Humint Events Online: NASA Scam

Tuesday, October 30, 2007


Anyone notice anything funny about this photo?

(click to enlarge)
(Tip to Rob for the photo)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah. It is appearing on this sorry ass fucked up blog.

9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i do. the direction of the shadows would indicate that the sun is behind the astro-not and the lander yet we can see this side of both.
since there is no atmosphere to diffuse the sunlight on the moon, the side facing the camera, on both the *hero* and the lander should be pitch black at best - like the inside of that hole or the near side of those small rocks.

10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those two white light reflections in the top right seem a bit odd, as does the lack of lead-in footprints. What else?

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

Funny thing about this ridiculous photo is: unless this AstroNUT made a 6 foot+ jump to arrive where he currently is (and the highest AstroNut "Lunar" jump I have seen to this date in 'Official' NASA films is a little over a foot...just like what you would accomplish in earth gravity BTW), there is no way he coul've arrived at that spot without being lifted there.

For there are simply no footprints anywhere behind him (at least none within a realistic stride/jump distance)leading to the spot he ended up...

12:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I was going to say that, Rob. But thought the shills would come back and say his shadow hides some footprints (even though he should have walked from the "LM" direction).

But it is also true that the "LM" and his spacesuit should be quite dark, as noted above, by 10:00 PM (good job.).

This is also one of the very few photos of "the Moon" in an Apollo photo that doesn't have that IDENTICAL hilly background. Check out the horizon. For this one they left out the painted background that they usually put in.


1:24 AM  
Anonymous Rob said...

Exactly A.P.!

Notice how Pitch Black the shadow in front of him is, and at the same time how nicely illuminated (b.w.o. fill lighting) the shadow side of his body/suit is!!

Can we say "Secondary Illumination" children!? I KNEW you could! hehe

1:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys have me rolling on the floor.

Do us all a favor and go read this page and get back to us.

Its called "f-stop"

6:46 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

How does f-stop settings explain the lack of footprints?

Apart from the lack of footprints and what I agree is odd lighting, that crater in the background looks quite uncrater-like to me.

7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The f/stop regulates how much light is allowed through the lens by varying the area of the hole the light comes through.

it doesn't say anything about artificially illuminating the side of an object hidden from the sun in an environment with no atmosphere.


8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"... that crater in the background looks quite uncrater-like to me."

And your experience and expertise and lunar acumen on knowing what a crater would look like on the moon is......what?

You love doing that - saying what YOU think something should look like without having even the FUCKING FOGGIEST idea what it would look like in the first place. This is a classic example of someone living in a fantasy world, making shit up when they don't know what it should be in the first place, or if they don't LIKE what the reality of life gives them.

"How does f-stop settings explain the lack of footprints?"

what lack of footprints? Just because you choose not to acknowledge that footprints COULD be in the shadow or on the surface BEHIND the astronaut leading from the ridge of the crater or he might have jumped there from outside the picture frame on the left, turned around and was beginning to jump back. 1/6th gravity and all - but I forgot - gravity is in on this whole galactic conspiracy as well.

Keep those hits coming, Spookster! I love looking to see what the next ball of booger brain shit post you have up!

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JREF shill/CIA/NSA agent:

Your fakery boys already demonstrated they could never jump more than a foot. We all here know why! We all know where they were. So don't dare say the Astro-not jumped anywhere.

And Spooked is quite right, we have seen enough real craters to note the "anomaly" of no perimeter ridge nor ejecta (other than a rock or 2 placed there--with a "C", shill?)

See the top pic here:

Note the perimeter elevated ridge, not that obviously dug out crap in the laughable "Apollo photo." Spooked is certainly right.

"F/Stop", liar, can't create light when there is none.

And I love how these shills evade the issue. The makers of the film and the camera have admitted neither would have worked on the Moon. Examination of the suit and glove etc. indicate the Astro-nots would have had great difficulty in taking ANY pics, let alone any good ones.

Read "Dark Moon. Apollo and the Whistleblowers."

The fake "Apollo" program and the next one to follow--which is why agents/scum like this one try so hard [think on this people] rely on both the big lie technique and the sheeple's desperate denial mechanism not to perceive their regime for what it is--a lying, mass murdering monster...With lots of scum like this one dooming their own children just to make a buck, and get the bennies.

Anonymous Physicist

11:15 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

To the dickweed at 10:38am--

most moon craters have a sharp rim, for instance see here:

I am pointing out a simple fact, dickweed, that this crater has a rim that looks eroded, not sharp. Please tell us what erodes a crater rim on the moon?

Now does this smooth rim prove anything? No, because crater formation can be complex and it is in the realm of possibility that this is a real crater. But I didn't claim this smooth-edged crater was proof of anything. But I found it suspicious, following the logic of probability.

So we have three strikes against this image:
1) no footprints leading to where the dude is standing -- and I find it unlikely there are footprints in the shadow because that would mean this dude was walking straight backwards with an odd wide-legged stance for no apparent reason (was this guy Larry Craig?)
2) the lighting artifacts (and what is that white thing glowing to the left of the lander?)
3) the oddly smoothed-edge crater

Given all the other anomalies of the Apollo program, I think it is reasonable to conclude that this photo was shot on earth under special lighting conditions, and that the "astronaut" was lowered onto this position using wires-- thus the lack of footprints. This would in fact explain the set of footprints clustered around where he was set down.

Now, to the dickweed at 10:38am-- I don't know why it is so amazingly shocking to you that someone would hypothesize something different from mainstream thinking on an obscure site on the internet. Not to mention that the rebuttals that dickweeds like you present to us are almost completely composed of insults and are almost completely fact-free.

I do think however, that it is kind of cute that you keep coming here over and over to defend the official story, for whatever the official story is.

12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you look at it purely from the perspective of the photo, things are not clear enough to consider it real or fake.

3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you look at it purely from the perspective of the photo, things are not clear enough to consider it real or fake.

it is an official photo purportedly of the lunar surface. therefore all of the reasons listed above for it's authenticity or lack thereof do apply.

9:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger