@dimal7439 και @Astronio

Νήμα 2. Ερ.1. Βλέπω ότι δεν υπάρχει ιδιαίτερη υπομονή, δεν σε αδικώ, για αυτό θα πάμε
στο ψητό. Όπως πόσταρε και ο @leonar204 θα σου δώσω μόνο τις αποδείξεις και όχι τις
ισχυρές ενδείξεις (οι οποίες όμως κανονικά είναι απαραίτητες για να ολοκληρωθεί το παζλ).
Θα κάνω κόπι πέιστ μόνο δύο από αυτά που πόσταρε ο @leonar204 προσθέτοντας κάποια
πράγματα. --(1:36:00) Επικοινωνία μεταξύ γης σελήνης γρηγορότερα από την ταχύτητα του
φωτός. Απόδειξη ότι δεν υπήρχε άνθρωπος στη σελήνη. Θυμίζω ότι τα αποσπάσματα
προέρχονται από τα αυθεντικά βίντεο της Nasa Spacecraft Films τα οποία δεν τα αμφισβητεί
ούτε ο διάσημος debunker Paolo Attivissimo. --(1:44:00) Η κεραία που βρίσκεται πάνω στο
lunar rover μεταδίδει εικόνες στη γη παρόλο που κουνιέται. Απόδειξη ότι δεν ήταν στο
φεγγάρι. Απόκλιση άνω των τριών μοιρών σύμφωνα με τα στοιχεία της NASA θα οδηγούσε
σε άμεση έντονη διαταραχή ή διακοπή του σήματος. Εδώ βλέπουμε αποκλίσεις πολλών
μοιρών και παρ' όλα αυτά καμία διαταραχή του σήματος. --(1:55:00) Το ίχνος της
πατημασιάς στο έδαφος της σελήνης είναι πολύ συμπαγές και με αιχμηρές γωνίες. Αυτό για
να συμβεί πρέπει να υπάρχει ποσότητα νερού στην άμμο. Απόδειξη ότι τα βήματα έχουν
γίνει στη γη. Προσθέτω το ακόμα πιο τρανταχτό (1:50:55) σημείο όπου τα σχηματισμένα
γράμματα από τη σκόνη διατηρήθηκαν και μετά από κάποιο ταρακούνημα συμπαγή.
Απόδειξη ύπαρξης υγρασίας. Θυμίζω σύμφωνα με επίσημες έρευνες της NASA (1:50:10),
κατά τη διάρκεια της φωτεινής σελήνης αναιρείται πλήρως ο στατικός ηλεκτρισμός. (αν
μπορούσε να τον επικαλεστεί κάποιος). --(2:03:11) 1) ο αστροναύτης έχει μία αρκετά
μεγάλη κλίση ως προς το έδαφος όπου κανονικά έπρεπε να πέσει προς τα εμπρός γιατί τα
πόδια του είναι πολύ πίσω από την plub line που περνά από το κέντρο μάζας του. 2)
καταφέρνει και γυρνάει σε όρθια θέση ενώ έχει και τα δύο πόδια πίσω, είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι
κάτι τον κρατάει από πάνω. Υπάρχουν πετονιές ψαρέματος πολύ λεπτές σχεδόν αόρατες
που μπορούν να κρατήσουν εκατοντάδες κιλά. Απόδειξη ότι ο αστροναύτης δεν είναι στο
φεγγάρι. -- Α. Φωτογραφία: Αδύνατη τέτοια σκιά με μία πηγή φωτισμού στο (2:50:45) . Β
Φωτογραφία. Σε άλλο βίντεο https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=fMcpKJ18nmo&ab_channel=BartSibrel στο (0:38) είναι 90 μοίρες!!! γωνία οι δύο σκιές. Γ
Φωτογραφία. Για να κάνουμε κάτι και μόνοι μας, γράφουμε στο google “project apollo
image gallery” και επιλέγουμε το «http://apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html» που είναι
το επίσημο σάιτ της NASA. Πάνω αριστερά επιλέγουμε την αποστολή «Apollo 17» και μετά
βρίσκουμε τη φωτογραφία «AS17-133-20339HR». Εκεί βλέπουμε τρία πράγματα
ταυτόχρονα. α. 70 μοίρες γωνία μεταξύ των σκιών. β. Σημεία Hotspot και Fall-off. γ. Θολές
άκρες στο περίγραμμα της σκιάς του αστροναύτη, γεγονός που συμβαίνει μόνο στον
τεχνητό φωτισμό. (Εξήγηση και στο περιβόητο ντοκιμαντέρ «American Moon (English
Version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=KpuKu3F0BvY&t=4655s&ab_channel=luogocomune2 στο (2:57:28). [ Απλά ξαναέβαλα το
λινκ του ντοκιμαντέρ εδώ σε περίπτωση που κάποιος έχει χαθεί] --Τέλος στο (1:15:18)
μιλάμε απλά για γελοιότητα και όχι ενδείξεις και αποδείξεις. Το lunar module, με σημερινά
λεφτά αξίας 21 δις!!!!! δολάρια, είναι πρόχειρα καλυμμένο με αλουμινόχαρτο και μονωτική
ταινία.
@nickrose8733
πριν από 1 έτος
And full of questions. Perhaps you can answer them - no one else can:

