Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: bobbypurify
- shopped into the photo by NASA (remember, many of these photos were not seen by the public till far after and with the internet catalogue)

Not true.

I have many photos that predate photoshop and the internet, including the photo under discussion in my original copy of the PSR.

E2a: the claim that inflatable tyres would explode is a myth.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

I disagree. The thickness of the tread is completely different. I think we need to try a real world example of this. I can certainly see what you're saying but you'd think there'd be plenty of other footprints like this or similar

I don't have a sandpit man! Do you have any kids?? I live in the city so it's not like I can go make a mound of dirt that easily..
I'll see if I can disturb my wife's plant pots without damaging her bulbs or something.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Hell no I don't have any kids. You think I'd have time for this? Honestly, just kind of a slow time of year at my position and I felt like joining the fun here.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

No, it doesn't match at all. Care to find another footprint that matches this one? The tread is different, spaced different. If it was a simple angular difference, this type of print would be common.

What makes you think it is not common?



ALS17-134-20494



ALS17-134-20493



ALS17-134-20492

I'm sure if you look through all these superimposed footprints you''ll find one or two that match your "anomaly."

I don't have loose enough soil or any sand, nor can I find any boots in the house with a simple horizontal pattern. I did think of using a cooking oil bottle but without the soil it's no go from me for now... But you get what I'm saying? Make it a bit uneven, because one is almost straight on in the image and the other is sloping away, so it causes a shortening effect visually.

a reply to: DJW001

All the tread marks in those photos remain consistent thickness. Unless you can point to one?? Help me, DJ

If you look at this high res version and zoom in you can see even clearer it's sloping away and to the side.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

a reply to: AgentSmith

Star!

Looks like you could be right! Hi-res certainly helps. Still, the damn tread is varied in thickness so I'm still looking at it

a reply to: bobbypurify

Of course, it's worth doing an experiment for anything even if it seems simple, I often do. Sometimes it can turn out things aren't as they seem, or you find out something else. The brain as a computer needs experience to develop and just doing that from books (or the Internet now) without allowing it to experience things properly isn't the same.

originally posted by: bobbypurify

- lifted there by a crane
- carried there by helpers

thats basically what i said..

lifted into position, because rolling it into position is completely out of the question even though it would be easier and more accurate.. all the people setting up the scene for the image just forgot to put the tracks in because rolling it was out of the question.. so everyone involved just missed the detail of the tracks, even though they carried/lifted it into position..

then the photos would get processed to make sure it can be published.. no one picked up on the missing tracks again..

why do you think this hoax theory is not realistic?? do you think they set up the scenes take photos and publish everything without care, if it was a hoax?? a hoax theory requires a method to fake it also..

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

All the tread marks in those photos remain consistent thickness. Unless you can point to one?? Help me, DJ

AS17-134-20492

Look at the big picture:

The alleged conspirators did not need a lunar rover for the supposed hoax goal of making people believe a lunar landing had occurred.

The alleged conspirators collectively had to be at least as intelligent and knowledgable as the Apollo "reviewers".

Why would they add the huge complication of trying to fake a lunar rover that would significantly increase the odds of being found out?

They would have been just as capable as the hoax believers of seeing the supposed errors once the footage was shot.

a reply to: DelMarvel

At the times that this footage was shown, TV was grainy and nobody had home recorders (or very few). Plus, everything was broadcast from a screen and most of the public did not view the entire Apollo catalogue of photos. Now, the Internet came along and that's when I believe photos were starting to become manipulated.

I mean, it doesn't look like the moon to me and many others. The photos look fake. The videos look fake. The rover is silly. But, it's unpatriotic to doubt the veracity of Apollo so it's like swimming upstream trying to have an honest discussion about this.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

At the times that this footage was shown, TV was grainy and nobody had home recorders (or very few).

Really? Did you watch it on TV? I did. It has enough detail in it to show rocks and craters that are provably there. It has images of Earth with identifiable time and date specific weather patterns. Don't be fooled by poor quality youtube footage.

