Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: cestrup

originally posted by: onebigmonkey


You can't take these little fragments in isolation and say the rest is irrelevant. The rest is crucial to seeing the entire picture.

Actually, no. If one part is fake your side is literally screwed. So we can pick at these fragments all we want. That's the beautiful thing about a conspiracy - it's the little discrepancies that make the difference. See, a bunch of smart minds get together to try and deceive many. So it ABSOLUTELY HAS to look authentic or it's a giant fail. But, it's impossible to totally recreate the real thing and little clues are left everyhwere. That's why we pick at it. That's why, in the light of today's tech, the whole thing looks rather silly. That's why there are so many "science-minded" folk defending Apollo with such vigor and ridicule. Yes, we know that you can literally provide volumes of "evidence". Well, no sh**. That comes with every conspiracy because, like I stated, these people aren't dumb. But they're not perfect either!

But what you're doing is ignoring bits that don't fit into your theory. You're pretending the dust doesn't matter, that you can see harnesses, that audio wasn't was sourced on the moon by amateurs on the ground or by Jodrell Bank, that the weather patterns shown on pictures and film of Earth taken on the moon don't match the satellite record. I'm telling you that you have to look at all these things, and that all these things match up with the historical record.

What I'm telling you, as a science minded person, is that you're wrong, and that as a science minded person I have looked at all the volumes of evidence and every single piece of it matches with what you would expect. What you're telling me is that you just don't believe it. Sorry, that isn't enough. If you're happy to follow the deluded ramblings of liars and frauds because they don't challenge your intellect too much and they sound convincing then fine, it's your privilege. I'll stick with volumes of actual evidence that have stood the test of time.

a reply to: cestrup

You clearly have never had anyone following you and repeatedly calling you a liar.

Aldrin's response to convicted criminal thug Sibrel was both understandable and, in my opinion, laudable.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: cestrup

You clearly have never had anyone following you and repeatedly calling you a liar.

Aldrin's response to convicted criminal thug Sibrel was both understandable and, in my opinion, laudable.

The deputy DA also thought it was quite understandable and justified, too, and threw out the pathetic attempt by Sibrel (age 38 at the time) to file charges against Aldrin (age 72).

Sibrel called Aldrin a coward. Would brave Bart plonk his taxi-driving backside on the sharp end of five million pounds of rocket fuel and travel nearly a quarter of a million miles from home? A smack in the face is too good for him quite frankly.

a reply to: Rob48


Not only that but Sibrel himself admitted he deserved what he got. He's an in-your-face reporter who sometimes goes above and beyond. BUT, he's not a stalker. He didn't follow these men around but once (Young and Armstrong, a few times) to get his interview; then he let it be. He got these guys, who I believe are lying, to show their cards. They acted like children when they finally saw what Bart was getting at. That's sad.

I do think he deserved to be punched and he often had some very awkward moments. That doesn't take away from the actions of the astronauts. They looked like fools too.

So, I think we can all put aside that these men believed they were in danger. Unless you haven't watched Astronauts Gone Wild

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: cestrup

originally posted by: onebigmonkey


You can't take these little fragments in isolation and say the rest is irrelevant. The rest is crucial to seeing the entire picture.

Actually, no. If one part is fake your side is literally screwed. So we can pick at these fragments all we want. That's the beautiful thing about a conspiracy - it's the little discrepancies that make the difference. See, a bunch of smart minds get together to try and deceive many. So it ABSOLUTELY HAS to look authentic or it's a giant fail. But, it's impossible to totally recreate the real thing and little clues are left everyhwere. That's why we pick at it. That's why, in the light of today's tech, the whole thing looks rather silly. That's why there are so many "science-minded" folk defending Apollo with such vigor and ridicule. Yes, we know that you can literally provide volumes of "evidence". Well, no sh**. That comes with every conspiracy because, like I stated, these people aren't dumb. But they're not perfect either!

But what you're doing is ignoring bits that don't fit into your theory. You're pretending the dust doesn't matter, that you can see harnesses, that audio wasn't was sourced on the moon by amateurs on the ground or by Jodrell Bank, that the weather patterns shown on pictures and film of Earth taken on the moon don't match the satellite record. I'm telling you that you have to look at all these things, and that all these things match up with the historical record.

What I'm telling you, as a science minded person, is that you're wrong, and that as a science minded person I have looked at all the volumes of evidence and every single piece of it matches with what you would expect. What you're telling me is that you just don't believe it. Sorry, that isn't enough. If you're happy to follow the deluded ramblings of liars and frauds because they don't challenge your intellect too much and they sound convincing then fine, it's your privilege. I'll stick with volumes of actual evidence that have stood the test of time.

