Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories"
channel.
-
1
-
@lorichet
Of course I've seen them. I've had copies for decades. Some are blurry, like you say. But, others are quite clear. None of this changes the fact that you lied. You don't get to say they never took the photos, while simultaneously complaining that the photos are too blurry for you. How would you have done it differently with the UV telescope they had? What method would you use to prevent the blurriness of some of the photos? They wanted a variety of different exposure levels in the 125 star photos they took. They weren't just going to gamble that one exposure level would give them everything they wanted. So, they kept varying the exposure time to be able to capture more background UV light (which ends up blurring the stars), and had some of them with very low exposure time (which exposed very few stars, just a handful in frame, but quite crisp), and plenty of middle-of-the-road exposure times, which resulted in a "normal" amount of stars, not crisp, not blurry, just regular. Would you not have done it that way? Tell the world, in your massive expertise on UV telescopes, how you'd have done it differently?
1
-
@lorichet
Huh? Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones? Good grief. LOOK AT THEM YOURSELF. And, don't pretend that you didn't lie. You are as dishonest as they come. You insisted that they never even took the photos, and now you're simultaneously saying they took the photos, but that they're too blurry for you. It's outlandish.
Here, I'll give a few crisp ones, but, I'm not going to sit here and go through 125 photos that you plan on rejecting anyway.
1f126, 1f124, 4f007.
Want more? Look at them yourself, and stop pretending you already looked. I seriously doubt you even have copies of them, given your track record of nonsense.
1
-
Esthersar:
"Whatever method that would show clear pictures to prove they were on the moon would be a good start."
They took about 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and about 110,000 photos from lunar orbit. And, as I've told you before (and you ignored), I don't consider ANY of them as proof that they went to the moon. Photos can be faked. Not that it's reasonable to fake 118,000 photos, but, whatever. I have given you a small sample of the best evidence for Apollo before, and you've always just rejected it without even reading it. In one ear, out the other, and you told me it wasn't worth reading. So, don't sit there and pretend you want evidence. You want to AVOID evidence. And, you have made your conclusions before you ever even asked one of your dishonest questions. All you've ever done is shift the goalposts. You say you want to see XYZ (thinking it doesn't exist), then, when I show it to you, you just change it and ask for something else. You did the same here (again). You said they never took photos of the stars. I gave you the photos of the stars, you then said they were too blurry for you (somehow claiming they never even took the photos, while also saying they took the photos but they were too blurry).
And, I asked you to name how they should have done the 125 Carruthers photos. You refuse to answer. Instead, you just said they should have proved they were there? Sorry, but nobody cared to sit there and compose "proof" so that a barely literate hoax nut 50 years later could see something. They took the photos they were supposed to take. All you're ever going to do is stick your head in the sand and pretend they didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What in the world is wrong with you?
"Sorry but the numbers you provided"
So, that's how this goes? Your last message claimed that you never even saw any of the catalog numbers I gave you. Now, you're admitting that I did. And, you wonder why people call you a liar?
"only confirm my belief that the photos supposedly taken from the moon were blurry."
So, the clear ones (the ones that weren't blurry) prove that they were blurry? You know, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Apollo isn't your problem. Your problem is rooted far deeper into your psychology than just failing to understand simple things, or lying every chance you get. I mean, you're completely divorced from rational thought at this point.
"Therefore, you not only have not provided any catalogue numbers of clear photos,"
Except the ones I've already given you.
"you've continued to accuse me of being a liar."
Well, maybe you should stop constantly lying.