There were also plenty of people out there recording it for the media. There are many many examples of TV images printed in newspapers - including time and date specific images of Earth and details of the lunar surface not known about before the landings. Lots of private individuals taking photos of their TV screens - you can buy them on ebay.

Plus, everything was broadcast from a screen and most of the public did not view the entire Apollo catalogue of photos.

See above. It was not difficult to get the photographs, you just had to pay for them. I have hard copies of many of the NASA reports that are from libraries and private individuals. Easy to get hold of.

Now, the Internet came along and that's when I believe photos were starting to become manipulated.

And this is one of the reasons I collect original newspapers, magazines, journals and reports - to counter claims that the modern internet versions are somehow different from the originals. Guess what, they aren't.

I mean, it doesn't look like the moon to me and many others.

Oh really? Like who? What should the moon look like? Given that the TV, 16mm footage and photographs contain details that are exactly where the appear in images taken by orbital probes (and not just American ones) then I would say it looks exactly like it should do.

The photos look fake. The videos look fake.

"gee it kind of looks funny". So far all you have is that and usually it's someone else's version of "gee it kind of looks funny".

Be specific. Prove your point.

The rover is silly.

WHy? It has 4 wheels and everything it needs to get from A to B. There is even footage of it working. It didn't have to be pretty, just do its job.

But, it's unpatriotic to doubt the veracity of Apollo so it's like swimming upstream trying to have an honest discussion about this.

Why would criticising Apollo mean I am somehow disloyal to my Queen and country? See what a massive assumption you made there?

This is starting to follow a familiar pattern. It starts off all "gee I'm not sure either way, but I have some questions I'm not so sure about..." and then we do the dance regurgitating the same old garbage that's been done to death over and over and over again and sooner or later it turns out the actual starting point was "it all looks fake to me and I just don't believe it" after all.

Fact: Not one single claim of Apollo being hoaxed stands up to any kind of intelligent scrutiny.

Not one.

If you have any genuine evidence that proves me wrong then get on with it. Otherwise you're stuck with opinions and discussions about facts without actually posting any facts.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

At the times that this footage was shown, TV was grainy and nobody had home recorders (or very few). Plus, everything was broadcast from a screen and most of the public did not view the entire Apollo catalogue of photos. Now, the Internet came along and that's when I believe photos were starting to become manipulated.

I mean, it doesn't look like the moon to me and many others. The photos look fake. The videos look fake. The rover is silly. But, it's unpatriotic to doubt the veracity of Apollo so it's like swimming upstream trying to have an honest discussion about this.

It doesn't matter about the TV IMAGES still images were taken on 70mm film with Hasselblad cameras and the resolution of those images are better than HD or 4K !

The images look fake to YOU we have already seen that most HOAX believers & the so called experts hoax believer web sits use DON'T understand how photography works, prime example trying to show parallax errors from images shot to make a panorama.

Here is China's ChangE 3 video



So what are your thoughts now

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel
Now, the Internet came along and that's when I believe photos were starting to become manipulated.

So are you saying there is currently or in very recent history a conspiracy to manipulate photos?

And was this done by the "couple of hundred" people who were the only ones who knew about the conspiracy to begin with?

originally posted by: bobbypurifyBut, it's unpatriotic to doubt the veracity of Apollo so it's like swimming upstream trying to have an honest discussion about this.

That''s an Ad Hom and it's talking about posters instead of about the issues which the mods have repeatedly said not to do. I find that particularly annoying in that for forty years my patriotism has repeatedly been called into question because of my supposed "anti-American" let wing political positions.

Instead of making generalizations why didn't you address my point in this "honest discussion"?

Why would the conspirators have greatly complicated the hoax by adding in images of a lunar rover that you think are so visibly fake? They had already supposedly faked a landing, they didn't need to fake a lunar rover.

originally posted by: choos

oh really?? the only evidence i see is him saying so.. perhaps you have articles that say otherwise??

How would anyone have known that the 'moon rock' was a gift from Middendorf, in the first place?

It was confirmed by Middendorf, years later, in that particular article...