But you won't admit that the evidence is all basically controlled by the people we believe are lying. And the dust, if it were in 1g and not "moon dust" then you don't know what you're calculating. It could also be special effects as I've stated earlier because those physicists knew that it would have been a smoking gun to the observant. Honestly, I'm glad you're science-minded and use that as a pedestal against those that disagree with you. Guess what? You can be wrong too. You just won't admit that this could all be an elaborate production. I can admit that I may be wrong. Face it, neither of us truly know. I bet you can't admit that. Anytime you run into an obstacle or challenge from our side you just try to make it sound silly. "how could they run around for over an hour without harnesses tangling?" Really? You're convinced that they were running around in a 200lb suit. What if they weren't? How do we know they weren't wearing a super-light replica? All we have are photos and shoddy footage. That backpack could have been empty and weighed 5 lbs for all we know. I realize there are volumes of NASA evidence on your side. I'm just saying it could all be bullhonkey. Those pictures of the terminator line and cloud formations, how do you know they weren't doctored? Were you there to examine the real originals? I bet not. Yet, you tout this as the end all, be all. You just may have been duped, hehehe...

Why do they have people whom do nothing but fight the moon hoax? You notice how nobody questions the space station? Because everyone has done that. Also, there isn't a representative to dismiss people whom question LEO. When a company hires a PR firm, it's because they're dirty and they need someone else to clean up their image. Hmmm, notice anything similarities??? I bet not - you're probably too science-minded

Have you ever noticed the horizon line in the photos? Every photo too. I saw this webpage once and it really made me wonder because it makes the production rather obvious. Enjoy! Sorry about the formatting or whatever is wrong with this page - it didn't have these problems the first time I viewed it.

realitysandwich.com...

originally posted by: cestrup
I realize there are volumes of NASA evidence. Why do they have people whom do nothing but fight the moon hoax?

They don't. Could you point me to any of those people, or to any NASA sites that debunk the moon hoax theory? NASA just presents the evidence as it is, without relating it to any hoax theory. The closest NASA came to doing that, as far as I am aware, was more than a decade ago when they were going to get Jim Oberg to write a book debunking the moon hoax claims. They dropped that idea because it caused something of an outcry and people said it lent the hoax theories some sort of legitimacy. (And as a side note, "whom" is not a posh way of saying "who".)

Have you ever noticed the horizon line in the photos? Every photo too. I saw this webpage once and it really made me wonder because it makes the production rather obvious. Enjoy! Sorry about the formatting or whatever is wrong with this page - it didn't have these problems the first time I viewed it.

realitysandwich.com...

Every photo? Really? Are you suggesting it is suspicious that ridge lines appear on the surface of the moon? Should the moon be uniformly flat out to the horizon, in your view? How do you account for the fact that you can easily use parallax to show that the ridge lines are genuine 3D surface features and not some spurious artifact of the matting process. as this website seems to claim?

Are the people who come up with these websites being deliberately deceptive or have they really never looked at a photograph before? Take this little gem of logic:


There's a change in texture behind the line! And the little pebbles are no longer visible behind the line! Goodness me - do you think that is possibly because the ground behind the ridge line is considerably further away than the ground in front of it so that small surface features are not visible? Total idiocy.

a reply to: Rob48


Just convenient how it gives detailed ground (rocks and such), line, then a blurry floor with no details whatsoever - in every picture. So, I think there may be a back drop. Funny how they almost perfectly resemble the opening scenes of Kubrick's film. Ahh, probably just another coincidence that means nothing that science-minded people can see through.

And cut the charade - NASA has done A LOT to disprove the moon hoax. If you can't see it, then I'm sorry - you just read NASA press lines and take them as gospel, so maybe you can't see the forest through the trees. NASA let's mythbusters use their equipment to "DEBUNK HOAXERS" then they admit, after being called out - "hey, we're just entertainers" - You have website after website trying to debunk hoax theory - basically feeding off of each other. I read them and see their info in all of your responses. It's like they take pride in siding with science and turn a blind eye to being duped. So, it just sounds ignorant to me, turning yourself off completely to the other side. Oh well, guess I'm not "science-minded" - wait, science requires skepticism, right??

originally posted by: Rob48




There's a change in texture behind the line! And the little pebbles are no longer visible behind the line! Goodness me - do you think that is possibly because the ground behind the ridge line is considerably further away than the ground in front of it so that small surface features are not visible? Total idiocy.

Name-calling? Somebody mad at this post. Hope that helps you make your point. Don't start acting like an astronaut

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48


Just convenient how it gives detailed ground (rocks and such), line, then a blurry floor with no details whatsoever - in every picture. So, I think there may be a back drop. Funny how they almost perfectly resemble the opening scenes of Kubrick's film. Ahh, probably just another coincidence that means nothing that science-minded people can see through.

