

The LM trainer "flying bedstand" was just a bad way to train because they were flying it in Earth's atmosphere. The computer simulator was better and safer real world training for the LM pilots.

In vast majority of photos and videos from space you can't see stars due to sunlight. This goes for Apollo, ISS, Shuttle, Soyuz, etc. "No stars." Duh! Dumbest argument the conspiracy nuts have and they keep making it.

Yeah...right; here's the thing none of guys think about: If we went to the moon so easily several times with those Apollo missions (only A13 had problems), why then haven't we gone back in almost 50 yrs? Our technology today is so much improved over that primitive technology of the 60s, which should allow us to get the moon more efficiently and much easier than those cumbersome Apollo missions. And with the *50th anniversary* of the Apollo 11 next year, you'd think NASA would have a mission planned.

We're not going to the moon because we can't go to the moon.

We never went to the moon.

Think this through....

You are probably right. A load of baloney it appears to be.

Believable in the 60s perhaps but surely not these days.

Obviously, private companies would be selling lunar travel, banking supreme profits by now.

Simple answer. The Apollo Program was done and NASA did other things with the limited funds appropriated to them by Congress. That's how US Government agencies work.

Buzz Aldrin would disagree.

Science bro wrote:

Think This One Through wrote:

Yeah...right; here's the thing none of guys think about: If we went to the moon so easily several times with those Apollo missions (only A13 had problems), why then haven't we gone back in almost 50 yrs? Our technology today is so much improved over that primitive technology of the 60s, which should allow us to get the moon more efficiently and much easier than those cumbersome Apollo missions. And with the *50th anniversary* of the Apollo 11 next year, you'd think NASA would have a mission planned.

We're not going to the moon because we can't go to the moon.

We never went to the moon.

Think this through....

Simple answer. The Apollo Program was done and NASA did other things with the limited funds appropriated to them by Congress. That's how US Government agencies work.

So we are expected to believe that (in the 60s) the USA could achieve what any other national space agency could not achieve even after half a century has passed? Screaming BS that NASA was over 50 years ahead of all the giant leaps in technology that have taken place since then. Tech was in the stone age in the 60s compared to the technology of today.

N Word wrote:

Science bro wrote:

Simple answer. The Apollo Program was done and NASA did other things with the limited funds appropriated to them by Congress. That's how US Government agencies work.

So we are expected to believe that (in the 60s) the USA could achieve what any other national space agency could not achieve even after half a century has passed? Screaming BS that NASA was over 50 years ahead of all the giant leaps in technology that have taken place since then. Tech was in the stone age in the 60s compared to the technology of today.

Our only competitor in the 60s was the USSR. Their N1 heavy lift rocket kept blowing up and never had a successful flight. Our Saturn 5 worked and was able to send large heavy payload (the Apollo spacecraft) out of Earth orbit and to the moon.

That is why we beat the Soviets to the moon. After Apollo 17, Congress cut NASA funds because we already beat the Soviets and landed men on the men 6 times already. NASA did other stuff it could afford to do with funding appropriated to it the moon was done and no longer seemed important.

The reason today everyone is makeing a big deal about SpaceX Falcon Heavy and the SLS is because we will once again have a launch vehicle powerful enough to lift big payloads like manned spacecraft to an escape velocity out of Earth orbit.

It's been an issue of rocket tech and funding and desire to do these things, not "technology" in a general sense the way you are talking about it.

So the puerile reasoning is that no one goes to the Moon now because of an already-won propoganda "race" between civilizations during the Cold War? Does that mean that no other nations' space agencies have any Principal scientific interest in pursuing any manned missions, to the Moon or beyond?