1969 First Moon Landing - FAKE

a reply to: Maverick7

Pssst..

Turbo thinks the world is flat.

Too far gone to waste your time on.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
OK, First of all, I just want to point out this isn't a wind up post.

Yes it is.

Why would radio signal speed have changed since 69?

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

In the olden times, people could climb to the top of mountains and jump up and float into space.
Once we invented gravity, this became impossible because people were indoctrinated into the world of gravity and the part of their brain that allowed them to float into the sky was erased.

In olden days people used to ride a dragon while eating Taco Bell and listening to Slayer.

Just as believable with as much proof as what you said above.

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: turbonium1

My Fren, it's not an excuse, it's a realization. You may wish to use this 'piecemeal hyper analysis' but after seeing 'real' evidentiary research I'm just not trusting this method. It hit me like a bolt out of the blue that it was just shoddy amateur 'analysis' almost begging the question.

I'm not trying to convince you to give up this micro-analysis method but trust me, it's bogus. And, in fact both "sides" use it and both are equally haphazard uses of it.

Go to the OBMT's side and look over his research. When I saw that, it turned it around for me. YMMV. HTH

"One glitch is all that is needed to prove..."

That's just it. I'm saying that it is not a trustworthy method. It's prone to things like pareidolia, and misinterpretation of data and viewer bias.

Please don't look at my comments as though I've been 'turned' by the 'hoaxers' I'm trying to explain it for your benefit and I'm not asking you to change your beliefs. At most I suggest you look at OBMT's website.

The problem is believing in Apollo, despite all the evidence of a massive fake.


Claiming that humans flew to the moon, landed on the moon, walked on the moon, hit a golf ball on the moon, etc...

All the evidence proves it was faked.



For example -

The images from Apollo 15''s 'landing site' . No soil around the LM appears to be distinct, from any other soil, at all.

But images taken later, from 'lunar orbit', show a very distinct disturbance of soil, around that same LM.


Now, would you accept this is NOT CLOSE to being a trivial matter?


I've heard all the nonsense 'answers', as usual. It means nothing.


What they claim - there IS, in fact, an actual, physical disturbance of soil around the LM. But it cannot be seen in images from close range, on the surface. It can only be seen from far up, like in 'lunar orbit'.


When I asked them to show me even one, single example, of such a 'phenomenon', ever happening....no go.

And I also asked for a demonstration of it, in any form at all....but once again, no go...


They could never, ever, support this argument, obviously. It's a fantasy.




But, they still cannot admit to this reality - and that's the problem here.

Some really arrogant, azzmonkey responses on this thread from more than a few. Fact is, I've never been to Micronesia, but its on the map and in all sorts books and on the web. Having never been there, I could state I have doubts about its existence, or I could say I don't believe anyone has ever been there. Having become acquainted with somebody from that region of the world, and having listened to the recollections of having lived there, it becomes far easier for me to choose to believe of its existence, beyond what mere maps, books and the television tells me. Such could be created by those with an interest in forming my beliefs. I'm more about making a choice based upon information accumulated over time, not simply dispensed to me by so-called "authority figures".

I've NEVER met anybody who has gone to the moon. A trip to the moon, to me, borders upon the fantastic.

NASA has posted more than enough "stuff", over time, and as far back as my "Viewmaster Days", for me to doubt their word on just about anything. Just about.

originally posted by: BiffTannen
I've NEVER met anybody who has gone to the moon. A trip to the moon, to me, borders upon the fantastic.

I have. Your point?

originally posted by: turbonium1

The problem is believing in Apollo, despite all the evidence of a massive fake.

There is no evidence that it is a massive fake.

Claiming that humans flew to the moon, landed on the moon, walked on the moon, hit a golf ball on the moon, etc...

All the evidence proves it was faked.

None of the evidence proves that it was faked.

For example -

The images from Apollo 15''s 'landing site' . No soil around the LM appears to be distinct, from any other soil, at all.

But images taken later, from 'lunar orbit', show a very distinct disturbance of soil, around that same LM.


Now, would you accept this is NOT CLOSE to being a trivial matter?


I've heard all the nonsense 'answers', as usual. It means nothing.


What they claim - there IS, in fact, an actual, physical disturbance of soil around the LM. But it cannot be seen in images from close range, on the surface. It can only be seen from far up, like in 'lunar orbit'.


When I asked them to show me even one, single example, of such a 'phenomenon', ever happening....no go.

And I also asked for a demonstration of it, in any form at all....but once again, no go...


They could never, ever, support this argument, obviously. It's a fantasy.




But, they still cannot admit to this reality - and that's the problem here.

Your problem is that you would refuse to accept any evidence given to you and move the goalposts the instant you get it. There is evidence from India and Japan that you have been given repeatedly, but you just ram your head back where the sun don't shine and repeat the same old tired cliches over and over again.

Why pick Apollo 15? Is that because you think you have everyone over a barrel with it? Why not Apollo 11 where there is clear discolouration under the engine bell? Why pick one where there isn't a photograph taken around the LM that isn't completely disturbed by rover and feet? Surely it's not because you think buy demanding impossible answers you think you've won?