Convenient? How exactly can you tell on the postage stamp-sized copy of the image (with no image reference so I just had to hunt through the catalogue to find a decent sized copy) that "Realitysandwich.com" uses to illustrate this?

Have a look at a decent sized version: www.hq.nasa.gov...

I don't know about you but I can see rocks of different sizes right out to the horizon!

But here's the best bit, that is just one of a series of photos taken from slightly different vantage points. So if we compare two of them, taking a fixed reference point (the Earth) then we can see that we are looking a three-dimensional landscape, not a painted backdrop.



Notice how the foreground appears to move more than distant objects, all the way to the horizon. Especially compare the angle between the rocks at the left and compare them to those nearer the centre and the horizon. Parallax. That's "science-minded", I suppose. Why don't hoax believers ever spend a few minutes downloading images and testing things like this, I wonder?

Source photos are here:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48


Just convenient how it gives detailed ground (rocks and such), line, then a blurry floor with no details whatsoever - in every picture. So, I think there may be a back drop. Funny how they almost perfectly resemble the opening scenes of Kubrick's film. Ahh, probably just another coincidence that means nothing that science-minded people can see through.

Convenient? How exactly can you tell on the postage stamp-sized copy of the image (with no image reference so I just had to hunt through the catalogue to find a decent sized copy) that "Realitysandwich.com" uses to illustrate this?

Have a look at a decent sized version: www.hq.nasa.gov...

I don't know about you but I can see rocks of different sizes right out to the horizon!

But here's the best bit, that is just one of a series of photos taken from slightly different vantage points. So if we compare two of them, taking a fixed reference point (the Earth) then we can see that we are looking a three-dimensional landscape, not a painted backdrop.

Notice how the foreground appears to move more than distant objects, all the way to the horizon. Especially compare the angle between the rocks at the left and compare them to those nearer the centre and the horizon. Parallax. That's "science-minded", I suppose. Why don't hoax believers ever spend a few minutes downloading images and testing things like this, I wonder?

Source photos are here:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

If you can't see the line and then the difference in detail then there's no helping you. Thanks for using an awesome photo to illustrate the point that Weidner was trying to drive home. Here's a good comparison photo, that's without a backdrop - and surprisingly no lack of detail even though there's changes in elevation and such..

upload.wikimedia.org...

a reply to: Rob48


Lost cause dude. Evidence be damned. You said something was idiocy, which it was, and he accused you of name calling, which you didn't. You've used proven math equations, he hasn't, he might not even know how math works. Notice, I did not accuse you cestrup of not knowing math, just saying its a possibility. Side by side photos, examples of the poor filming qualities at the time, blah, blah, blah. An alien from the moon could show up with selfies of him and the Apollo 11 crew and he'd [cestrup] still deny it. Again, lost cause. "Da'nile, no longer just a river in Egypt". -Tom Arnold True Lies

originally posted by: cestrup

If you can't see the line and then the difference in detail then there's no helping you. Thanks for using an awesome photo to illustrate the point that Weidner was trying to drive home.

If you can't see the difference between a small ridge and the edge of a film set then there is no helping you. Did you open the full size image? The raw image is much much bigger than the thumbnail visible in this thread. I think you might be surprised. Here's that link again: www.hq.nasa.gov...

See the little ridge line? And what about the conclusive proof of that animated GIF that we are looking at a 3D landscape and not a painted backdrop or matted composition, too? A landscape that, let me point out, is BEYOND the line that you claim is the edge of the backdrop? How are you going to explain that one? Oh that's right, you're not, you'll ignore it and move on to a different topic because it might shatter your cosy little fairy tale. Thought so.

Here's a good comparison photo, that's without a backdrop - and surprisingly no lack of detail even though there's changes in elevation and such..

Nice cherry-picking. I can do that too. Oh look how the texture changes over the ridge line.



For someone who claims that their mind "isn't made up" you must be one of the most closed-minded individuals I have ever come across! Always the same, hoaxers who claim to be on the fence and say "well I'm not sure, I need more evidence" and then blatantly ignore any piece of evidence unless it's a vague blurry image off a crank website...

Name-calling? Somebody mad at this post.

"Idiocy" wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the ridiculous argument presented on that website. But if you can't see how idiotic his argument is, well, if the cap fits...

a reply to: Rob48


So you can cherry pick and i can't? Quit trying to analyze "hoaxers". Such a silly tactic. We aren't all the same and for you to assume that is rather telling. Marginalizing has been a tactic of propaganda for ages and is very telling.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48


So you can cherry pick and i can't?

No, I said that I can cherry-pick too.

Now, let's attack the argument not the person. What is your explanation for the fact that the landscape beyond the line, which you claim to be a fake studio backdrop is clearly three-dimensional and much closer to the camera than the Earth in the sky, as we can tell from the parallax between photographs?



