Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: mrwiffler
a reply to: Ove38

There is a finite, (quite small actually) bunch of ideas held by the non-believers. It is a safe assumption that when engaging any given non-believer they are pulling ideas from that limited pool. If you have different ideas, please let us know.

Let's go back back to the beginning, the story goes that a man named Armstrong, was the first man on the moon, correct ? I am sure you have a lot of photos of this historic event: Armstrong on the moon

Could you show us all the photos taken, showing Armstrong on the moon ? If not, why should i believe your story about Armstrong on the moon ?

And what about the original video tapes, tv transmissions, of this historic event ? I am sure you have them ? If not, why should i believe your story about Armstrong on the moon ?

"Original video tapes"? What exactly does that mean? .....

The Apollo 11 missing tapes are missing slow-scan television (SSTV) recordings of the lunar transmissions broadcast during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, which was the first time human beings supposedly walked on the Moon.

Can you find them ?

you know there was more than one mission that has man walking on the moon..

So you want to move away from the fact that the first man on the moon didn't pose in front of the camera while he supposedly was there, but had no problems doing that while on earth ?

nope this is different.. you are acting like only the apollo 11 tapes mattered and them being "missing" is proof of some sort of hoax.. all the while you completely ignore that 12,14,15,16 and 17 landed men on the moon also..

So you want to prove that Armstrong "the first man on the moon" was really on the moon, by referring to other Apollo missions he wasn't even a part of ? Explain why we don't have photos of Armstrong posing as the first man on the moon ? or even waving to the tv audience back home ?

Knowing how stupid this was, he spent his whole life playing a shy guy that didn't want to be credited for anything, while his partner tried to fill in his role, as much as he could.

you made a point about missing tapes like it meant something, while ignoring every other mission that still has theirs.. so what was your point about the missing tapes??

and im not trying to prove armstrong was on the moon, i dont have to.. its your theory that he wasnt.. it is your alternate belief that he wasnt, so the burden of proof is on you..

you need to prove to us why you believe armstrong was definitely 100% not on the moon.. you are 100% convinced that armstrong was not on the moon, then it should be simple for you to do.

p.s. ive noticed you have diverted your attention from the photo with armstrong in it.. so, who took the photo??

a reply to: Ove38

More strawmen. Here we have a typical Apollo denier debating tactic. Ignore direct questions and instead impose an extremely narrow range of information that they consider to be acceptable, usually when they know there isn't answer and they can then carry on skipping down the rabbit hole convincing themselves they've had a biug "A-HAAA" moment and chalked one up for their side.

You know full well that there are no photographs of Armstrong posing. So what? We have photographs of him not posing, we have photographs taken by him, we have photos, video and TV of him that were taken on the way there, on the moon and on the way back. We have a mountain of evidence that supports the contention that he was there, but the only thing you will accept is a toursit snap that you know doesn't exist?

Try this one:



The magazine it's on contains images of Earth taken in both lunar orbit and the lunar surface that can be precisely dated, and equipment and lunar features that can be verified from modern orbital images.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

More strawmen. Here we have a typical Apollo denier debating tactic. Ignore direct questions and instead impose an extremely narrow range of information that they consider to be acceptable, usually when they know there isn't answer and they can then carry on skipping down the rabbit hole convincing themselves they've had a biug "A-HAAA" moment and chalked one up for their side.

You know full well that there are no photographs of Armstrong posing. So what? ....

But there are, there are a lot of them, but not on the moon ! Your photo of him in the rocket, prove that he had no problem posing and smiling to the camera ! So, what is the real explanation for the missing photos ? try to be a bit honest !

And why do you think photos taken on the moon, prove that man has been to the Moon ? are photos taken on Mars prove that man has been to the Mars ?

originally posted by: Ove38
So, what is the real explanation for the missing photos ?

why dont you tell us why it is important first.. are you trying to suggest he was not on the moon?? if so is this your best evidence that armstrong was not on the moon?

is this what convinced you 100% that at the very least armstrong was not on the moon, and by extension no one was on the moon?

a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?

