FoosMasoos

Have you read how dangerous the lunar regolith is to equipment? It would mean more cameras would have failed just by being on the surface and getting dust in them. Remember how many astronauts fell? I would also be interested in what kind of lubricants they used for being a vacuum.

Yes make a note, but readers, as well as myself know that your analysis thus far has been nothing but hot air. Your attempt at debunking ( I fail to see how you can even call what you have been doing that) hasn't managed a dent, a scratch, or smudge on the these videos.

Oh, so you agree that the photos were taken about one second apart?

" you have not shown that the speed of YOUR camera has any relevance to the one actually used on the moon." Its your prerogative to disagree, but I have.

Then is should have shown deformation from the initial jump. The astronaut is basically swinging his leg sideways to get into the Rover in the three photos. I dont know what force could cause the contents in his pocket to go ballistic to deform the pocket. And what forces reformed the pocket ...

Let me repeat, incase you didnt understand: you have provided no cogent explanation. As a matter of fact, your explanation has made things worse:

"The pocket was constructed of stiff material."

No, hand-waving is what you have been doing. I presented facts that have not been overturned by challenges. Have fun waiting to find someone.

You mean, as with the rest, you have no cogent explanation for what has been presented in the videos. Something heavy inside "distorted the pocket briefly." Really? As in deflating the pocket? How is that possible? It would have the opposite effect as in push against the the pocket. Then mi...

"I believe they said 1 second."

I dont want to know what you believe. What did the documents state? If you cant give a straight forward answer, then I will block you. And you can, like unparralellshadows, try it again with another account.

Not really. If the footage that we have seen is a cutaway edit, it can explain the shot. But thats all Im going to say about it because its off topic.

"I don't disagree with NASA's documentation. "

And what did NASA say about the length of time it took to wind the film?

The Satellite images are more detailed than what you see in the Apollo video.

I never saw the Earth turn in an Apollo video. You have a video link showing that?

You have no basis to claim apples vs oranges. If you dont agree with NASA's documentation then say so, and prove they are wrong.

No, those photos could have been taken by satellites.

They had several equipped with 70mm cameras.

No, dont see it.

I'll explain why in the next video.

But then you have to say the cameras internals were exposed to the vacuum, once you do that you open up a can of worms.

How is saying the Hasselblad takes one second to wind film an extraordinary claim if documents say it takes a second to wind film? Please, AWR, explain this to us.

Im disappointed if you think Im deleting comments.

Well you do know how long the it took the wind the film because I gave you documentation stating its speed, and, examples of two Hassies on video as supporting evidence. I have no idea how you can even believe in Apollo, if you are so dismissive of NASA's information? So, you to state that you...

Moon landings were real? Ok, prove it.

Ill try to make a video and present it, just need some time. Stay tuned.

Nice try, but we all know that:

Hoaxer means: someone who plays practical jokes on others.

Those of us who are research and revealing the lies are "investigators" or "conspiracy analysts"

I may have something connecting Kubrick that will blow your mind.

moon-hoaxers-are-stupid. Yes indeed, anyone trying to pull off a moon hoax is stupid. At least, they won't be able to fool all the people all the time, even though, there are suckers born every minute. Regarding your post... read more carefully next time.