Where are all these people who have seen what you are pointing out? I can see the stones you’ve put circles around. Is that what you mean?
It has already been pointed out that people have seen the originals and that most ‘anomalies’ are absent from them. Besides, do you think NASA is going to hold a big press conference, displaying the photos and saying “This rock in the corner is in fact a rock and not a shuttle for the moon-people” just to satisfy a handful of internet nutjobs like yourself?
Do you see NASA worrying?
Oh, and one final thought. See if you can guess what it is. It starts with “Answer”, ends with “questions” and has a “the” in the middle.
I haven’t called anyone “ignorant” nor will you find proof of such. What does that make you?
As far as facts from debunkers go, I haven’t seen any. I have seen blatant BS and I let that stand for what it is. It needs no comments from me. If a debunker happens to present a fact, It would suprise me so much I couldn’t help but to respond.
I can’t control this board (nor would I want to), so when I see the Apollo fantasy crew absorbed in their dream world, I try to stay out of it and just let it pass.
Maturity requires you to read an answer all the serious question from all the other posters, not repeat talking about evidence that appears in inadequate photos. I know many posters do get to many other reasons why you are wrong, but my complaint is even more basic: You did not see the negatives, that is a fact, you said that you knew for a fact the anomalies are in the negatives. That mister, is a lie.
Another lie coming now after so many posts: Your pretending that the evidence is about anomalies, when even if there was something there in the photos your research is still not good.
To do good research in your case one does this: After looking to a NASA photo: hmmm something weird here in this picture, I can not zoom to get a good image of it (the honest answer) so I will mark the MOST likely anomalies and check in the negative or first generation photo or digital dupe to see if what I saw is still there, then I scream Eureka! And only THEN I show my evidence to the rest of the world.
You have not done that. You do not have good evidence; ergo your message is not good.
And remember: lying again to defend your first lies only makes them bigger, and the one that says them gets to be disrespected. If you were mature, you will realize that.
LOL!!! Not only are the photos inadequate, they are fakes!! I have answered the serious questions I’ve seen. The only thing the other posters are serious about is taking the attention off the discrepancies I’m pointing out, and asking questions that are meant to confuse, not to foward a dicussion. When I see the same people deny blatant discrepancies over and over again, I cease taking them seriously or even paying attention to them (much like I will soon be treating you).
There happen to be a lot of things I know that, you don’t have a clue about. Just because you don’t know for certain, does not mean others don’t know for certain. Like I said, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t know, and I will hold to that statement. It really makes no difference what you think.
My research is much better than yours (because you haven’t done any). You have shown no Apollo photos that can prove me wrong. The last Apollo photo posted to prove me wrong is now an anomalous photo highlighted at my site.
Then follow through on your own advice, and try to prove me wrong.
Oh, I have done quite a bit of research, and you have obviously done none at all.
My evidence is in official Apollo photos. Photographic evidence is the best type of evidence there is (when you can’t get an admission of guilt). The message is that, the Apollo moon landings were faked. I know that is not a good message, but it is the truth. Not all truth is good.
I don’t think anything you said is worth remembering.
Ooookay, since a film resolution image of a 70mm photo is more that 40megs big, how big each of your image files are hmmm?
And then the fact: you are not doing the basic procedures that serious research like yours needs.
If you had bother to read my posts, you would have noticed that I was actually showing you how inadequate your photos are. The thing that you can not handle remains: most likely random patterns create those shuttles in your eyes and in other people, but even if indeed some anomaly was present you then need to make the next step: check it with the originals, other people not affiliated with NASA had access before to them. You have indeed done a lot of research, but only with third or fourth generation pictures. My statement that your research is rotten is not affected by how much research you have done.
Ooookay, since all the photos are fakes, the problem is that even if that is the case, your photos remain as third and forth generation copies. Evidence that you say prove they are fakes is still inadequate because those photos that you are using do not have the necessary detail to prove that. Incidentally, I am ignoring the so called super imposed astronauts and footprints, in my last posts I am dealing with the shuttles that you claim are present in the images.