You might not have realised but Armstrong was a little busy. That's the only explanation he was also not the kind of guy who posed for photos when there was work to do. Buzz was also a little busy. They were both busy taking images of the moon.

Here is Armstrong being busy:



Sorry he doesn't wave at the camera like some theme park dork, but you can clearly see him through his visor. Got any proof it isn't him, or that he isn't on the moon?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38
So, what is the real explanation for the missing photos ?

why dont you tell us why it is important first.. are you trying to suggest he was not on the moon?? if so is this your best evidence that armstrong was not on the moon?

is this what convinced you 100% that at the very least armstrong was not on the moon, and by extension no one was on the moon?

Do you have a better explanation for the missing photos and tapes ?

Something is wrong, don't you get it ? The rocket went we all saw that, they were in space, but did they land on the moon, inside the lunar module, as we are told ? or did the lunar module land without them, like China's lander ?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?....

Try to think of LRO in Mars orbit taking pictures of craters on Mars not known about on any pre-Mars rover views of the site. Get it ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38
So, what is the real explanation for the missing photos ?

why dont you tell us why it is important first.. are you trying to suggest he was not on the moon?? if so is this your best evidence that armstrong was not on the moon?

is this what convinced you 100% that at the very least armstrong was not on the moon, and by extension no one was on the moon?

Do you have a better explanation for the missing photos and tapes ?

Something is wrong, don't you get it ? The rocket went we all saw that, they were in space, but did they land on the moon, inside the lunar module, as we are told ? or did the lunar module land without them, like China's lander ?

so that is good enough for your absolute conviction?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?....

Try to think of LRO in Mars orbit taking pictures of craters on Mars not known about on any pre-Mars rover views of the site. Get it ?

You clearly don't. Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 40 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?....

Try to think of LRO in Mars orbit taking pictures of craters on Mars not known about on any pre-Mars rover views of the site. Get it ?

You clearly don't. Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 40 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?

You didn't get that ? let's try one more time !

"Mars rovers on the mars surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 4 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?"

Do you now see why your "proof" is no proof ?

maybe this will help ?

"Surveyor 5 was the fifth lunar lander of the American unmanned Surveyor program sent to explore the surface of the Moon. Surveyor 5 landed on Mare Tranquillitatis. A total of 19,049 images were transmitted to Earth."

Where did the supposed manned Apollo 11 lander land and took some images, two years later ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?....

Try to think of LRO in Mars orbit taking pictures of craters on Mars not known about on any pre-Mars rover views of the site. Get it ?

You clearly don't. Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 40 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?

You didn't get that ? let's try one more time !

"Mars rovers on the mars surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 4 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?"

What it would verify is whether the photographs were a match. If they match, then they are clearly photographing the same thing. Got that?

Do you now see why your "proof" is no proof ?

Now do you see why your argument is a dumb one?

maybe this will help ?

"Surveyor 5 was the fifth lunar lander of the American unmanned Surveyor program sent to explore the surface of the Moon. Surveyor 5 landed on Mare Tranquillitatis. A total of 19,049 images were transmitted to Earth."

Where did the supposed manned Apollo 11 lander land and took some images, two years later ?

Surveyor 5 landed 24Km away from Apollo 11. Got any pictures of Apollo 11's landing site from Surveyor 5?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?....

Try to think of LRO in Mars orbit taking pictures of craters on Mars not known about on any pre-Mars rover views of the site. Get it ?

You clearly don't. Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 40 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?

You didn't get that ? let's try one more time !

"Mars rovers on the mars surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 4 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?"

Do you now see why your "proof" is no proof ?

maybe this will help ?

