Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: bobbypurify

how is clauvius being deceptive?? by using a different image??

you seemed awfully quick to judge on a simple colour difference.. you seem to have a grudge against Clauvius..

dont mind my paint skills..


really, go outside more often.. pay attention to nature instead of your phone..

p.s. if i prove that a hoax theorist used different coloured images to another hoax theorist are they being deceptive??

a reply to: yuppa

You have to realize that Mythbusters can only debunk something when they are aloud to.

do you remember this one ?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: bobbypurify

science has been proven manipulated time and time again. OMG - it's like the Church almost. That could be an entirely different thread.

That is what distinguishes the "believer" from a "reviewer". The Apollo Believers see NASA is like the Vatican and the moon rocks are Holy Relics, the astronauts are the Apostles, the transcripts are the scriptures, the Hasselblad images are the icons, etc.

The analogy fits well into the Apollo idiom because the faith required to beat the Commies to the moon is a firm, unswerving belief in the authority of the Church of NASA.

Well put. I am unwaiverd by bias or patriotic dissonance. I've long learned that carrying these fallacies with you will burn your ability to think rationally, about anything. Apollo is slowly dying. It's only held up by people who are blinded by the religion of scientism.

a reply to: choos

yes, both sides are deceptive. I acknowledged this. I seek my own truths. If you believe there's not a problem with the imaged I presented and the shadow discrepansies, then I believe you're intentionally being dishonest.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
I am unwaiverd by bias or patriotic dissonance. I've long learned that carrying these fallacies with you will burn your ability to think rationally, about anything. Apollo is slowly dying. It's only held up by people who are blinded by the religion of scientism.

yet you are biased yourself?? how quick were to you judge clauvius as deceptive over a use of an image with different colouring..

have you seen the deception from sibrel?? he actually leaves out footage that proves him wrong..
have you seen the deception from J White and R Rene?? their mathematics leaves 10 year olds looking smart..

why dont you ask yourself this..

Apollo is backed by science, what is the hoax theories backed by??

originally posted by: bobbypurify
yes, both sides are deceptive. I acknowledged this. I seek my own truths. If you believe there's not a problem with the imaged I presented and the shadow discrepansies, then I believe you're intentionally being dishonest.

he used a different coloured image of lower resolution.. i feel like you are grasping at straws..

does the picture i drew have a 45 degree slope??

a reply to: ppk55

Moon hoaxers.....
As bad as anti vaxers and obama birth certificate deniers.

Did you not read the article to see that it was a simulator for training?

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

I realize this is the part that you seem to be really having trouble grasping.

i am using basic constant acceleration formulas, which have been around for hundreds of years to determine what is possible and what is not..

When I control the contrainsts of a procedure, experiment, etc - I can use real laws of science to deceive. I can't believe how many times I've had to explain this. Do you think Hollywood could make an action sequence scientifically accurate? Yes, they'd just have to make everything follow a certain few scientific laws. Now, is the scene real life? No, it's produced.

All of which is presented by your side as proofs can be reproduced here on Earth and, in my opinion, it was!

Why are text books starting to forget about Apollo? Why is Apollo rarely referenced in current space procedures or future ones? It's almost ignored completely! Even in planned missions that bare much resembalence to Apollo, albeit, of longer duration. I think you need to smell the coffee and take your dissonance somewhere else, buddy! You can do it, Choos

so you are saying that NASA can fake lunar dust rising and falling according to lunar gravity??



have you ever tried watching sped up Apollo footage before?? you saying that movement is normal??

a reply to: choos

I don't worship science. Plenty of things are backed by science, sometimes with opposing conclusions, such as each side of the global warming debate.

Clavius used a cropped image. Did they not? Clavius also highlighted a darker shade of dirt. Can you see it? So, yes, they are disingenuous in this instance. But I have seen the other side do the same.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

I don't worship science. Plenty of things are backed by science, sometimes with opposing conclusions, such as each side of the global warming debate.

im not talking about the science of global warming.. that is still in its infancy.. im talking about science that has been established for centuries.. science that has been proven multiple times throughout history..

Clavius used a cropped image. Did they not? Clavius also highlighted a darker shade of dirt. Can you see it? So, yes, they are disingenuous in this instance. But I have seen the other side do the same.

you are still grasping at straws.. its the photo in question, they are not using the image to prove anything its a reference..
they used other means to prove how its possible..

by the way does my drawing contain a 45 degree slope??

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

I realize this is the part that you seem to be really having trouble grasping.

i am using basic constant acceleration formulas, which have been around for hundreds of years to determine what is possible and what is not..

When I control the contrainsts of a procedure, experiment, etc - I can use real laws of science to deceive. I can't believe how many times I've had to explain this. Do you think Hollywood could make an action sequence scientifically accurate? Yes, they'd just have to make everything follow a certain few scientific laws. Now, is the scene real life? No, it's produced.

All of which is presented by your side as proofs can be reproduced here on Earth and, in my opinion, it was!

Why are text books starting to forget about Apollo? Why is Apollo rarely referenced in current space procedures or future ones? It's almost ignored completely! Even in planned missions that bare much resembalence to Apollo, albeit, of longer duration. I think you need to smell the coffee and take your dissonance somewhere else, buddy! You can do it, Choos

so you are saying that NASA can fake lunar dust rising and falling according to lunar gravity??

have you ever tried watching sped up Apollo footage before?? you saying that movement is normal??

