Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: buster2010

I thought the same thing. They Russians would have loved to make fools of the capitalists.

You would be right if governments work the way they appear too, the problem is, they don't. Behind the POTUS and behind Whoever is in the Kremlin are the people that really make the decisions. The richest families in the world run governments through central banks and special interests and nobody makes it to the top office of any country (Or stays there) if these people don't want it.

When you understand that, that is how it works, you can believe that while the US and USSR were not very friendly at the time they were no more enemies than Macho Man Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan.

originally posted by: choos

so you know for a fact that there is no proof that there is any better images or not but you will assume anyway that there are????

you are proposing that they found these brightspots prior to Apollo 11.. with the accompanying footpaths and tracks..

I think the main features were already there, for sure.

Other features may not be there, and were added later on.

Not that it matters, though.

originally posted by: choos
so what caused the footpaths and tracks?? aliens???
or you want to claim that the footpaths and tracks simply do not exist on the lunar surface to this very day???

It doesn't matter what those features are, or claimed to be, or if they even exist at all.


We know the claimed disturbance caused by the LM is not found in any of the surface images - so it's a hoax, from that alone.


All of the rest can match, but nothing changes the reality here...

originally posted by: Helious

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: buster2010

I thought the same thing. They Russians would have loved to make fools of the capitalists.

You would be right if governments work the way they appear too, the problem is, they don't. Behind the POTUS and behind Whoever is in the Kremlin are the people that really make the decisions. The richest families in the world run governments through central banks and special interests and nobody makes it to the top office of any country (Or stays there) if these people don't want it.

When you understand that, that is how it works, you can believe that while the US and USSR were not very friendly at the time they were no more enemies than Macho Man Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan.

Americans doubted their own government after the assassination of JFK, while this arch-enemy said squat, did squat, about it! They were playing a role of America's sworn arch-enemy, but the reality is quite different...

We are told by 'our leaders' this country, that group, is our enemy. Which is bs, of course, but everyone accepts it as if true, anyway.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I think the main features were already there, for sure.

Other features may not be there, and were added later on.

Not that it matters, though.

someone asked you earlier, if those main features were already there are you suggesting that a total of only 6 of these features exist on the surface of the moon??

and how did they add in the other features?? such as the footpaths??

It doesn't matter what those features are, or claimed to be, or if they even exist at all.

so it doesnt matter that if they were natural features and a few years after Apollo landed on the moon someone like private company landed on the moon and noticed that those features claimed to be footpaths and rover tracks were actually natural and not caused by man????

We know the claimed disturbance caused by the LM is not found in any of the surface images - so it's a hoax, from that alone.

All of the rest can match, but nothing changes the reality here...

your claim only that you have yet to prove.


ive shown you this earlier.. it shows a hard surface under the LM engine, this is part of the LM engines disturbance..
NASA clearly took a picture of the lunar disturbance, so they clearly DID NOT FORGET, contrary to your claims.


also you have yet to prove your theory that this would be more obvious the closer you get.. OBMonkey has shown you that archaeologist use aerial footage to find things, which is contrary to your claims again..
so going by your argument this alone proves that your theory is wrong..
and if your theory is wrong that means that your argument that it should be seen is completely wrong..

but feel free to prove your theory. prove to us that archaeologists using aerial footage to find things are a hoax..

originally posted by: turbonium1

Americans doubted their own government after the assassination of JFK, while this arch-enemy said squat, did squat, about it!

and what should they have done??

use their news network to suggest they laughed about it?? you would make such a great world leader.. one that would last maybe an hour in such a crisis..

a reply to: turbonium1

Let me get this straight;

You, turbonium1, are convicted of 1st degree murder.

The finger prints match, the dna results match, the security cameras have a clear picture of your face, multiple witnesses have taken photos of your face, multiple witnesses have stated to a tee that they saw you up close commit the murder, however, one of those witnesses has stated that you were wearing a Blue hat instead of a Red hat.

Case dismissed, I am innocent, it's a conspiracy against me, the one element does not fit, I am a free man now take that needle out of my arm!

Yeah, that's how it works....

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: audubon

If you're frustrated at people just getting the point then welcome to my world - there's a 108 pages of exactly that right here.

We get it OK - people were fooled. Now you need to try and absorb ours: people who know their stuff sussed it out straight away, just like the Apollo live TV broadcasts would have been sussed out straight away by the myriad of technical experts and journalist who sat through live mission audio and TV if there had been anything suspicious. Just like genuine experts would be able to see something wrong with any of the Apollo evidence. By 'genuine' I mean people who actually know stuff, as opposed to amateur keyboard warriors with an axe to grind and fraudsters making money out of a story.

You can't fool all the people all the time.

