Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: turbonium1

If I landed on the moon, why would I care if someone claims that I didn't?

You should care because the taxpayer do. If you claim a lie. It does mean a lot to the once who paid for the whole plot through taxes.

a reply to: spy66
You answered the question not asked, which is:
"If I didn't land on the moon, why would I care if someone doesn't believe claims that I did?"

I don't think your answer applies to the original question:
"If I landed on the moon, why would I care if someone claims that I didn't?"

If I recall correctly, NASA was going to pay Jim Oberg to assemble some evidence which should convince people beyond any doubt that the moon landings happened, but they changed their minds and didn't do that. I'm not sure why, but my guess is, because they figured out that no amount of evidence will convince the people that think it was faked. Heck, we have pictures of the landing sites now, and some people still don't believe those.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My answer was related to the question if it was a lie. But it should matter both ways. They are depicted as heros and the Public view does matter in that case. Tax payers view always matters, they pay for the trip and everything that comes With it. Even if it is true or false.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

well id say spending money to try to convince people you did something is pointless. You cant make someone believe something if they choose not to. So Nasa has the information available its up to the individual to just look at it. If a person chooses to ignore all the Data available on the moon landings and say it was faked nothing anyone will ever show them will change there opinion because its obviously some deep seeded bias involved. Usually either hatred of the government or extreme paranoia and there grasp on reality is shall we say limited.

originally posted by: choos

you were the one saying that the darker area next to the LM would be easily visible from space.. and now you are saying there is no darker area around the LM?? do you want to make up your mind first before commenting??

I'd like you to cite the post(s) where you think I've claimed 'the darker area next to the LM would be easily visible from space'...

Then, after you find out I never made such an argument, you might realize why it's important to know exactly what I've said, before commenting on it.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

You're seeing a moment in time. Convicted violent criminal Bart Sibrel is a serial stalker and hounded these guys with his pointless publicity stunt. They did not blow up in an instant, it took hours of Sibrel being an annoying cock to get them to that point.

Sibrel certainly hounded Aldrin, but that's the only case I'm aware of. He didn't hound him for "hours", iirc.


Do you have any proof of Sibrel hounding other astronauts, and for "hours"?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you were the one saying that the darker area next to the LM would be easily visible from space.. and now you are saying there is no darker area around the LM?? do you want to make up your mind first before commenting??

I'd like you to cite the post(s) where you think I've claimed 'the darker area next to the LM would be easily visible from space'...

Then, after you find out I never made such an argument, you might realize why it's important to know exactly what I've said, before commenting on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: turbonium1
You pointed to a darker area by the LM, claiming it shows "plume burn".

Take a look at the ground elsewhere in this panorama.

The right side has an area MUCH DARKER than the area you contend is "plume burn".

It's not seen in the LRO images, even though it's much darker than the area near the LM.

here you are suggesting that the right side should have been visible from the LRO images.. but its not..

my argument has always been you wouldnt see that darker patch because the darker patch is mostly due to post-editing

but for the record, here you are also claiming the area is much darker.. now you are claiming the darker area doesnt exist.. so which is it now??

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

You're seeing a moment in time. Convicted violent criminal Bart Sibrel is a serial stalker and hounded these guys with his pointless publicity stunt. They did not blow up in an instant, it took hours of Sibrel being an annoying cock to get them to that point.

Sibrel certainly hounded Aldrin, but that's the only case I'm aware of. He didn't hound him for "hours", iirc.


Do you have any proof of Sibrel hounding other astronauts, and for "hours"?

Its well documented he sends letters goes to events calls their phones attempting to get interviews and of course disrupts them when they appear at public events watch his videos. With Buzz it was even worse he tricked him into an interview when he figured out who it was ended the interview and left but was followed down the street . Than he pokes him with the bible and gets a right hook.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: turbonium1

If I landed on the moon, why would I care if someone claims that I didn't?

You should care because the taxpayer do. If you claim a lie. It does mean a lot to the once who paid for the whole plot through taxes.

I'm saying "why would I care", as in.... "why would it bother me" if someone claims I didn't land on the moon.

I'd see it for what it is - a guy paid me for an interview, and later on, he presented a video, which he said is proof of the Apollo moon landings being hoaxed.

Of course, I'd know he was wrong, since I did land on the moon.

Here is an important point...

Sibrel claims the proof of a hoax is in some Apollo 11 footage, never released to the public. Sibrel shows it to Aldrin.

If Aldrin landed on the moon, he knows this video cannot be proof of a hoax.

Aldrin would know if the video is genuine, since he shot the damn footage! (iirc)..

But Aldrin wants nothing of it. He says he can't make any comment on the video. First, it wasn't reviewed (by Aldrin) prior to this interview.

Aldrin tries to scare Sibrel from showing the footage in public - Aldrin says he (Sibrel) could be sued if he ever releases it.

If Aldrin landed on the moon, he knows the video cannot be proof of a hoax. Aldrin would not be worried about it being shown in public, and would not threaten to sue him to prevent it from being released.