You understand that every question you make, generates the need of scientific and
bibliography research. This makes it easier for you, so you don't have to answer the
questions in the documentary. Furthermore, our topic is not about the direction or
management of the documentary presentation, but whether the moon landing is a hoax.
Therefore, it is not necessary to answer every question you have, as it requires time and
organization, but in the end, it won't contribute to the main goal. So, as you will see, I will
skip those questions considered irrelevant.

1. Why does he imply that reflections from the lunar surface are the same as from
manmade reflectors when they clearly do not give the same results? Scientists have
to aim at the reflectors and when they hit it, a distinct signature is returned, and
can’t be confused with just it bouncing of the moons surface.

Google and download the scientific paper “A Critical Review of the Lunar Laser Ranging”. It
concludes: “According to the number of return photons I go even further and conclude that
in all lunar laser ranging experiments the measurements were taken to the bare surface of
the Moon.” Also in Mythbusters episode here https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=VmVxSFnjYCA&ab_channel=LunarTuner at 2:26, He says “We are getting one and three
photons back per pulse if we’re lucky.” The estimation of the MIT laser ranging in 1962 of
received photons per pulse is between 8-12. However, the record of received photons in this
very station is only 0.135 in October 2005, Apollo 15 array. You should rather ask yourself
how is it possible to target an object on the moon from Earth, the size of a laptop, without
being able to see it directly, while taking into account that the Earth is rotating and the moon
is constantly changing its position irregularly.

2. Why does he not reveal that 380kg of moon rocks were brought back, and that rocks
from Antarctica are impossible to pass off as coming from the moon? The re-entry
changes themselves would give it away and their exposure to moisture would
change the chemical composition of the rocks.

In fact, rocks from Antarctica are very possible to pass off as coming from the moon. The
Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 by 12 countries and serves to protect Antarctica from
destructive operations and war. It designates Antarctica as a scientific preserve and bans
military activity, ensuring a collaborative effort through science and research among those
who inhabit it. So, a scientific team from USA could easily transport rocks from there,
without having to justify it to someone. The chemical composition of a substance does not
change with moisture, unless it reacts with it. Elements known to be present on the lunar
surface include, among others, oxygen (O), silicon (Si), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), calcium
(Ca), aluminium (Al), manganese (Mn) and titanium (Ti). Among the more abundant are
oxygen, iron and silicon. The oxygen content is estimated at 45% (by weight). Carbon (C) and
nitrogen (N) appear to be present only in trace quantities from deposition by solar wind. So,
the elements are the same with the Earth’s, so as the chemical compositions produced by
them. In addition, by using a drying kiln you can easily absorb all the moisture.

3. Why does he lie that the moon orbiters before the moon landing had the resolution
to be able to produce the fine details of the moon's surface seen in the moon videos.
NASA did not have the knowledge beforehand of what the surface looked like closer
than a few kilometres up.