I'm not cherry-picking here: I am using exactly the same scene that "realitysandwich" used to illustrate the "backdrop" theory. Do you agree that this theory is therefore total nonsense?

originally posted by: Kronzon
a reply to: Rob48


Lost cause dude. Evidence be damned. You said something was idiocy, which it was, and he accused you of name calling, which you didn't. You've used proven math equations, he hasn't, he might not even know how math works. Notice, I did not accuse you cestrup of not knowing math, just saying its a possibility. Side by side photos, examples of the poor filming qualities at the time, blah, blah, blah. An alien from the moon could show up with selfies of him and the Apollo 11 crew and he'd [cestrup] still deny it. Again, lost cause. "Da'nile, no longer just a river in Egypt". -Tom Arnold True Lies

You've done nothing but attack me. Yes, you're brilliant and I'm not. There - now maybe you can meet Rob in person and pat him on the back. Aren't these types of posts a violation?

There is no evidence that isn't controlled by the people who I claim are lying. How is it that you don't get that? Do you only read with your authority-woriship colored glasses on? If you're whiffing on the points I'm trying to make (notice how Rob isn't, he's replying in what's known as a conversation - see, I can't tell if you know about these blah blah blah) then maybe you can take your fallacy-riddled nonsense elsewhere.

I can see where this thread is headed. I'll exit and you guys can claim victory. Makes no differnce to me but I bet it really irks you to know that people don't believe in your gospel. Nobody has ever even been a fraction of the suppposed moon landings. There's some facts you'll never be able to argue. We don't even know if anyone can do it today. For the first time in history - man makes it to an unexplored land, walks around a fraction of it - and NEVER GOES BACK.

a reply to: Rob48


See, the difference in your moon parallax is that it's like basically a few feet. The picture you have here on earth, judging by the size of the rocks and how far it's zoomed out - could be a few hundred feet. How do you lose so much detail in such a small amount of space? You, sir are comparing apples to applebees. There's a huge size discrepancy in the photos.

originally posted by: cestrup For the first time in history - man makes it to an unexplored land, walks around a fraction of it - and NEVER GOES BACK.

Never? Let's say nobody else walks on the moon until 2032. A sixty year gap is hardly "never". What's so hard to understand? There was a political need to send men to the moon then, and there isn't now. NASA have been busy sending rovers to Mars and orbiters to the moon to do jobs that men can't do. If you want to map the whole moon then you don't send two men at a time to do the job!

But men will go back. They'll see the Apollo hardware on the moon. Eventually it will be a tourist attraction like Plymouth Rock. How silly will hoax believers feel then, if any are still alive?

See, the difference in your moon parralax is that it's like basically a few feet.

A few feet? Really? Where was the picture taken? What was the distance to the horizon? You might be forgetting that there is no air on the moon. Things don't get fuzzy and look "distant", they just look SMALLER: smaller to the point of being impossible to resolve.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: cestrup For the first time in history - man makes it to an unexplored land, walks around a fraction of it - and NEVER GOES BACK.

Never? Let's say nobody else walks on the moon until 2032. A sixty year gap is hardly "never". What's so hard to understand? There was a political need to send men to the moon then, and there isn't now. NASA have been busy sending rovers to Mars and orbiters to the moon to do jobs that men can't do. If you want to map the whole moon then you don't send two men at a time to do the job!

But men will go back. They'll see the Apollo hardware on the moon. Eventually it will be a tourist attraction like Plymouth Rock. How silly will hoax believers feel then, if any are still alive?

Right, well - I have history on my side. You just have canned responses that have been used over and over by your side. Humans, by nature, don't just go to a place and never go back. We colonize (remember the plans??) and we exploit for resources. If it were so easy - which you try to make it seem - don't you think China or Russia or private industry would have been there? Could you imagine how hard it was for the first Viking ship to cross the Atlantic? They didn't stop - The Spanish didn't stop.

Who cares about mapping? We don't just want a map. That's nonsense. You don't just go to an island on six different durations, explore less than 1% total, and never go back. "Ah screw it - let's just map it!" That logic is flawed, sad and dishonest. They spent 60 million on a Rover that has less technology than my $40k 4Runner. Money isn't an issue - Apollo could have been a ploy. It's honestly sad that you refuse to consider it. You've already chose your side and you're sticking to it.

a reply to: Rob48

For as smart as you claim to be, you're making this one difficult -here, I'll help.

Your moon photo shows the grains of sand, dust, whatever. Then you post a picture on earth with a parallax that isn't this detailed and is much farther out. Can you make out the grains in that photo? There, that's why it's a bad example. I hope this helps

And maybe this can get politcal again. I have my reasons for doubts and I couldn't care less if I was proven wrong. I would love it if we went to the moon. That's would literally blow my mind. But, I saw this article here and it brought up some excitement.

www.themoscowtimes.com...