1
-
Oh, and let's not forget how many messages it even took for you to admit ANYTHING about those photos. You kept maintaining that no such photos were even taken, ever, blurry or not. Then, when they were pointed out to you, you still said that they never took the photos, but that those photos were blurry. It took about a dozen more messages to get you to even admit that the photos were taken. Then, you insisted that I never gave you the catalog numbers. I repeatedly reminded you that I did give you those catalog numbers, and I even proved it by saying that you quoted from my very message that had the catalog numbers. And, now you're claiming that the catalog numbers I provided were still blurry (they weren't). Talk about shifting the goalposts. Talk about making it impossible to have a dialog. As I predicted many message ago, you were just going to deny the photos were real anyway, so, the fact that you demand people go look up photos for you is outlandish. No matter what was in those photos, you were going to call them fake anyway. So, this is why it's so ridiculous to listen to liars like you, asking for things that will make no difference whatsoever on what you believe. I even told you repeatedly, in this thread and others, that I don't even consider the photographic evidence to be all that relevant for proof of Apollo. I said it's ridiculous to think they faked 118,000 photos, but, whatever, photos are just photos, and the best proof is elsewhere. I've provided you some of that proof (in other threads), and your only reply was that you said that you were refusing to read it.
Prove you looked at the Carruthers photos. One of the catalog numbers I gave you was 1f126. Tell me something about that photo that would make it clear that you had even looked at it, such as maybe identifying where on the photo the brightest stars were located, or other such defining characteristics that could prove you even looked at it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cliffmchrist
Apollo's moon missions ended in 1972. The remaining Apollo programs (Skylab and Apollo Soyuz) ended in 1975. So, in the post Apollo era, if we adjust into 2021 dollars (the adjustment is made on the Wiki page for NASA's annual budget, for whatever that's worth), here are the numbers:
Ford hands Carter a NASA budget of $17.9 billion for the 1977 year.
Carter ends his term and hands Reagan a budget of $16.5 billion for 1981 (decreased by $1.4 billion under Carter).
Reagan hands Bush Sr. an annual budget of $24.1 billion (increased by $7.6 billion under Reagan).
Bush Sr. hands Clinton $26.8 billion for 1993 (increased by $2.7 billion under Bush).
Clinton hands Bush Jr. $21.6 billion for 2001 (decreased by $5.2 billion under Clinton).
Bush Jr. hands Obama $22.5 billion for 2009 (increased by $0.9 billion under Bush Jr.).
Obama hands Trump $21.6 billion for 2017 (decreased by $0.9 billion under Obama).
Trump hands Biden $23.3 billion for 2021 (increased by $1.7 billion under Trump).
As for the rest of your position, about how this relates to the percentage of the federal budget, I don't really care. If the Fed increased their budget to a hypothetical $900 trillion, and gave NASA only 0.1% of it (a massive decrease in percentage of the federal budget), it's still $900 billion, which is still an astronomical increase when compared to the $23.3 billion. Percentage goes down dramatically, but actual spending money is about 40x more than ever. I'm not saying that's a realistic comparison, but, I'm illustrating the point about why the percentage of the entire budget is nowhere near as relevant as just the inflationary figures.
And, given that you believe I reject Apollo, sorry, but I just don't have any faith in anything you say at this point. Not that you can really "offend" me, but, it just shows that you're not thinking straight overall. I've defended Apollo in these comments for years. And, you came here (other thread) and accused me of believing Apollo was a hoax. Your mind is lost.
1
-
@Cliffmchrist
And, the variability year by year is natural. It happens under every single president. But, go back and look at the numbers. There is a clear trend from every single Republican administration to increase NASA's budget, and decrease NASA's budget during every single Democrat administration. NO exceptions. Not one, from 1975 when Apollo ended, all the way up to 2021. And, like I said earlier, don't forget that each president's NASA budget for the first year in office was set by the prior administration (well, the congress under that administration, technically). So, you don't get to take Clinton's first year budget (1993) of $26.8 billion (adjusted for inflation) and then attribute that to Clinton. He inherited that amount from Bush's administration. Go look for yourself. There's a Wiki page on it. And, if you don't trust Wiki (which is wise, because it's not 100% reliable), go look at NASA's own historical figures. I just like the Wiki version because it's easy, and makes the inflation adjustment for me. I've also done it the other way (manually adjusting for inflation). And, it comes out pretty similarly to the Wiki numbers.