Middendorf was named on the plaque. But if the plaque was not linked to the 'moon rock', why would his story match up exactly to the plaque, many years later?

He was known to be involved, as the person named on the plaque, and presenter of the gift, to ex-PM Drees.

The plaque describes an event, matching up to Middendorf's account (as quoted within this article), told many years later!

You think Middendorf was behind the whole thing, to get into his will, and his vast fortune, etc..

Sure, he finds a fake 'moon rock', creates a plaque for it, and puts his name on the plaque, to identify himself as the presenter of the fake 'moon rock'.

Like a bank robber leaves a note behind, 'I, Joe P. Smith, residing at 222 Main St, just took your money!'

As if..

Your argument is utter nonsense, pure and simple.

And that it was to get into his will, of course, is absurd enough, on it's own.


No evidence, nothing close to it. .


.

a reply to: turbonium1


Sheesh. Once again, if this Dutch moon rock dispute is worth this much bandwidth the hoax believers must not have much to hang their hats on.

What supposedly happened? Did Nixon say : "those Dutch are a bunch of morons. Just for grins let's slip them some petrified wood."

originally posted by: turbonium1

How would anyone have known that the 'moon rock' was a gift from Middendorf, in the first place?

It was confirmed by Middendorf, years later, in that particular article...

he also confirmed it was a personal gift..

Middendorf was named on the plaque. But if the plaque was not linked to the 'moon rock', why would his story match up exactly to the plaque, many years later?

middendorf was named.. but Drees was not named.. kind of strange that the receiver of the gift isnt on the plaque at all..

He was known to be involved, as the person named on the plaque, and presenter of the gift, to ex-PM Drees.

yea one of only two people, of which only one remains alive, so basically he can claim whatever he wants..

The plaque describes an event, matching up to Middendorf's account (as quoted within this article), told many years later!

that only middendorf can confirm..

You think Middendorf was behind the whole thing, to get into his will, and his vast fortune, etc..

not really, thats just one possibility another possibility would be to get on his good sides so he can get deals a bit easier..

Sure, he finds a fake 'moon rock', creates a plaque for it, and puts his name on the plaque, to identify himself as the presenter of the fake 'moon rock'.

the plaque was mass produced and NOT engraved like you erroneously believed.. its like a business card, printed!!
that was given out during the goodwill tour.. there is NO link between the card and the rock..

Like a bank robber leaves a note behind, 'I, Joe P. Smith, residing at 222 Main St, just took your money!'

As if..

simply because you cannot piece together the available evidence.. is an engraved plaque still in your version of the story?? what about being able to confirm whether or not the plaque is directly connected to the rock apart from being in the same drawer?? or is being in the same drawer enough to connect anything together without doubt??

Your argument is utter nonsense, pure and simple.

And that it was to get into his will, of course, is absurd enough, on it's own.

No evidence, nothing close to it. .

what you dont seem to get is that your entire argument about the dutch rock is also utter nonsense.. your entire version of the story is made up nonsense just like mine, except yours contains elements from the real story that you made up yourself.. atleast my nonsense has stayed within the realms of the evidence available..

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: bobbypurify

My opinion is entirely conclusive. Do you actually believe that's Russia or China would be a party to the hoax? The one supposedly perpetrated to convince the world we were superior to Russia in our space program? I for one do not see either of those countries supporting a story that puts them in second place with a lie.
You can believe what you like. I'm not here to prove anything or convince anyone. What I say is sensible. No way they would support such a lie. No way in hell.

It is not sensible, it's just theatre..

The JFK assassination was the perfect opportunity, as many Americans had lost any trust in their government, they felt betrayed.

The USSR was (supposedly) the arch-enemy of the US, a way of life, government, diametrically opposite to the US..

But the USSR did nothing, said nothing, about it. Not a word.


The USSR proved they were, in fact, not arch-enemy of the US. Right then and there, without a doubt, we knew it was not the truth, it was just theatre.


Wars were really fought, in the name of freedom. Sadly, it was all just theatre, too.


Enemies are mostly invented, crafted, as a theatre, a play....as it was here..