Here, have a comparison between the LRO image of the landing site and Japan''s.



and China's



Care to prove that there isn't discolouration in Japanese and Chinese images that exactly match the disturbed ground shown in the LRO image?

There is absolutely no possible way a man like Ed Mitchell would lie about walking on the moon himself, if he hadn't actually been there and done that.
Anyone who believes for a minute that a man of honor like that would deceive everyone up till his death needs to fix their own soul.
Only the extremely ignorant person believes the manned moon landings didn't happen.

Have some more turbonium.

This image is from a 1981 book

www.amazon.co.uk...

it's from my own copy



Even then they were picking out areas in Apollo 15 panoramic camera images showing ground disturbed by the rocket exhaust.

The Panoramic camera was also showing how the mission progressed:





You can even make out the rover, parked exactly where the surface images show it was parked at the end of that EVA.

Let me guess - there's some obscure technical reason why you think you'll be able to dismiss those images but won;t actually bother to provide anything remotely resembling a coherent argument as to why they aren't genuine.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Or Al Bean, Charlie Duke or Gene Cernan, all of whom I have met and heard speak about their experiences on the lunar surface. Likewise James Lovell, Tom Stafford, Fred Haise, Ken Mattingley or Al Worden on their experiences in lunar orbit.

It really isn't that hard to meet these people and their stories first hand.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Have some more turbonium.

This image is from a 1981 book

www.amazon.co.uk...

it's from my own copy

Even then they were picking out areas in Apollo 15 panoramic camera images showing ground disturbed by the rocket exhaust.

The Panoramic camera was also showing how the mission progressed:

You can even make out the rover, parked exactly where the surface images show it was parked at the end of that EVA.

Let me guess - there's some obscure technical reason why you think you'll be able to dismiss those images but won;t actually bother to provide anything remotely resembling a coherent argument as to why they aren't genuine.

No such area is found within any of the surface images - that's the whole problem.


It isn't explained as some phenomenon that shows no physical disturbance on the ground, yet could somehow appear from 'orbit', or whatever!


That's nonsense. It is not reality. It cannot be replicated, in any way.

What you suggest is not even possible, as I'll explain, yet again....


To replicate this, you must create a physical disturbance of some sort, on the ground.....

You cannot even see this disturbance, which you are creating, on the surface.


But it must be seen from, say, 50 km above it, however.


The area is about the size of Apollo's 'disturbance', at most.


Any materials, or surfaces, or methods used, are up to you.



Do you think it can be done, or not?


If you think so, please go on and prove me wrong. But if you can't, please admit that it can't be done... fair enough?

a reply to: turbonium1

As I keep pointing out to you, it is something that is much easier to see from above where the contrasts are more easily observed. The images taken on the ground are confused by perspective and all the footprints. It can be replicated, it has been replicated, you've been given the evidence that this is the case but you're just too blinkered and ill-informed that you wouldn't accept it if you were taken there and shown it in person.

Japan and India's lunar researchers are happy that they have identified the impact of the LM engine. Why should anyone take your word for it?

The evidence that people were there has been photographed by cameras sent by the USA, Japan, India and China. You have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary other than muffled shouting from your head buried in the sand.

It is the very opposite of your claim, in fact.


They claim the area is about 5 km to 10 km, roughly.

Surface images cover beyond that area, and within the area, at the same time, in images on the surface.

If the surface shows a contrast, between the two areas, it would be seen in those surface images, and more noticeable at the surface, than from 50 km above it, too.

That area is claimed to be a physical disturbance of soil, first of all.

Physical contrasts in soil are seen only more distinct when close up, compared to greater distance(s).


If you don't agree, I'd like to see just one, single example, that supports your claim, if you can...


A physical contrast that isn't seen when you are near that very physical contrast on the surface??? Go right ahead, no problem there!!!

a reply to: turbonium1

I have already given you examples of the research papers that show the existence of the discoloured ground viewed from orbit in this and other threads. There is physical evidence of disturbance of the soil beneath the engine bells, as conclusively confirmed by the 16mm landing footage that also shows details of craters and rocks that were not known about before that footage was taken, as well as by photographs taken by the crews themselves - don't be dishonest and claim you don't know this and haven't been given them before.

The papers with which you have been supplied refer to other alterations that are much more subtle and best viewed from orbit, as you well know. Repeating your bogus will not make them any more valid, and you know as well as I do that even if I produced what you demand you would still move the goalposts and deny it was sufficient proof for you.

Any time you want to provide m with evidence that the reported changes, together with the craft that produced them aren't there be my guest, until then all you are doing is repeating empty rhetoric.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: BiffTannen
I've NEVER met anybody who has gone to the moon. A trip to the moon, to me, borders upon the fantastic.

I have. Your point?

Was I too subtle? Good for you. It changes nothing for me, your response, arrogant as it is. Not A Straight Answer = NASA.

a reply to: BiffTannen

There was as much subtlety as there was content.

You seem to think never having met someone who has been to the moon was all that was required to allow you to draw a conclusion that it never happened.

I've met several Apollo astronauts. That does not prove they went. The wealth of physical, photographic, film and TV evidence does that instead. Tedious and unoriginal memes are an easy cop out instead of actually trying to understand the subject.