New Moon photos , do they really show the Apollo landing gear ?

[MileHigh]

I remember Apollo 8, which was one of the world's great coming together moments and it was totally transfixing.

I watched the landing on TV, and had the Revel model of the Lunar Module.

I went to Cape Canaveral and saw the rockets.

The physics makes perfect sense.

I looked at moon rock samples in different museums.

I saw Buzz Aldrin speak once.

I saw the clip where Buzz punches the dude in the face.

I saw the splashdown on TV.

Utterly impossible to have that large a conspiracy.

Thousands of subcontractors.

Mercury and Gemini.

The clip of the dude off to the right is a poor fake.

Recent moon satellite pics of landing sites.

It's a slam-dunk!  lol

Now the Face on Mars, that's another story! 

[hartiberlin]

1.  There are movies taken of the astronauts driving for miles in the rover.  If this was a closed set, this would mean that it would have to be the largest building ever made.  If this was not a closed set, but in a desert, then there would be normal desert type fauna being observed, or at least some wind and dust from the tires hanging in the air, which we do not see in the footage.

Can you please post a movie link to it ?

I want to see, if one can see any edits or cuts in it.

Many thanks.

P.S. There are still many issues with the moon landings, that the supporters
can not explain, e.g. the wrong lighting, the wrong shadows, the wrong
camera flash reflexions, astronauts being pulled up by hookup wires,
the rocket start back from the moon without any flames, or exhausts, etc..
and filming the liftoff with a remote controlled camera from earth so
that it would capture it so exactly but with a 2 second control delay included
(due to the distance earth moon)... ??

[hartiberlin]

2.  The moon rocks and the dust carried off by the astronauts has been examined by top scientists all over the world and has been confirmed to not be of earth origin.

One sample of it from a museum in the Netherlands was recently discovered to be a fake.

If they faked this one, how many others did they fake too ?

[WilbyInebriated]

I think you are committing a logical fallacy of your own by changing around the situation and assuming I am alleging the converse of my position.  It is not my position that a popular video is necessarily good evidence of something.  Furthermore, it is unfair to twist the definition of "interesting" beyond the context in which I presented it.

you think wrong. why don't you show us all which fallacy i commited, i gave you a list. as i said previously, 'interesting' is completely subjective from one person to the next.

My position, which you could have easily gathered from context, even though I did not spell it out as I am about to do, is that a video that is unpopular, but which contains subject matter that is crucial to the resolution of a highly controversial topic, is more likely to be unpersuasive and not "interesting" to the discussion, for whatever reason (in this case, because it is likely not genuine).  If this particual video is to be taken at its face value, i.e. it is a legitimate NASA video of the purported lunar landing that contains in frame a person without a spacesuit, then it is pretty much proof positive that NASA faked at least some of the Apollo missions.  And this is a pretty devastating information.

which is a logical fallacy, the 'popularity' a video has no bearing on it being genuine or fake... why can't you comprehend this?

So why does this video languish in obscurity, even among the most vocal proponents of the moon landing hoax theory?  I am not saying that all unpopular videos are fake.  I am saying that the fact that this video is unpopular, despite its apparent newsworthiness, tends to indicate that it is fake, because otherwise it would be very big news indeed.

i don't know and i don't care. why? because it is irrelevant. i didn't say you said all unpopular videos are fake. i am saying that is not a cogent argument.

Lastly, I think this is a good example of your needless nitpicking, which does little to further the discussion.  Whether or not I committed a logical fallacy is a matter of debate.  This is without question true, as we are currently debating it, and say whatever you want, I have a defensible position.  Unfortunately, debating it does not further the discussion one iota.  The topic at hand is whether the moon landings were faked or not.  Perhaps more specifically, is the video Stefan linked genuine or fake.  By your own admission, you do not believe in the moon landing hoax, and by extension, you must believe this video to be a fake, since if it were genuine, you would not hold the position you do regarding the moon landing.  So seriously, why nitpick here?  Are you some kind of logical fallacy police?  Even my responding to you derails this topic, so I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future, but I wanted to say my piece before I start ignoring you.

to be honest, your logical fallacies do little to clear up whether or not the video is genuine or fake. it's not a matter of debate. you commited one. you haven't yet, in your original fallacy or your last response, demonstrated a cogent argument... furthermore, my opinions and everyone else's for that matter have no bearing on whether or not the videos/landings were faked. so seriously, read the definition of what an argument is in my last post and go brush up on what a cogent argument is instead of pandering your subjective opinions as factual or logical...  your logical fallacies and refusal to see them for what they are is what is 'de-railing' the topic. yes, i am the logical fallacy police, i take the time to educate you because i care about the (ab)use of logic and reason. stefan has brought up some interesting points, if you have something other than opinion and subjective analysis to rebut with i'm sure we would all love to hear it.

[utilitarian]

the 'popularity' a video has no bearing on it being genuine or fake

You still do not get it.  I am not saying, as you are asserting, that the popularity of a video is indicative of it being genuine or fake.  I am saying the unpopularity of a video, when it purports to be dispositive regarding a highly controversial subject, is indicative of it being a fake.  Reason being, if it was genuine, it would be popular, as it would be often cited to resolve this controversial question.  This seems to be a fine distinction that eludes your highly logical mind for some reason.

Do you disagree with the proposition that if this video was genuine it would be more popular?  If so, on what grounds?

(Again, I am NOT asking: if this video was popular, would it be genuine?  That is a wholly separate question.)