Yes, and when sped to the proper speed the astronauts appear to be moving in Earthly conditions. They move in slow motion in the moon vids and appear to have weight taken off of them as they prance around on tippy toe at times. The only people that think astronauts aren't moving in slow motion, and are honest with themselves, are people that aren't blinded by faith.

a reply to: choos

You're just spamming argument now. I'm not grasping at straws. As to your drawing: here, I'll get out Mircrosoft Paint and make a picture of them in LEO. See, my drawing says they didn't go to the moon! I can't believe you expect me to use your drawing as proof of anything. I do, however appreciate you took the time to do it.

I think what's on display here is that you're completely biased to proving the moon landings and will stop at nothing, even if it's just exhausting the person you're debating with with pointless posts and counter arguments. I've stated numerous times the hoax side is also deceptive and you keep trying to get me to bite on some argument about Jarrah White or Sibrel. No, Choos, bad boy!

a reply to: choos

I think that a good look at global warming can´t do any harm choos.

Global warming uses real science data. ie. pressure or temperature.

After that they use their own sceince-juice to make their point.

That's the way they work....and that's the way apollo works.

originally posted by: bobbypurify

Yes, and when sped to the proper speed the astronauts appear to be moving in Earthly conditions. They move in slow motion in the moon vids and appear to have weight taken off of them as they prance around on tippy toe at times. The only people that think astronauts aren't moving in slow motion, and are honest with themselves, are people that aren't blinded by faith.

i dont think you are watching sped up footage properly..

basic maths can show that to relate lunar gravity with earths gravity the time factor is 2.45.. ie. you need to speed apollo lunar footage 2.45x..

if you genuinely think that watching lunar footage at 2.45x is normal i question whether you are being honest with yourself.. tell me that arm movement is real time..

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

You're just spamming argument now. I'm not grasping at straws. As to your drawing: here, I'll get out Mircrosoft Paint and make a picture of them in LEO. See, my drawing says they didn't go to the moon! I can't believe you expect me to use your drawing as proof of anything. I do, however appreciate you took the time to do it.

you wanted to know how a slope can change the length of the shadow.. you claimed clauvius had to use a 45 degree slope and said i now had the burden of proof..

i delivered.. now you are moving the goalposts again and hand waving..

moving goalposts is a common thing for hoax believers.

I think what's on display here is that you're completely biased to proving the moon landings and will stop at nothing, even if it's just exhausting the person you're debating with with pointless posts and counter arguments. I've stated numerous times the hoax side is also deceptive and you keep trying to get me to bite on some argument about Jarrah White or Sibrel. No, Choos, bad boy!

i think your true colours are beginning to shine.. you are beginning to sound very familiar.. you should drop your unbiased act now..

a reply to: choos

i delivered.. now you are moving the goalposts again and hand waving..

What? You drew a picture. If this were so easy you'd just give a real life example of people in sunlight. Not draw a picure.

As to the other part - I'm not who you think I am as I don't or haven't posted here until recently. I can assure you of that. I'm a simple dude who lives in Southern Michigan near the campus of Notre Dame. I've taken on Moon Hoax/Moon Truth for the last couple of years and found ATS to be the best place for discussion. I've read this thread in its entirety and the Jarrah White epic as well. I've admitted to thinking the Apollo landings were faked, so I do carry some bias, however I will admit when I can't explain things and that I'll be the first to be wow'd if I'm proven wrong. I don't see that happening.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: bobbypurify

Yes, and when sped to the proper speed the astronauts appear to be moving in Earthly conditions. They move in slow motion in the moon vids and appear to have weight taken off of them as they prance around on tippy toe at times. The only people that think astronauts aren't moving in slow motion, and are honest with themselves, are people that aren't blinded by faith.

i dont think you are watching sped up footage properly..

basic maths can show that to relate lunar gravity with earths gravity the time factor is 2.45.. ie. you need to speed apollo lunar footage 2.45x..

if you genuinely think that watching lunar footage at 2.45x is normal i question whether you are being honest with yourself.. tell me that arm movement is real time..

Sigh, It is, of course, not the case, thus rendering your calculations irrelevant. One need only apply an increased speed to the playback, that undoes the slow-motion effect applied by NASA. That has been shown to be in the neighborhood of 150%. Of course 2.45x looks silly! How many times must I prove your tactics wrong?

a reply to: bobbypurify

You know, this picture has cropped up in debates about the moon hoax before.

And always the same argument is fronted by the hoax believers, "it doesn't look right" etc.

One protracted debate, where many examples with perspective and shadows similar to this picture were produced for the HB's perusal, one participant even went as far as spending his time designing 3D models demonstrating perspective for the deniers.

All for nothing, nada, a complete waste of time. The hoax believers just refused to even attempt to understand, and changed their argument to another aspect of the moon hoax farce. Deluded clowns.

I come here to read posts by OBM and some of the other members who know what they are talking about, but the most obvious theme of this thread to me is that here we can see where delusion meets rationality.

Over the past few years I settled on the idea that if you truly believe that 'they never landed on the moon' then you are either A) somebody who has no knowledge of the Apollo program. B) suffering from a mental disorder. C) an idiot. D) all of the above.

originally posted by: bobbypurify

You drew a picture. If this were so easy you'd just give a real life example of people in sunlight. Not draw a picure.

oops - your dishonesty has slipped through

No it doesn't. I believe it's fake and used by your side

you just [ < one day ago ] dismissed a pic as " fake " because it demolished your delusions is

here is a hint - go outside on a sunny day - and look at the real world

a reply to: seabhac-rua

I don't think when you try to make it into a joke and calling hoax-believers idiots will help anything.

Our real problem still is, we can't get further than 400 km. Damn VAB !