I thought we went to the moon....until I viewed these videos

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I have the original broadcasts that my parents bought in 1975 and they differ. So do the moon maps in the old Reader's Digest.

See how easy that was.

a reply to: bobbypurify

So far you don't even have a body, let alone a bullet.

a reply to: bobbypurify

The broadcasts that you claimed were secret and hidden?

Prove it.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

So far, you are relying on a body that's been rotting since 1969 - and it's starting to stink really bad

a reply to: bobbypurify

Which is still more than you have.

In more than one post in the past few pages you have quite clearly stated that you have no proof of any of your claims, but I am expected to back down and admit how wrong I was all this time on your say so alone.

How about you actually read the genuine evidence I have researched and documented and see how it stacks up, instead of just handwaving it away with someone else's lies that you haven;t even bothered to check?

Read some books, You might learn something.

a reply to: bobbypurify

I'll take that non-response as confirmation that you can't cite anyone here making any blind appeals to the "authority" of "science."

And why the hell would I have any "fear" of discovering the lunar missions were fake? It wouldn't affect my world view one bit. I even entertained the notion myself years ago before realizing it couldn't be true. There are more than enough ways to tear down America without making up and subscribing to nonsense.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I don't expect you to believe me. I'm merely offering an explanation of how this was performed on Earth, and not in cislunar regions of space.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: bobbypurify

And why the hell would I have any "fear" of discovering the lunar missions were fake? It wouldn't affect my world view one bit. I even entertained the notion myself years ago before realizing it couldn't be true. There are more than enough ways to tear down America without making up and subscribing to nonsense.

I also remember when the whole moon hoax thing became popular in the late 1990s, specifically the supposed evidence that shadows in the photos were in the wrong direction, etc., I thought to myself that there might be something to it. However, I looked at the evidence and found that it was just a simplistic argument that was based on incorrect ideas of what photographs should be like (I also learned things about photography in didn't originally know in the process).

But, yeah -- my world view also was not rocked when I thought there might actually be something to the hoax claims.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I don't expect you to believe me. I'm merely offering an explanation of how this was performed on Earth, and not in cislunar regions of space.

So. basing one's blind belief on nothing but supposition and speculation is somehow better than basing one's belief on known facts about nature, science, etc.?

The facts of the Moon landing are consistent with what we know about science and nature. The facts about an alleged Moon hoax are base on nothing at all, and are inconsistent with observation. But, hey -- I suppose a hoax is still somehow within the realm of possibility, just like maybe it is possible that rainbows are really unicorn flatulence, and that truth is being hidden from us.

Prove that rainbows aren't unicorn flatulence. If I use your methods, then I can dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: bobbypurify

What most people don't take into account is that not many people have the original broadcasts recorded. Nobody saw much of what was put out, unless they watched it on TV or bought it on VHS/Beta/or Laser Disc (all carefully controlled by NASA) UNTIL the advent of the internet age. That's when, IMO, that most of the damage control photo retouching and video effects/retouching were done, to protect the lie they started way before they knew about the availability of information. Such as the video of the Earth passing through the windows of the command module.

So, you're alleging that there is another chapter to the conspiracy with the original images being altered since the advent of the internet?

And, once again, "who brought the coffee?" Where were these artists recruited? What were they told? How many did it take? What did they tell their girlfriends they did for a living? Who was in charge? Where were they based? What has prevented any of them from coming forward and capitalizing on this blockbuster story? And please don't tell me it was any kind of threat. Apollo Hoax Believers have been all over the internet and television for years without anything happening to them.

Guys, guys, trying to debate with moon hoax believers is like hitting your head against a brick wall - the longer you do it for, the more time you waste and the more it hurts. Same with creationists and Electric Universe believers, really.

When did ever a single moon hoax believer get convinved by the evidence we present?

With arguments like "nobody else went to the Moon since then" and "they were hopping around like silly bunnies," what hope is there for them?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I also remember when the whole moon hoax thing became popular in the late 1990s

I blame R.E.M. for it. The chorus of Man on the Moon made it hip for people to claim the landings were a hoax. I also remember reading a music magazine interview in which their drummer, Bill Berry (I think), tells the reporter that the moon landings were filmed in Idaho or New Mexico or some such place.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I don't expect you to believe me. I'm merely offering an explanation of how this was performed on Earth, and not in cislunar regions of space.

but your explaination is lacking..

saying its easy to replicate on earth is not an explaination..

you need to fake clouds, if it was made on earth it would have been filmed weeks or months beforehand meaning clouds would not be in the same position..

if it was a static image the earth would NOT rotate, the terminator would not move..

you can take screen captures of different segments of the film and watch how dynamic the earth is.. if you are concerned about the cuts in the film pick areas where there is no cuts..

if it is your belief that its easy to fake on earth then why dont you back up your belief with some research? with simple research you should be able to prove a completely static earth..

the fact that the clouds matches up means that it was pre-filmed pretty much on that day or live..