1
-
@xpez9694
YOU SAID: "he is facing downhill so that makes him leaning FORWARD LIKE THAT EVEN MORE LIKELY HE WOULD FALL OVER..." MAKES HIM LEANING FORWARD LIKE THAT EVEN MORE LIKELY HE WOULD FALL OVER. . read that again and again until you understand english......"
== He DID fall over!!! And, I'm not the one with the English problem here, dummy.
YOU SAID: "at @ 35:00 he is facing downhill or uphill??
== Fairly uphill. Not 100% directly, but, yeah, uphill.
YOU SAID: "@ 34:53 he is facing 90 degrees up hill or downhill??"
== He is kind of facing perpendicular to the uphill/downhill, but, he's also on his knees, on the ground.
YOU SAID: "so which direction is uphill all directions?"
== Dummy, I told you to go watch the entire sequence, not just these few seconds. Have you done that? Or, have you shoved your head up your own behind, and you're doubling down on your massive stupidity?
YOU SAID: "Mr. CHIPMUNK all directions cant be uphill."
== Dummy, he only turned about 90 degrees between 34:53 and 35:00. Good grief.
YOU SAID: "you are ignoring clearly something weird in the video"
== No, I know not to watch 7 seconds of video, and then think I understand everything from that. You, apparently, don't know that much. You watch 7 seconds of video, and think you can understand everything from that. All you need to do is watch all of the original footage. Yes, sometimes they parked on a slope, which messes up the camera angles. I've been through this rodeo many times with you conspiratards. NONE of you people watch the original footage. NONE of you people ever look at the lunar surface terrain maps, and cross compare with these videos. They were at that stop for like 20 minutes or something (don't recall exactly, and I'm not looking it up for your sake, but, something like that, yes). If you watch all of the original footage from that stop, it becomes much more clear. But, you obviously haven't done it, so, spare me your silly questions. You don't know what you're talking about. And, you were the one claiming that people lean forward (relative to the terrain) when they're walking downhill, remember?? You are BACKWARD!!! A person leans backward (relative to the terrain) when going downhill. You can't even get basic vectors right.
YOU SAID: "and just claiming one direction is up hill but if he turns the other way and still gets up the same way then turns back originally how can the gravity be the same on a flat plane that is angled in one direction as a slope that looks flat..HUH???"
== He only turned 90 degrees in those 7 seconds you're outlining, dumdum. Not 180 degrees.
YOU SAID: "I dont care if you insult me"
== Good. You shouldn't. You're insulting the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo for a decade of their lives, and calling thousands of them (a) criminal frauds who would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of, and (b) too stupid to figure out which way a camera is pointing.
YOU SAID: "but the heart of the argument I was making is still valid!"
== Then WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON YOUTUBE!?!!!!?!?! Fame and fortune are at your fingertips!!!! PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!! Submit your calculations via the scientific method!!! Demonstrate that you're correct!!! I mean, this is the most amazing part about you conspiratards... you think you have these "gotcha" moments that the entire world has never recognized, including enemy countries that would LOVE to disprove Apollo (if they could). Yet, the most you clods ever do is make conspiracy videos (no scrutiny whatsoever), or make YouTube comment postings. Not a single one of you will ever put your claims to the test of the scientific method. Or, rather, I should say, yeah, a handful of them have tried. But, those fail every single time. But, you paranoid delusional illiterate YouTube warriors never do. I can't even get you to watch the original footage, let alone can I get you to write a scientific paper to back up your assertions.
YOU SAID: "watch video... yesterday I wrote this message for you after you made bullying remarks to me."
