Coke bottle on original moon shot footage.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

And same with you. Im gonna end up starting a war... Sorry. But there is evidence to support us landing on the moon. laser measurements rely on mirrors placed by apollo missions 11, 14 and 15. But no one wants to see that. We have to see images caused by shadow and rock as beings or structures. The flat earthers do not believe the earth is round even with all the evidence to the contrary... I just talked my self out of caring what people like this believe. You guys have fun with the "fake moon landings" i can only hope one day you realize what fools you really are. Im bowing out.

a reply to: anonentityWhat? So they brought a case of coke to the moon with them...I would too...What's the big deal???

The video tech at that time isn't like today. Many people overlook that issue when creating a conspiracy.

Looking at those damn huge rockets, I think it would have been a criminal waist of money, time, and effort not to have gone to the moon, all the brain sweat that went into that enterprise, what a damn waist.

I've always believed we went to the moon. It's what they found that interests me most that they are not telling us for some reason.
We've seen with early 9/11 footage on the news that was only shown maybe once that doesn't seem right. Never mentioned or shown again, but people swear gave away the whole conspiracy.

I think she did see something but just a glitch in the programme at the time. I'm not calling her a liar. Just her memory of what she thinks she saw and what she actually saw.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Guyfriday

I must be different then. I know the moon landing missions weren't faked and they actually happened.

I also know there is a secret space program. And this is easy to prove. What isn't easy to prove is just how vast or advanced that secret program is.

It isn't just my belief though.

And part of that "secret space program" is a disinfo program specifically designed to throw chaff into the air to cover and confuse the real program. To question the Moon shots is an amazing counterploy to those of us that have witnessed and reported black triangles. These breakthrough craft, are a full step beyond rocket power and have been the real space efforts for the last few decades.

At the bottom of it all is the simple fact that the UFO phenomena that has been denied for over half a century must remain being denied as humanity comes to terms at some future date with that amazing and frightening realization.

Two questions:
1 - where are those letters written to the newspaper?
2 - I didn't understand what they say, were people in that are of Australia receiving a rebroadcast signal instead of a live signal?

a reply to: anonentity

Lets see - looking at the framing of that picture, and the size of the astronaut, how big would a coke bottle be on the screen?

For anyone to say that they saw it beyond any doubt is hard to believe since it would be so small in that shot.

On top of that, the image is only 525 lines.

originally posted by: Somethingsamiss
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

And same with you. Im gonna end up starting a war... Sorry. But there is evidence to support us landing on the moon. laser measurements rely on mirrors placed by apollo missions 11, 14 and 15. But no one wants to see that. We have to see images caused by shadow and rock as beings or structures.

That's not evidence. Soviets placed things on the Moon using unmanned vehicles. Also, the Moon will reflect lasers without a 'reflector'.

Whether or not you believe that Americans landed on the Moon, docked with the lunar orbiter at 60 miles up, going 4,000 mph from a dead stop, is up to you, but there is no independent proof.

In ALL other expeditions, such as Antarctica missions or deep sea missions, it's required that there is independent proof before it is given credence. The ONLY one that is an exception is the Moon landing.

Some day we may have direct evidence, but we do not have it yet. Chiefly, the counter arguments consist of name-calling and face palming and ranting. Even the moderators who chime in use cheap shots and ridicule as their 'evidence'.

Saying 'oh, 100s or 1000s of people couldn't keep a secret' is NOT evidence. Saying 'how could this or that happen?', is not evidence, it's argument by intimidation.

As of now, even with the blurry pixellated pics of smudges in the lunar landing site location, there is NO evidence to definitively support landing on the Moon by Astronauts, and then the same Astronauts returning to Earth safely. There is only suggestion and conjecture and people asking questions designed to intimidate those who are simply questioning the story that was put in front of us.

HTH

a reply to: ArMaP

Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon's surface at 0356 GMT which makes it 1256 EST in Oz and we were watching during the lunch hour so I'd say that what we saw that day was live and un-doctored video.

This is first I've ever heard about a coke bottle - maybe someone has been sniffing one

originally posted by: anonentity

This is interesting, quite a few people in Aussie saw a coke bottle in the original footage from the moonwalk. When it was shown in America the bottle had been edited out. As I understand it, the signal was beamed to Aussie first, in an unedited state. So is this woman and her friends who saw the same thing taking the mickey or is this just another nail in the coffin for the moonwalk.

Easy explanation? This could be sort of like when a microphone on a boom mike in a movie becomes visible to the audience in the theater, when the projectionist gets the framing wrong.

Remember how the original moon footage was projected on a wall and *then* filmed by tv cameras and broadcasted to the world?

One of those cameras may simply have gotten the "framing" slightly wrong, and if that particular camera's angle/perspective is slightly skewed, it very likely could have gotten a bit of the floor in the picture too.

That would not necessarily really be noticeable unless something were to get in between the camera and wall. But if some were to, say, knock a coke bottle over and have it roll in front of the wall, the camera might pick that up.

To the unprepared viewer, it might very well appear to be *in* the footage rather than in front of it. If the entire thing is not imagined, this to me is the obvious and by far the most likely explanation.

originally posted by: Maverick7
There is only suggestion and conjecture and people asking questions designed to intimidate those who are simply questioning the story that was put in front of us.

You are forgetting the witnesses, the astronauts.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Exactly!
If you can't read the mission patch on the astronauts arm, your not going to be able to read a coke bottle rolling on the ground

a reply to: ArMaP

I think they are trying to say, Aus was first to receive the signal, and everyone else in the world got the rebroadcast.

originally posted by: Maverick7
As of now, even with the blurry pixellated pics of smudges in the lunar landing site location, there is NO evidence to definitively support landing on the Moon by Astronauts

There's a lot more to the LRO photos of the Apollo landing sites than initially meets the eye.

When "flipping" through a sequence of images taken of the same site but at different times of the lunar day, you can see the flag's shadow creeping along the ground. The shadow appears detached from the ground, which correlates with the fact that the flag is positioned on a pole.



Also, the cables leading to the ALSEP equipment (along with some of the equipment itself) glint in the Sun in some of the images, due to them having metallic surfaces or being wrapped in foil.



You can see all this for yourself by using the "Flip Book" at LRO's "Featured Sites" - www.lroc.asu.edu...

It's interesting that some people can believe in the possibility of nazi bases beneath the antarctic ice, nazi super weapons like Die Glocke, and nazi Haunebu saucers, but others can't accept the moon landings made possible by some of the very same nazi scientists and technology via operation paperclip.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No you don't know that. Lol, you BELIEVE that. You need to learn the difference between fact and belief. You sound really stupid when you don't know the difference.

Jaden

a reply to: Nucleardoom

Whether it was possible or not doesn't make a difference. Geopolitically we could not afford to have a failure and there was no way that they could have known that they could have possibly made it successfully so at least the first trip in 69 was probably faked because we could not geopolitically afford a failure.

Jaden

a reply to: anonentity

Yes, this completely unverified story, complete with lack of evidence, totally exposes an historical event witnessed by millions. Epic fail. This has been debunked countless times.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Nucleardoom

Whether it was possible or not doesn't make a difference. Geopolitically we could not afford to have a failure and there was no way that they could have known that they could have possibly made it successfully so at least the first trip in 69 was probably faked because we could not geopolitically afford a failure.

Jaden

That is not an argument. The allies could not have afforded to fail on D-Day... does that mean the Normandy invasion was a hoax?