Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

[NinjaPuppy]

[Arouet]

I dunno? Maybe Syd and Misha are on vacation? Don't they know they're supposed to notify the forum in case of absence?

[NinjaPuppy]

[really?]

Golly gee, it ain't no fun without them. I'm sure syd isn't finish, he's just circlein' the wagons and reloading.

[Misha]

[The23rdman]

Maybe we can have a look at the photographs again then.

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]

[The23rdman]

Sydney, I've already addressed the issue of no stars. There simply isn't enough light coming into the camera to expose the stars and the astronauts/modules.

[SydneyPSIder]

[The23rdman]

Show me the photos if you can, please.

I have already stated that I agree that the depth of field anomaly using a large format camera needs further investigation. I'm not a moon theorist at all so I haven't delved in deeply. If someone can link me to the cameras allegedly used I can make a better informed call.

[Arouet]

Syd: I appreciate you coming back to the conversation (I know its the holidays - hence my joke above! ), but I'm trying to get away from the scattergun approach to this topic which really only serves to throw too much stuff out at once which leads to not talking about any of it.

I've tried to get a constructive discussion going on the radiation issue, which either you or Misha or both of you (can't remember at the moment) considered to be an important factor. I'm happy to go into the other topics but I really think if we want to get something useful accomplished we should tackle these issues one at a time. Can we finish the radiation discussion (since I've taken the trouble to start the analysis) and then we can move onto the pictures?

But please don't just post a bunch of videos - that's not going to lead to productive discussion.

[SydneyPSIder]

Just a question: does this mountain profile in Mauna Kea, Hawaii, disturb you at all? The astronauts visited the area in 1965 for some reason. Examine the brown parts in the middle distance, the peculiar hump and hillocks on each side.



Here's the same mountain profile and features that appear on the moon shots a lot, same shape, same shading and depressions, same series of hillocks to the right and left as the brown profile above. The moon's 'South Massive' mountain near the landing sites:



The 'moon mountains' oddly look very rounded and weathered to me, although there is no wind or rain to do any weathering. They are also very strangely illuminated and ghostly looking. I find the contrast odd between the ghostly smooth mountains in the shots vs the very sharp rocks in the foreground. You would expect moon mountains to be somewhat more jagged and 'random' like young mountain ranges on earth -- e.g. the Alps or Himalayas -- rather than very old weathered mountains as you might find in Australia. I haven't done any study whatsoever of just how 'mountains' on the moon are formed in the presumed absence of significant tectonic plate movement, or how the supposed Apollo pics jibe with lunar topographic mapping probes for heights and so on. Presumably mountains may have formed billions of years ago when the moon was still cooling off and may have had tectonic activity.

[The23rdman]

Those pictures are way too small to examine properly, Syd.

I'm going to back out for now and let you guys finish your discussion re radiation.

[Arouet]

C'mon Syd! One topic at a time please!

Or we can drop it. Just throwing out various arguments all at once will guarantee a fruitless discussion and I'll be out. I'm trying to structure this here - otherwise it is indeed pointless.