== Bullying?? Good gods, what a snowflake. Dummy, I do not condone violence or bullying. But, if someone (like you) accuses thousands of people of being criminals, based upon ignorance, yes, I'm going to spell out my exact assessment of that person's intellectual capacity. Let's face reality here: you're not the brightest bulb. You know it. I know it. Stop pretending otherwise. And, if you want to come to a public comments forum, and display your ignorance to the world, that's your own problem, not mine.
YOU SAID: "he is leaning upward on the hill."
== When he's on two feet (right before falling), yes. When he's on all fours, on the ground, at the other timestamp you mentioned, he's 90 degrees off from that, basically a bit sideways on the slope.
YOU SAID: "okay (must be an optical illusion like others have stated...)"
== Yes. So, what's your beef? Why all the arguing, if you understand that the camera sometimes plays tricks on the human eye when it's on a slope, and when the video quality isn't exactly HD, and perspective matters? Why? If you now understand that things like this can appear like an optical illusion, why are you kicking and screaming?
YOU SAID: "Then @@ he is leaning forward but towards 90 degrees to the left... So @rockethead7 explain that."
== Sounds like you just explained it yourself.
Great job ignoring all of the rest of the stuff, by the way. It's what you conspiratards do best. You focus on little items you think you're correct about (you never are). And, when faced with stuff that shatters your delusions, you ignore it, and change topics.
1
-
As a side note, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say about having written something to me yesterday. Are you trying to say you wrote me a message, but I didn't reply? If that's the case, I'll tell you that I replied to every single sentence you wrote. But, it's possible that you wrote something else that I never saw. YouTube messages are really horrible nowadays. Often times, you can write a message, and YouTube will either auto-delete it, or, even worse, they post it, but you're the only one who can see it. I try to make it a habit nowadays to keep a Chrome browser open, signed in, and another browser open, like FF or IE, not signed in. Therefore, when I post a message with the browser that's signed in, I wait about 60 seconds (there's sometimes a delay in their auto-deleting algorithm), then load the page in the browser that isn't signed in, to verify if the rest of the world can see my posted messages or not. If you posted something I haven't replied to, then, it's a pretty good bet that you're the only one who can see it. And, you don't even have to do anything wrong, in order to get your message deleted and/or blocked. I've had messages get deleted for no valid reason whatsoever, just change one or two insignificant words, and then it works fine. We're not even talking about swearing or anything like that. YouTube's censorship algorithms have gone completely bananas.
1
-
Oh, and also (to xpez), sorry, I somehow also confused one of my comments between you and the other conspiratard. For a moment in one of my recent replies, I flip-flopped (in my mind) which of you two thought the Earth was 20x too small, and I accused you of saying that. But, it was the other guy. My apologies for that one aspect of my reply. I try to pay close attention, and never make mistakes, but, alas, they do happen, and I scold myself for years to come, even for small mistakes. I stand behind the rest of my comments when addressing your claims directly. But, that claim, well, I made the mistake about who's who, and that was my fault.
1
-
@xpez9694
YOU SAID: "Anytime you call someone a name thats bullying."
== Wow, you're one fragile snowflake, aren't you? No, dummy. Calling someone a name isn't bullying. If so, I'd have been banned from YouTube a decade ago, for the 8927349240793875903 reports to YouTube from dummies just like you, who report me to YouTube for bullying them. Thus far, I've never even had a single warning.
YOU SAID: "You are overly pedantic and you think you can just copy and paste what someone says over and over"
== Well, this basically proves you're not even reading what I'm writing. I told you, I didn't copy and paste from anybody besides myself.
YOU SAID: "Yes 90 degree turn leaned over is enough to make a huge difference in whether or not you are leaning into a hillside. Its actually impossible. go try it in a driveway or on a steep street. lean as you would to stay upright in the first position. Now turn 90 degrees with your body leaned at the same angle..you will not be able stand up without bending your knees one side to compensate. You can do this as a thought experiment. You do know what a thought experiment is genius right?? Think your brain can manage that little exercise. And you mentioned the possibility of an optical illusion. Which is fine. i can see that.. but what throws that off is the fact that he turns position and is still leaned over the same way... Now that throws all of that into question."