You missed the part in

4. Why, when talking about the Van Allen Belt, does he rely on quotes from Van Allen
from 1959 and 1961, but doesn’t quote his more recent one in 2002 where he says
radiation is not a problem?
5. Why does he not clarify that rivets were used for structural components in the LM,
while tape was used only for exterior panels that were meant to cover fuel tanks and
wires and had no structural purpose?
6. Why, does he not include pictures from the Chinese Lander Rabbit, which in 2014,
showed no blast crater, illumination of areas that should have been in shadow, and
wet looking tracks in the dirt? This is independent evidence, from a source other
than NASA, that confirms the Apollo pics for not having a blast crater, that artificial
backlighting was not needed and that the soil does in fact look wet on the moon.
7. Why does he only show videos of visible exhausts in space, where there are many
videos of rockets having a clear exhaust in space?
8. Why, when finding just two examples of audio delay not present, didn't he have
them examined by an expert to determine if they were originals or had been
tampered with?
9. Why does he imply that the flaps of the rover were moving because of wind when
clearly, they were moving because the rover was being driven over uneven terrain?
In the other case, it is clear it is being squashed by the astronaut cleaning the rover
as the flap bends it half - would wind bend a flap in half?
10. Why does he keep making conclusions based on videos that only show some of the
area of interest, like the so called flap moving due to wind (when it was clearly being
squashed by the astronaut as he was cleaning it), or the feet of the astronaut being
hidden by rocks? Why, when implying the live broadcasts should have dropped out
because of misalignment of the antenna, did he not reveal there were many
instances when the dropping out did happen?
11. Why did he lie about the dust coming out from behind the lunar rovers shows
evidence of being suspended in air when it clearly did not?
12. Why did he not explain that the use of wires in Hollywood always require CGI or
other techniques to remove evidence of the wires, and that there were hours of
video where this would have had to be done?
13. Why did they only show pictures where wires could have been used, and not video
where it would have been impossible to set up given the large areas and
incompatible movements of the astronauts?
14. Why, when trying to explain flag movement, did he carry out an experiment to show
how static could not have caused movement, but then did not do the same to show
whether air displacement could do it? The astronaut was so far away from the flag
that air displacement would not cause any movement but he did not test to prove
this.
15. Why did he not use original footage for one case of the flag moving, but a restored
footage which was clearly an artefact of the restoration?
16. Why, when dismissing the venting of the LM as a cause of the flag movement did he
not explain that the venting occurred at exactly the same time as the flag moved?
17. Why, in order to show the effects of radiation on film the producer irradiated film
directly from an x-ray machine which is many times stronger radiation than on the
moon, whilst the film in the Apollo missions were protected by cannisters, the
spacecraft and the camera?
18. Why did he show poor quality photos which had their contrast deliberately altered
to imply spotlights were used?
19. Why did he show only one photo with non-parallel photos that converge to a point,
and not the dozens of others which either show parallel shadows where the ground
is flat, or non-parallel shadows that don’t converge as is found on Earth?
20. Why does he dismiss lunar dust sticking because of electrostatic forces when there
are several peer review papers that show that this is the case?
21. Why does he imply there is water in the dirt to make it stick and form clumps when
the complaint from astronauts was that it was fine dust that was the problem and
could get in between creases and small gaps?
22. Why does he consistently use a leaf blower as an analogy for the descent engine
exhaust when it is well known that the exhaust spreads out in a vacuum and does
not produce a focussed jet like in a leaf blower?
23. Why did they lie about the NVIDIA simulation to infer that the main result was that
Neil Armstrong was the reason Buzz lit up in that first photo, rather than the real
finding which was that the lunar soil reflected enough light to light up Buzz
completely?
24. Why did he not show the pictures of the Astronauts after they just returned to Earth
where they were ecstatic, but focussed on a press conference weeks after, which
included quarantine and a room full of reporters.

Good luck!
 A. In order to do something on our own, we write "project apollo image gallery" in
Google and select the official NASA website, which is
"http://apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html." In the upper left corner, we choose
the "Apollo 17" mission and then locate the photograph "AS17-133-20339HR."
There, we observe three things simultaneously:

a. A 70-degree angle between the shadows.

b. Hotspot and Fall-off points.
c. Blurred edges in the outline of the astronaut's shadow, a phenomenon that occurs only in
artificial lighting.

B. Apollo 11 astronauts had an average dosimeter rating of 0.18. Apollo 9 astronauts

had an average dosimeter rating of 0.20. What is interesting is that Apollo 11
astronauts passed through the Van Allen Belts twice, went all the way to the moon
and back but had lower ratings than Apollo 9 astronauts who never left earth''s orbit.
Here's the NASA source that I found this information at: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-
368/s2ch3.htm

C. An article titled "A Critical Review of Lunar Laser Ranging," published in the
American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, provides an explanation for why
retroreflectors were unable to return a higher number of photons to the source, in
contrast to those that were emitted from the Moon's bare surface.

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?
journalid=301&doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20200803.11

Αυτό είναι το "heiligenschein" που προκαλείται από τα γυαλικά σωματίδια στην

επιφάνεια του ρηγόλιθου. Λειτουργούν ως αντανακλαστήρες που αντανακλούν το
φως προς τα πίσω. Μπορείτε να το δοκιμάσετε αυτό μόνοι σας. Βγείτε έξω και
μετρήστε το ποσό του φωτός που έρχεται από το φεγγάρι στο ημίφεγγος, και μετά
μια εβδομάδα στην πανσέληνο. Το φεγγάρι στην πανσέληνο θα έπρεπε να δίνει το
ΔΙΠΛΑΣΙΟ ποσό φωτός, σωστά; Εκτός από το ότι δίνει πολύ ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΕΡΟ από το
διπλάσιο φως στην πανσέληνο έναντι του ημίφεγγου.

Αυτό προκαλείται από τον ίδιο ακριβώς αντίκτυπο που βλέπουμε σε αυτήν την
εικόνα - το ηλιακό φως αντανακλάται απευθείας πίσω κοντά στην εισερχόμενη
διαδρομή - προς την κάμερα.

Η άλλη άσχετη ιστορία για τις σκιές υπό γωνία 70 μοιρών - ήξερατε ότι ο φακός που
χρησιμοποιείται είναι ευρυγώνιος;