"Surveyor 5 was the fifth lunar lander of the American unmanned Surveyor program sent to explore the surface of the Moon. Surveyor 5 landed on Mare Tranquillitatis. A total of 19,049 images were transmitted to Earth."

Where did the supposed manned Apollo 11 lander land and took some images, two years later ?

about 25km away.. so like did the surveyor probe have a giant telephoto lens?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

More strawmen. Here we have a typical Apollo denier debating tactic. Ignore direct questions and instead impose an extremely narrow range of information that they consider to be acceptable, usually when they know there isn't answer and they can then carry on skipping down the rabbit hole convincing themselves they've had a biug "A-HAAA" moment and chalked one up for their side.

You know full well that there are no photographs of Armstrong posing. So what? ....

But there are, there are a lot of them, but not on the moon ! Your photo of him in the rocket, prove that he had no problem posing and smiling to the camera ! So, what is the real explanation for the missing photos ? try to be a bit honest !

And why do you think photos taken on the moon, prove that man has been to the Moon ? are photos taken on Mars prove that man has been to the Mars ?

No, because the photos of Mars don't show men on Mars. Really, do you need that explained?

Why are you ignoring the fact that there are hundreds — no, thousands — of photos of Armstrong on the moon?

What do you think a 16mm film is? A whole series of still photos, one after the other.

Here is 3 minutes and 43 seconds of 16mm film, which was taken at 12 frames per second.



3 min 43 sec = 223 seconds.

223 x 12 = 2,676 individual photographs, approximately. And that is just part of the film.

Here is just one of those thousands of photographs of Neil Armstrong on the moon.



Feel free to come back and admit that your argument is total hogwash. I know you won't.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?....

Try to think of LRO in Mars orbit taking pictures of craters on Mars not known about on any pre-Mars rover views of the site. Get it ?

You clearly don't. Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 40 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?

You didn't get that ? let's try one more time !

"Mars rovers on the mars surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 4 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?"

What it would verify is whether the photographs were a match. If they match, then they are clearly photographing the same thing. Got that?.....

Of course I got that, but you don't seem to get that it doesn't prove, sombody walked on mars or the moon, don't say you didn't get it now.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?....

Try to think of LRO in Mars orbit taking pictures of craters on Mars not known about on any pre-Mars rover views of the site. Get it ?

You clearly don't. Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 40 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?

You didn't get that ? let's try one more time !

"Mars rovers on the mars surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 4 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?"

Do you now see why your "proof" is no proof ?

maybe this will help ?

"Surveyor 5 was the fifth lunar lander of the American unmanned Surveyor program sent to explore the surface of the Moon. Surveyor 5 landed on Mare Tranquillitatis. A total of 19,049 images were transmitted to Earth."

Where did the supposed manned Apollo 11 lander land and took some images, two years later ?

about 25km away.. so like did the surveyor probe have a giant telephoto lens?

Very good, you have the ability to think outside the standard story, of course it didn't have a giant telephoto lens, but how do we know it really landed that far away from the Apollo 11 landing site, because they told us so ? What would then be the purpose of the 19,049 images taken at the site ?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

More strawmen. Here we have a typical Apollo denier debating tactic. Ignore direct questions and instead impose an extremely narrow range of information that they consider to be acceptable, usually when they know there isn't answer and they can then carry on skipping down the rabbit hole convincing themselves they've had a biug "A-HAAA" moment and chalked one up for their side.

You know full well that there are no photographs of Armstrong posing. So what? ....

But there are, there are a lot of them, but not on the moon ! Your photo of him in the rocket, prove that he had no problem posing and smiling to the camera ! So, what is the real explanation for the missing photos ? try to be a bit honest !

And why do you think photos taken on the moon, prove that man has been to the Moon ? are photos taken on Mars prove that man has been to the Mars ?

Here is 3 minutes and 43 seconds of 16mm film, which was taken at 12 frames per second.