== No, dummy. You are taking a whopping 7 seconds of video, in which the astronaut is FALLING DOWN (thus, it's already very skewed), and then you're comparing what would happen in EARTH gravity. Good grief. The man was on his hands and knees, in 1/6th gravity, on a slope. And, again, I'm not explaining this again. Go watch the original videos, you utterly pathetic dolt!!! What's wrong with you? How many times must you be told the same thing? You're not going to get a very comprehensive idea about what's happening from 7 seconds of video when the astronaut is in the act of falling down. Good grief. Furthermore, the center of mass is off on astronauts to begin with, due to the PLSS. And, again, what are you doing on YouTube? I don't matter at all, dummy. You can scream at the wind until the cows come home in YouTube comments, nobody cares. If you have something to prove, WRITE IT UP!!!! SUBMIT IT TO JOURNALS!!!! What's wrong with you? Why can you not understand this?
YOU SAID: "Telling me I am ignoring the other stuff...what other stuff."
== Is your "scroll up" broken?
YOU SAID: "But you just feel like throwing insults and copying and pasting is somehow going to make your point stronger."
== Dummy, I'm insulting you BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IGNORAMUS. You deserve it. And, I copied and pasted because just a day or two ago, I had answered the identical question. It doesn't change the content. You're still ignoring it. Would it matter if I had written the same thing twice, vs. copying and pasting it? Would that somehow change the content? What's wrong with you?
YOU SAID: "You are the most obnoxious person I have read giving comments."
== Good gods. I don't care, dummy. YOU are the one accusing 450,000 people of being involved with worldwide fraud, based upon the inability to recognize when an astronaut is on a slope. Don't tell ME that I am obnoxious. Look in the mirror.
YOU SAID: "If you go back and read I was never outright insulting to you"
== I really don't care whether you insult me or not. I am of absolutely no consequence. You are insulting 450,000 people.
Dummy, you are still avoiding the content of the rest of the messages in this thread. People like you are amazingly pathetic. It doesn't matter if it comes from me, or comes from someone else. The content is the same either way. And, you're still avoiding it.
Look, you utter imbecile, this is what you need to do: forget YouTube comments. Just demonstrate your claims via the scientific method. That's really what this boils down to. But, I'll warn you, when you submit your analysis of 7 seconds of video for review, the very first objection will be that YOU NEVER WATCHED THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL VIDEO!!! Good gods. You sure are proud to be stupid.
1
-
@xpez9694
Great job ignoring the entire substance, and focusing on how I communicate. Dummy, "ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible positions." - Thomas Jefferson. Don't sit there and accuse 450,000 people of being involved with criminal fraud, and then be a snowflake and tell me that nobody should call you a name. Don't ignore all input, and then pretend you're on an intellectual quest. And, you want to find your answers elsewhere?? I already gave you the two main places to find your answers, and you've ignored both. (1) Go watch the original videos, not just a 7 second excerpt. (2) Write up your your findings, and submit them via the scientific methods.
Anything else, and "I will find my answer somewhere else" just means: "I'll continue to ask until I find people who agree with me, and stick with that" (the hallmark of a delusional mind).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xpez9694
You're like a child just learning to do algebra, and assuming that you're the first one. Meanwhile, mathematics has existed since before recorded history, and algebra is no big deal. You're asking questions that were answered almost 52 years ago, thinking you're the first to ask them. Do you bother to listen to Conrad and Bean, the first two to make these observations about the sound of hammers? No, of course not. Do you have any understanding whatsoever about how the microphone system worked in those suits? No, of course not. A conspiracy video said that the sounds of hammers means Apollo was fake, and the makers of that conspiracy video ignored the answers, and published the video anyway. I'll grant you the credit that you seem to be willing to absorb information. But, what makes you ridiculous is that you're only willing to accept information if people are being "nice" to you. Meanwhile, we all know what you think. For you, you want to think that somehow YOU have noticed these "problems" that none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever noticed. And, as I pointed out, you ignore the facts presented to you (as you've done above).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rosespeace7622
YOU SAID: "why did they never show the sun ?"