You believe this is a 'universal agreement', so what does that say about fooling people?

Your argument is utterly absurd...


For argument's sake, let's say they all believe we landed men on the moon. They have no actual means of proving their belief, though. But they are experts, and would 'certainly know' whether or not it is possible...

If it's possible, then of course, the official account is considered to be 100% fact, by all of the experts.

Are you serious??

I'm referring to an area of disturbance claimed to be seen from orbit - you are aware of that, correct?

What do you think your image has to do with the disturbance seen from orbit?

Nothing, right?

Worthless, as usual.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

Let me get this straight;

You, turbonium1, are convicted of 1st degree murder.

The finger prints match, the dna results match, the security cameras have a clear picture of your face, multiple witnesses have taken photos of your face, multiple witnesses have stated to a tee that they saw you up close commit the murder, however, one of those witnesses has stated that you were wearing a Blue hat instead of a Red hat.

Case dismissed, I am innocent, it's a conspiracy against me, the one element does not fit, I am a free man now take that needle out of my arm!

Yeah, that's how it works....

You're kidding, right?

You refer to a scenario where one thing not matching up is vastly outweighed by everything else which does match up.

I'm referring to a scenario where one thing not matching up makes everything else that matches up...not genuine.

As I've explained before, it's the same method used in finding glitches in a movie, as well...

Let's say a movie has a 5 minute scene of an astronaut floating in his spacecraft. It looks very realistic to you. But then, you spot something in it which doesn't seem right. In only a couple of frames, it shows that they faked the whole 'floating' scene.

Do you understand my point, now?

Let's say you claimed to see something in a movie that you felt proved it was really only a movie, but absolutely no-one else ever sees it and it isn't in fact there.

Let's say you insist that a particular event didn't happen in the movie and then it turns out it actually did.

Let's say you claimed to be an expert on a particular film but it turns out you know absolutely sweet fanny adams about it.

Do you get that yet?

You claimed that there was no evidence of any rocket engines other than Apollo causing a change in the properties of a surface. You have been shown (regardless of the fact that you haven't read them) research papers showing the same effect around other landings on the moon. You claimed there was no evidence of the same thing being replicated on Earth, and you have been provided with evidence of that too. You claimed that the theory to explain the phenomenon (that you still don't quite understand) was just invented recently, but you were shown proof that that was wrong as well. You claim that there are photos pre-dating Apollo that show features that have been mis-identified as Apollo artifacts, and that you have seen them, but you have failed to produce any such photograph.

You have consistently shown that you do not understand what is being discussed, have failed to provide evidence to support your claims, and can't account for the fact that photographs taken on the lunar surface during Apollo contain features replicated in orbital images - including images taken by countries other than the USA.

You understand why it's a little difficult to take your claims of expertise seriously, right? Do you get that?

a reply to: turbonium1

I understand.

However the proof, theories and explanations provided by others (MonkeyMan, Choo Train etc) vastly outweighs what you have provided, which is not a lot unfortunately.

I do not pretend to know it all, I learn and adapt and educate myself at every turn and chance I have, I do not dismiss anything regardless of how fantastical of a lie it could be, I add everything up after all of that and it ranks in my head.

At this stage what little you provided will not sway people, it is too little, you need to go big and provide proof alongside of it, I know you're happy to believe that it was all a big lie and that is fine, but you are here trying to prove that the moon landing was a lie to a world of people and to do that you have to present actual proof of the matter that will sway and convince people, without that people will take it as a bad joke and will look differently at your name each time you attempt to provide more on your theories.

These experts are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole...

A 'phenomenon' must exist which allows the square peg to fit the round hole, and these experts are looking at various hypotheses to come up with a plausible explanation....

They never once consider the possibility of the square peg not fitting the round hole, in the first place. Not a bit.

It was claimed to be true, and that's just how it is, okay?!!


So, fine and dandy!

originally posted by: turbonium1
I'm referring to an area of disturbance claimed to be seen from orbit - you are aware of that, correct?

What do you think your image has to do with the disturbance seen from orbit?

Nothing, right?

Worthless, as usual.

yea i think the image has nothing to do with the LM disturbance which is why i posted the image saying that it is a result of the LM disturbance..... (sarcasm incase you failed to understand even that)

the area pictured under the LM is the disturbance you are referring to..
it is also in sunlight, you are claiming that it should be extremely bright because the disturbance from the LM engine would make lunar regolith brighter as seen from orbit therefore when close up it should be more brighter (even though you are wrong about this too)

now to the contradiction which you have failed to address:
since NASA has noted the LM disturbance caused by the engine and that disturbance is in sunlight.. clearly they did not forget to just put this bright spot into surface images as you have claimed..

dont forget that NASA is claiming that the brightness is due to the LM engine compacting the regolith, which is exactly what you see in the above image.. so according to your theory it should be so bright that we cant see anything.

originally posted by: turbonium1
These experts are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole...