Not only that, but there were hundreds of still images taken of Earth over the whole program, and 16mm sequences that were an exact match for them, and live TV broadcasts that were an exact match for those as well - three sets of images showing Earth, and every single one of them can be matched with satellite evidence, and those satellites were time stamped and 'free to air' if you had the equipment. The Soviets would have been cheerfully intercepting those satellite images, as well as collecting their own from their Kosmos satellites. They never questioned them.

Any view of Earth took 12 hours to image by the geosynchronous polar orbital satellites they used. Geostationary satellites always showed the same view, so ones where different landmasses are in shot can't all have been taken by those. In nearly every case the photographs, TV or 16mm were taken before the satellite image was complete, let alone converted to colour.

Each image of Earth matches exactly a point in the transcript where they are referred to, or where the weather scene is described. Apollo 17 in particular was very thorough in its photography of Earth and the descriptions of the weather below them. Every image has the terminator in exactly the right place, and (this one is absolutely essential to get your head round) the view of Earth is consistent with the view from space where the viewing angle is different to that from any kind of Earth orbit.

Bobby, or his alter-ego James depending on which mood he's in, is right in one respect: nobody checked. Nobody even looked at the weather data. I genuinely believe it never occurred to anyone to see how they compared, but all I had to do was search properly and all the evidence that blows the hoax nonsense out of the water is freely available to anyone who wants to look. Nobody from NASA wrote this up, nobody from NASA did any work on this, just me and a couple of others who had the same thought.

Sure the Earth orbit missions' images were studied because satellite photography was in its infancy and people want to know how actual observations compared with satellite ones, but it didn't really occur to anyone to match up what you were seeing on the lunar bound Apollo images with satellite records. Nobody was going through the images with a paintbrush making everything match, and yet everything matches - right down to the tropical storms and hurricanes reported in the meteorological journals. No-one went through the images before they put them in the internet and altered weather patterns to match. If you think they did, you need to tell us who, where, when, how, not just hand wave it away.

You can still buy original data from the ESSA, NIMBUS and ATS images: I have my eye on two for sale but I can't afford them, thought I do have a complete set of NIMBUS-3 volumes that covers Apollo 13, and I can assure you that they match the internet records. You can still buy newspapers, magazines and NASA reports with the original NASA images in, they are also a perfect match for the internet records. Anyone who claims the images of Earth were altered to change the weather patterns on view needs to come up with proof of that, but bear in mind that there of those of us who have original copies waiting to shred those claims into tiny pieces.

The meteorological data from the various weather satellites around present unique and time-specific signatures of how the Earth looked at specific moments, and every single image from Apollo matches those signatures. Every single one. Why? Because they are genuine.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Of course I don't have evidence. If anyone did, your dream would be over.

Excellent. Case closed!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
I have the original broadcasts that my parents bought in 1975 and they differ.

Wait.. so you do have evidence?

So do the moon maps in the old Reader's Digest.

And you know of more potential evidence?

Sir, I challenge you to provide this evidence!

Particularly the original broadcasts you own that differ.

It should be easy enough to find a place to convert it into a digital format that you can upload onto the internet and share with us.

I eagerly await seeing it. Thank you in advance.

See how easy that was.

This.

regards ` cis-lunar video footage and stills `

a question for the hoax believers :

why wasnt cis-lunar footage shot by remote control from the alledged " unmanned hoax craft " sent to the moon ?

come one - its a simple concept - pre rig a camera in the windo with actuators to control on // off + a simple lead screw , guide rail and motor on the mount will even allow the camera to be moved

and there you have it - genuine cis-lunar footage

a reply to: choos

Those films of the little gem were re-released by Spacecraft films, correct?

Well, use that little noggin' of yours and think -

Could they have retouched the Earth in those CUT SCENENS to match weather data and satellite stills of 1969? Hmmm...

Yes!

Now, please, allow me to navigate my own opinions of how Apollo was all done from Earth, in the years of 1969-1972 as well as the damage control afterwards. Because you seriously lack imagination and know how if we are to examine your constructs of a possible hoax. I hope you're not that daft and trying to mislead because WOW

a reply to: ignorant_ape

All your side has is photos, re-written history/science (conveniently lost science too) and shoddy video. All the perps have to do is wow you with elementary slight of hand like magical matching of weather patterns, and you're convinced?? dahahahaha

originally posted by: bobbypurify

Could they have retouched the Earth in those CUT SCENENS to match weather data and satellite stills of 1969? Hmmm...

Did you even read the post from Onebigmonkey three or so posts above this? Where's you reply to that?

a reply to: DelMarvel

What is it about OBM's posts to you that are so amazing? I just re-read his post 3 times and didn't see how any of it made what I stated impossible. Please, instead of just saying "watch his video", "did you see his gif", or "read his post" tell me what about it that makes it impossible. You've already proven to me that you're willing to accept that 3-D rock formations, when passed completely by from the left side to the right, DO NOT have perspective change when only meters away. With this information, I've concluded that you will not change your stance, at all and that begs the question of why you're joining this discussion, if not to just promote themed NASA-approved posts.