Your film doesn't seem to be taken on the moon, we were all told that they would be able to jump from 6 to 10 feet high, your film was not taken in that low gravity. Just to give you an example, let’s say that you weighed 100 kg on Earth. If you stood on the Moon, and then onto your bathroom scale your weight would only be 17 kg. With gravity on the Moon so low, you would be able to jump much higher. If you can jump 30 cm on Earth, you would be able to jump almost 2 meters (6.5 feet) straight up into the air.

a reply to: Ove38

because it has been photographed by the LRO and it's position identified by tracking data.

Why should I take your say so that they didn't?

So far you have offered nothing apart from playing with semantics, and certainly haven't answered any questions.

Some reading for you.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Ove38

Of course I got that, but you don't seem to get that it doesn't prove, somebody walked on mars or the moon, don't say you didn't get it now.

It does when there are people in shot, and those people set up equipment that can be seen in LRO images, and those people collect samples and return them home and they are shown to be from the moon, and photographs taken in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface can be dated exactly thanks to what can be seen on the Earth.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

More strawmen. Here we have a typical Apollo denier debating tactic. Ignore direct questions and instead impose an extremely narrow range of information that they consider to be acceptable, usually when they know there isn't answer and they can then carry on skipping down the rabbit hole convincing themselves they've had a biug "A-HAAA" moment and chalked one up for their side.

You know full well that there are no photographs of Armstrong posing. So what? ....

But there are, there are a lot of them, but not on the moon ! Your photo of him in the rocket, prove that he had no problem posing and smiling to the camera ! So, what is the real explanation for the missing photos ? try to be a bit honest !

And why do you think photos taken on the moon, prove that man has been to the Moon ? are photos taken on Mars prove that man has been to the Mars ?

Here is 3 minutes and 43 seconds of 16mm film, which was taken at 12 frames per second.

Your film doesn't seem to be taken on the moon, we were all told that they would be able to jump from 6 to 10 feet high, your film was not taken in that low gravity. Just to give you an example, let’s say that you weighed 100 kg on Earth. If you stood on the Moon, and then onto your bathroom scale your weight would only be 17 kg. With gravity on the Moon so low, you would be able to jump much higher. If you can jump 30 cm on Earth, you would be able to jump almost 2 meters (6.5 feet) straight up into the air.

Told by whom? How do you know it was not taken in low gravity? How do you know it was not filmed on the moon? How do you know how high they should have been able to jump? Do you see any of them jump in the film?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

How about answering some of my questions or are you going to continue building bogus strawmen? The magazine that photo came from has images of Earth in them. Got any explanation for that? Craters in the photos were not known about on any pre-Apollo views of the site, yet they show up on LRO images. Got any explanation for that?....

Try to think of LRO in Mars orbit taking pictures of craters on Mars not known about on any pre-Mars rover views of the site. Get it ?

You clearly don't. Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 40 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?

You didn't get that ? let's try one more time !

"Mars rovers on the mars surface took photographs of features that they could not have known were there. Photographs from orbit taken 4 years later reveal those same features. Got any answers that explain that?"

Do you now see why your "proof" is no proof ?

maybe this will help ?

"Surveyor 5 was the fifth lunar lander of the American unmanned Surveyor program sent to explore the surface of the Moon. Surveyor 5 landed on Mare Tranquillitatis. A total of 19,049 images were transmitted to Earth."

Where did the supposed manned Apollo 11 lander land and took some images, two years later ?

about 25km away.. so like did the surveyor probe have a giant telephoto lens?

Very good, you have the ability to think outside the standard story, of course it didn't have a giant telephoto lens, but how do we know it really landed that far away from the Apollo 11 landing site, because they told us so ? What would then be the purpose of the 19,049 images taken at the site ?

How about you show us any of the Surveyor 5 images that show any of the same objects visible at the Apollo 11 site?

As for the jumping issue, how high could you jump on Earth wearing a suit and PLSS weighing 90kg? Could you even jump at all?