== What makes you think they didn't? There are many photos of the sun. And, there are many videos also, especially on Apollo 17, which pointed the video camera straight into the sun many times.
YOU SAID: "If you went to the moon wouldn’t you record the sun ?"
== On the early missions, they took plenty of photos of the sun, but, they couldn't point the camera at the sun. The vidicon tubes would burn out if they faced the sun, which is exactly what happened on Apollo 12. But, on later missions, they hardened the cameras, and they took plenty of videos of the sun in the late missions.
YOU SAID: "And if there was only two men on the moon , when they both worked together who panned and zoomed in and out on the cameras ?"
== Ed Fendell.
1
-
1
-
I just love how you ask for "no arguments." As usual, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. You never have. You never will. You are one of the most willfully ignorant people on the planet. I mean, even just a simple fact-check of your assertion debunks it right away. That's one of the most famous pans from Apollo 17 (taken when next to Camelot Crater). Now, here's the problem: Camelot Crater is to the west of the LM. It was directly in front of the LM on the landing approach (which was always from the east). So, the photo you're referring to was taken from directly west of the LM. And, yet, you think that 25:21 depicts an image facing toward the east (back toward the LM)?? Um, no. The photo at 25:21 is being taken down-sun (toward the west). So, as usual, you are completely backward. The LM is BEHIND THE CAMERA, not in front of it, in that image you're talking about. The astronaut is literally facing the complete opposite direction as what you're claiming. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You are as wrong as geometry even allows... 180 degrees in the opposite direction. That's how wrong you are.
1
-
1
-
@arelortal6580
I'm not sure what is wrong with the invisible message I posted earlier, but I'll try to divide it up and repost:
YOU SAID: "Have you managed to " convert " ONE lunar landing"
== Yes, of course. More than one. But, most, no. That's because you idiots are not concerned with facts, and you've decided ahead of time to reject all input that goes against your delusions. There is no "converting" people who refuse to accept input.
YOU SAID: "skeptic"
== No, you're not skeptical. You don't know what that means. You are blindly rejecting things that go against your predetermined conclusions. That's not skepticism. That's insanity.
YOU SAID: "in your relentless crusade of exposing all the idiots in this planet ?"
== You're doing quite a good job of exposing yourself without my help.
YOU SAID: "Nice try"
== What "nice try"?!?!?! What's wrong with you? Camelot was to the west of the landing site. The camera is facing west at 25:21, not east. They were standing at Camelot when they took that photo. The LM is is completely in the opposite direction than the image at 25:21. You are literally BACKWARD. So, how is this just a "nice try"?? This is a slam dunk. When you don't even know what direction the camera is facing, yet you use this ignorance as ammunition to say that Apollo was faked, then you lose. This isn't a "nice try." No. You don't get to just brush away the fact that you are wrong by 180 degrees, and declare victory. Good gods, the utter arrogance."
1
-
@arelortal6580
Attempting to post the other part of the missing message from earlier:
YOU SAID: "Apollo 17- On The Shoulders Of Giants (1973 ) The camera that followed the LM ascending at 23:09 was set by the astronauts after they landed and when they left the surface of the moon, the descending stage was left on the moon. Consequently, if the camera was pointing at the landing spot we would see 21:36 or 23:42 . So far so good."
== Yes, there's a lot of stuff seen in the Hasselblad photo. There's the same stuff seen in the low-res TV signal (you can't make it out at that low resolution, but, yeah, it's the same basic stuff, we agree).
YOU SAID: "The trouble starts when we compare both background with 18:40. The mountains are EXACTLY the same in all the scenes. The absences of LM or descent stage at 18:40 are impossible unless it's been staged and you know it makes sense. Don't cha ?"