This makes no sense if he really landed on the moon.

It makes perfect sense, however, if he did NOT land on the moon.


Like it or not.

a reply to: turbonium1

No.

You are basing your entire response here on your totally fictional notion of what you would do in the same circumstances. You have no idea how you would respond in these circumstances because they are never going to happen, and even if you did your personal reaction does not dictate how someone else would or should respond.

The fact that Aldrin did not behave in a way you have decided is appropriate offers absolutely no proof of anything other than your clearly superior moral standards.

You are deceiving yourself. Aldrin's reaction is the more honest one. Convicted violent criminal Sibrel was floored by a pensioner. A judge in a court of law determined that Sibrel brought it on himself. So what?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Aldrin tries to scare Sibrel from showing the footage in public - Aldrin says he (Sibrel) could be sued if he ever releases it.

If Aldrin landed on the moon, he knows the video cannot be proof of a hoax. Aldrin would not be worried about it being shown in public, and would not threaten to sue him to prevent it from being released.

Aldrin says "If you show THIS publicly, you're open for a lawsuit". "this" I took to mean the Video Sibrel was filming at the moment he said it (and the previous bits) without Aldrin's permission, under false pretenses. I didn't take it to mean that Aldrin meant the old video which Sibrel said was from 1969.

What Aldrin said is that it would be reasonable to let him see the footage in advance of the interview so he could be prepared to comment on it. The title doesn't say it's a raw feed, it says it's a "report" so a "report" implies it could be and probably was edited from raw footage for the purpose of the report. I thought Aldrin's comments were logical and he emphatically confirmed he went to the moon in that interview, so using that interview for your confirmation bias that he didn't go to the moon seems silly.

originally posted by: choos

"The right side has an area MUCH DARKER than the area you contend is "plume burn".

It's not seen in the LRO images, even though it's much darker than the area near the LM."


here you are suggesting that the right side should have been visible from the LRO images.. but its not..

Nice try.

Your claim was '"you were the one saying that the darker area next to the LM would be easily visible from space."

I didn't say that, as you found out.

Now you're moving the goalposts...

And you have it all wrong, once again.

I am not suggesting the dark area on the right side should be seen in LRO images.

Your claim is a dark area is seen in LRO images, which was caused by the LM's plume burn. I said a much darker area is seen in the panorama, but it is not seen in the LRO images. Follow me so far?

I didn't say it should be seen. I said if the area around the LM can be seen in LRO images, as you claim, we'd also see another area which appears to be much darker.

Since the much darker area is not seen in LRO images, it means the less dark area you claim is around the LM cannot be seen in LRO images either. That's my point.

It confirms once more that you have no case.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You are basing your entire response here on your totally fictional notion of what you would do in the same circumstances. You have no idea how you would respond in these circumstances because they are never going to happen, and even if you did your personal reaction does not dictate how someone else would or should respond.

I'm basing it on human behavior. Normal versus abnormal responses to a given situation.

I've been accused of lying on another forum. It didn't make me mad. It just motivated me to prove them wrong.
Which I did. I knew I hadn't lied, and they had no case.

A liar will not do that. He will try and hide away from it. He becomes nervous if he gets caught in a lie. He will get angry.

Aldrin is accused of lying. He is shown evidence which allegedly proves that he lied.

An honest man will face up to the accuser's evidence, a liar will not. The truth cannot be disputed, because he knows he is a liar.

Simple as that.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The fact that Aldrin did not behave in a way you have decided is appropriate offers absolutely no proof of anything other than your clearly superior moral standards.

You are deceiving yourself. Aldrin's reaction is the more honest one. Convicted violent criminal Sibrel was floored by a pensioner. A judge in a court of law determined that Sibrel brought it on himself. So what?

That only shows judges aren't always right, and make mistakes.

Some judges give preferential treatment to a famous celebrity, a well-respected heroic figure... which is the case for Aldrin.

Suppose a video was presented in court, which shows a man pestering you across a street. He calls you liar, thief, criminal, etc. And then you punch him in the head.

You would never be treated like Aldrin was. No way, no how.

You and Aldrin did the same thing, in the same scenario. But you would not get the same treatment in a court of law. You aren't a famous heroic god-figure astronaut, like Aldrin is.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I am not suggesting the dark area on the right side should be seen in LRO images.

you brought it up saying that it cant be seen, yet you havent taken into account the post-editing that has occurred to assemble the panorama..

so is that area really darker or is it not?? you still havent answered me yet..

Your claim is a dark area is seen in LRO images, which was caused by the LM's plume burn. I said a much darker area is seen in the panorama, but it is not seen in the LRO images. Follow me so far?

not my claim.. I was saying that the plume is a very light brown tint and would be difficult to see.. follow me so far??
the darker area from the panorama is due to post-editing and is not much darker if at all than the rest of the terrain.. follow me so far??

I didn't say it should be seen. I said if the area around the LM can be seen in LRO images, as you claim, we'd also see another area which appears to be much darker.

and if you can follow me.. i claimed that the darker area is due to post-editing which is why is it not readily noticeable from the LRO images.. do you get this??