A 'phenomenon' must exist which allows the square peg to fit the round hole, and these experts are looking at various hypotheses to come up with a plausible explanation....

hypocrite much??

how about you prove you theory that this would be much more visible the closer you are??

how about you prove that archaeologists that use aerial surveying are wasting their time because what they spot in the air will be exponentially more visible from the surface, so that they should be surveying from the surface instead.

you arent trying to fit your square into a circle now are you?? prove your claims.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

I understand.

However the proof, theories and explanations provided by others (MonkeyMan, Choo Train etc) vastly outweighs what you have provided, which is not a lot unfortunately.

I do not pretend to know it all, I learn and adapt and educate myself at every turn and chance I have, I do not dismiss anything regardless of how fantastical of a lie it could be, I add everything up after all of that and it ranks in my head.

At this stage what little you provided will not sway people, it is too little, you need to go big and provide proof alongside of it, I know you're happy to believe that it was all a big lie and that is fine, but you are here trying to prove that the moon landing was a lie to a world of people and to do that you have to present actual proof of the matter that will sway and convince people, without that people will take it as a bad joke and will look differently at your name each time you attempt to provide more on your theories.

That's like needing to have more frames with glitches in the movie, since only 3 or 4 frames is not convincing enough to sway people the floating astronaut scene was a fake!!

In fact, these few frames are all you need to prove they faked the scene.

Same as the area of 'disturbance' is all you need to prove it was faked.


I've debated this long enough to know that evidence of a hoax will never, ever, seem good enough to sway any of the devout Apollo believers.

People with an open mind might be able to find the truth, and accept it, as such. That's a decent enough motivation, to keep going forth...

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
These experts are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole...

A 'phenomenon' must exist which allows the square peg to fit the round hole, and these experts are looking at various hypotheses to come up with a plausible explanation....

hypocrite much??

how about you prove you theory that this would be much more visible the closer you are??

how about you prove that archaeologists that use aerial surveying are wasting their time because what they spot in the air will be exponentially more visible from the surface, so that they should be surveying from the surface instead.

you arent trying to fit your square into a circle now are you?? prove your claims.

The area spotted by archaeologists from aerial surveys is not comparable, in any way...

You are referring to an entire area that can only be seen from above..

On the ground, we CAN distinguish it, just not as an entire area.

That is what can only be seen from above.


Do you get the point here?


How can you see an area from above, yet not see any of it from the ground? You cannot.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Same as the area of 'disturbance' is all you need to prove it was faked.

the problem is, what that disturbance looks like and what you want it to look like are two completely different things.

you are expecting a huge white coloured regolith in surface images but so many times people have told you it is a reflective issue and not so much a physical one..

its like flying over a lake and you see this huge bright spot in the water

you dont know what it is and want to investigate it so you go down to the lake and see this:


you would be thinking to yourself "wheres the big patch of white water?? my eyes must be fake"

People with an open mind might be able to find the truth, and accept it, as such. That's a decent enough motivation, to keep going forth...

you mean people that simply dont understand what that LM disturbance is, like yourself??

you have spent the last few months thinking that the LM disturbance was a physical feature when its been the reflection of sunlight...

Think about how that archaeological site would go ahead with your argument...

'Hey, guys, where is the area we identified from the aerial view?

'We can't see it from here, on the ground, so who knows?'

'I guess we need a plane, and they'll have to radio us directions, on the ground, so we know where to start digging!'




That's about it, right?

originally posted by: turbonium1

The area spotted by archaeologists from aerial surveys is not comparable, in any way...

You are referring to an entire area that can only be seen from above..

On the ground, we CAN distinguish it, just not as an entire area.

That is what can only be seen from above.

Do you get the point here?

How can you see an area from above, yet not see any of it from the ground? You cannot.

The problem with your argument is that the LM disturbance isnt seen ONLY from above. i just posted an image of what it looks like directly under the LM and in direct sunlight.

the image from above is a reflection of the sun where a larger amount of sunlight is reflected into the camera.
the image from the surface is images of lunar regolith reflecting less sunlight into the camera.

i wonder how long it will take for you to realise its a reflective issue??

originally posted by: turbonium1
Think about how that archaeological site would go ahead with your argument...

'Hey, guys, where is the area we identified from the aerial view?

'We can't see it from here, on the ground, so who knows?'

'I guess we need a plane, and they'll have to radio us directions, on the ground, so we know where to start digging!'

That's about it, right?

overly simplified but in effect, yes.. congratulations.