Oh my aching colon, can’t anybody see that this guy is such an obvious put-on?
Is it really that fun baiting him? Maybe it would be if his crack-pot act was a little more in-depth. But he’s apparently not smart enough to come up with anything other than - “I know I’m right and I don’t have to prove anything.” What friggin’ fun is that?
Now if he were to say something like, “I have transcripts beamed to me from the Alpha Centaurians with VIN numbers of all the shuttles on the moon,” or something like that, then I could justify the existence of this thread.
As it stands, this is just pathetic. I know crack-pot baiting is fun. But there has to be better crack-pot acting to sustain it.
To Seethruart: what exactly is your schedule for starting a thread in the Pit telling us what idiots we are for debating this with you?
Maybe they were photos of the limb of the moon, rather than the center or near-center of the apparent lunar disk. Long-range pictures of the edge of the moon would be looking at the surface at a steep angle. In fact, that would explain how the Evil NASA Conspirators [TM] got those pictures of the lunar “horizon” against which the astronauts were superimposed.
Or at least, that’s how it might have happened in Seethruart-land.
The site is back up again, and there are two new anomalies in the Apollo Anomalies 1 folder. One is of a craft in flight just above the ground, and the other is kind of strange. It’s art in the rocks of the heads of a man, and another being, side by side. Both seem to be wearing their official headdresses. It’s wild once you see it. I highlighted it on the intro page, so just let the page load and you will see a mini slide show type of thing.
Holding to a statement does not make it the truth.
Did you see the negatives or not?
Yes, it makes no difference what I think, it makes a difference to all rational and ethical people here what you answer to this is. Remember, knowing for a fact requires that you had access to the negatives and examined them, if you do not refute that statement you are indeed a liar.
One of your arguments is that the long-range photos of the moon, which were used as the basis for the Apollo hoax, contain images of artificial structures (e.g. shuttles, towers on mounds, cylinders, etc).
Do you also see those miniature structures on photographs which are known to be long range photos of the lunar surface? E.g. in photos taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, or the Clementine space probe, or Apollo 8?
(The Clementine mission photos would be particularly useful to you. Clementine was handled by the U.S. Air Force, not NASA, so they would not have had an incentive to cover up any Apollo hoax.)
Please, study at least a couple lunar photos we know were taken from long range, and see if you can spot anomalies similar to the ones you’ve spotted in the Apollo surface photos. Then, if you do find such anomalies, post them on your website alongside your analyses of the Apollo photos. This might lend more credence to your argument!
At this point, I would have to be shown Apollo photos with actual close up ground, and actual boot prints, and actual astronauts in them. I shouldn’t be able to find “multiple” tiny crafts, and tiny structures, and other tiny anomalies on the ground (especially after I have been told for 30 years the ground was nothing but rocks and dust). Using a series of long range images for ground worked for 30 years, but once you know how the fake was done, how could anything NASA says be believable?
There were tons of video and photos taken. If the landings were real then, that would have been proof enough for everyone. Unfortunately, the photos are only proof of a fake, and even though the videos are not my department, the more I watch them the stranger they seem, and (in my opinion) are only evidence of something weird happening, not evidence of a moon landing.
As far as your question goes, there really is no evidence that the moon landings were real. All the tangible evidence seems to point to a fake.
I think this has been really educational for me (and fun too), Before this liar appeared, I did visit the museum and saw panoramas of the moon landscape consisting of pictures taken from a SINGLE point in the surface of the moon. That would be impossible in Seetruart’s world. Recently I did go to the library to check out the Full Moon (oversize) photo book.
I learned that the photos in the NASA web site are missing a neat photo of the ground before Buzz Aldrin made this footprint: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5877.jpg
In the book there are indeed two great, before and after, 12x12 photos. That anomaly Seetruart points at, is only the ground of the moon being affected by the footprint.
Also it has been a refresher course in my education in digital image processing.
Well, you don’t have actual photographic evidence as far as I’m concerned, and I don’t intend to debate other missions since there is no evidence any of it was faked.