Since the much darker area is not seen in LRO images, it means the less dark area you claim is around the LM cannot be seen in LRO images either. That's my point.

It confirms once more that you have no case.

you keep saying there is a darker area.. ive already shown you that the panorama has been post-edited to be DARKER in order to correct for the brightness to assemble the panorama.. how many times must i repeat this?

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'm basing it on human behavior. Normal versus abnormal responses to a given situation.

you are comparing it to YOUR OWN OPINION..

are you a human behavioral psychologist?? have you thoroughly examined and questioned the astronauts yourself in person??

or are you basing your readings on your opinion and how you believe people should behave??

why would you assume that everyone MUST conform to your set standards?? everyone is different.. you havent even met the guy, i would bet you havent even seen him in person from a distance.. what gives you the authority to say how they should act??

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You are basing your entire response here on your totally fictional notion of what you would do in the same circumstances. You have no idea how you would respond in these circumstances because they are never going to happen, and even if you did your personal reaction does not dictate how someone else would or should respond.

I'm basing it on human behavior. Normal versus abnormal responses to a given situation.

Punching someone who won't get out of your way, lures you into an interview under false pretenses and calls you a liar a thief and a coward seems perfectly normal to me.

I've been accused of lying on another forum. It didn't make me mad. It just motivated me to prove them wrong.
Which I did. I knew I hadn't lied, and they had no case.

And if he'd turned at your house and followed you down the street and demanded you swear on a bible? I's punch them in the face.

A liar will not do that. He will try and hide away from it. He becomes nervous if he gets caught in a lie. He will get angry.

In your unsupported and very biased opinion.

Aldrin is accused of lying. He is shown evidence which allegedly proves that he lied.

He is not shown any evidence that proves he lies. He is shown lies by convicted criminal thug Bart Sibrel.

An honest man will face up to the accuser's evidence, a liar will not. The truth cannot be disputed, because he knows he is a liar.

In your unsupported biased opnion.


Simple as that.

That only shows judges aren't always right, and make mistakes.

Ooh contempt of court right there.

Some judges give preferential treatment to a famous celebrity, a well-respected heroic figure... which is the case for Aldrin.

And sometimes they look at the evidence and male a sensible judgement, which the judge did in this case.

Suppose a video was presented in court, which shows a man pestering you across a street. He calls you liar, thief, criminal, etc. And then you punch him in the head.

You would never be treated like Aldrin was. No way, no how.

Why don't you try it, see what happens.

You and Aldrin did the same thing, in the same scenario. But you would not get the same treatment in a court of law. You aren't a famous heroic god-figure astronaut, like Aldrin is.

In your biased unsupported opinion.

Has anyone seen this interview with Buzz 'so we were making the simulation' Aldrin ?

a reply to: webstra
The guy who made that video comes across as quite ignorant. The Apollo astronauts spent way more time in training/simulations than they did in the actual mission. They were some of the best trained people for any mission, ever. I've seen Aldrin in other videos and in those too he likes to put his answers in context. In his Larry King interview, King has to hurry him along and remind him that air time is limited when Aldrin tries to expound too much.

The sad part about that video is the maker is so obsessed with the word "simulation" that he keeps playing that word over and over without letting the relevant part of the interview after that word finish. If you watch the full interview (relevant part at 20m in the video below), the point Aldrin was making is that he came up with the idea in the simulator to change the checklist for the descent from PTT to VOX so that Armstrong could hear Aldrin's descent callouts without Aldrin having to push anything to talk (PTT=Push to Talk), and the people in charge loved that idea, so mentioning the simulation wasn't a slip-up as that dumb video infers..."simulation" is exactly what Aldrin meant to say.

Apollo 11, 45 Years Later: Buzz Aldrin talks with Space.com


At 29 minutes, he's talking about horses. Why didn't the guy in the "Buzz Aldrin is a fraud!" video add that part, and say there are no horses on the moon? Again this is Aldrin's style of speaking to bring in other examples to highlight what he's talking about. In the horse example he's comparing the locomotion experiments he did on the moon to the way horses gallop. You can't any more infer from this that he's talking about horses on the moon than infer he's saying the actual moon landing happened in a simulator just because he happened to mention the simulator is the place where he came up with an idea that changed the checklist for the real moon landing.

The simulators are no secret, wikipedia even shows this picture of Collins in the simulator:
Michael Collins

Michael Collins in Command Module simulator during simulated rendezvous and docking maneuver on June 19, 1969

a reply to: turbonium1

Or maybe you're protecting your family from a man with a history of mental instability, a criminal record for aggressive behaviour and a history of stalking astronauts who is currently in the process of stalking you?

originally posted by: turbonium1


Not the Apollo guys, who blow up over it. You should realize why this is not a normal reaction to have...

Based on your knowledge of human behavior, is jumping up and down on someone's car because they took the spot where you were going to park your car a normal reaction to have? Because that's what your buddy Bart Sibrel did.