== Good grief. You people are so stupid about basic photography, and geometry. You don't even know where the astronauts were standing when they took each photo. You can't just look at the background and assume the LM is in front of them. Sometimes, surprise surprise, they took photos when the LM was to their back. Shocker, I know, but it's true. And, you're committing the same exact error AGAIN, by not being aware of where the photo was taken. At 18:40 (in that other video), the LM is BEHIND THEM!!!! The camera is facing AWAY from the LM. Good gods. Once again, you are literally 180 degrees wrong. This is almost like you're doing it intentionally. It's like you don't understand basic photography (or geometry). Sheeeeeesssshhhh, you're dumb.
You are standing in a fairly featureless environment, like, whatever, a desert. Five miles away in the distance, there's a mountain. 100 feet in front of you, there's a cactus. You take the photo of the cactus with the mountain in the background. Now, walk toward the cactus, and walk past it by 20 feet, still facing the same mountain. Take another photo. Now, it's just a photo of the exact same mountain, but, wow, there's no cactus in the photo!!! The cactus must have been magically planted there, eh??? Or, is it just because the cactus is now behind you?? Good grief. This is exactly the problem you're experiencing with your ridiculous story here. You fail to realize that the LM is BEHIND THE CAMERA at 18:40 (from that other video). And, in the liftoff portion of the video, the LM is in front of the camera. Yes, same background mountains. But, one is taken in front of the LM facing those mountains, and the other is taken behind the LM facing those mountains. One has the LM in frame, one doesn't. Same background. Just like the cactus. Take a photo with the cactus in front of you, and it's in frame. Now, walk toward the mountains, past the cactus, and take the photo again, and there won't be the cactus in frame, but will have the same background.
All of this is quite easily shown by looking at the maps of where all of that stuff is located, you know. You simply don't know where any of these things are. That's why you got confused about where Camelot was (your original posting), which direction the camera was facing, etc. And, that's why you're confused about the rest of this stuff.
1
-
@arelortal6580
OK, it seems that the missing message worked this time, when I divided it up. But, anyway, the point is:
I looked up the exact photo you were complaining about, and found that they weren't in front of the LM when they took the photo at 18:40 (from that other video). They were INSIDE it. It's insignificant that I was wrong about that, because it's the same basic issue. My point is, depending on where they're standing when they take the photo, the LM may or may not be in frame, yet the background mountains will basically look the same. They can be standing behind the LM, in front of the LM, or inside the LM. And, yes, if they are facing west for all of the photos you're talking about, yes, the background will always be those mountains. They're so many miles off in the distance that there is virtually no change in appearance by just moving a hundred yards forward or backward, in front of the LM or behind it, or inside it. Yes, those mountains will look basically the same at that amount of distance. You, on the other hand, simply do not understand it.
Go map out where each photo was taken, just like Eric Jones did, and you'll see how wrong you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YOU SAID: "Of all this video I don't see any stars at all."
== Yeah, if you saw stars, that would have meant it was fake. Since it's real, you can't see stars.
YOU SAID: "Let's try to find the flag that they put on the moon."
== Five of the six flags are still standing. We know this from the shadows of those flags in the LRO photography.
YOUS AID: "Let's prove we land on the moon by finding the US 🇺🇸 on the moon with a telescope."
== Telescope??? Like, a telescope on Earth? I'm afraid you know nothing about optics. Light doesn't work that way. There's only so much you can cram through a lens, and this is a well understood property of light. Optical resolution. Look up the formulas. Do the math. It would take a lens about 75 feet across to be able to see the lunar landers on the surface of the moon, and you'd only see them as a single dot each. You wouldn't know what they were, you'd only see a dot. In order to actually be able to see them with enough resolution to know what they were, it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter. Given that the largest optical grade lens ever constructed in history is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million, I'd say we're a long way off from a quarter mile lens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1