...the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots...
And how did you determine this? Do you realize we have stereo-pair images from several lunar landscapes that allow us to measure accurately the distance to objects in the scene? Do you understand that we have parallax-controllable sets of images? Show me the math.
...telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon.
And we know the reasons why distances are hard to perceive on the Moon. There is no intervening atmosphere, which was known even back in da Vinci's day to attenuate tonal range over distance. There is no weathering of rocks, which is a size cue. And apparent size is one of the strongest depth cues. And there are no familiar features like vegetation, which is another size/distance cue. Given that we know so much about what affects depth perception, it's disingenuous of you simply to ignore the best explanation in favor of a farfetched hoax theory.
We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.
The problem with your "strong evidence of wires" is that the wires we use in film and theater are carbon-coated and don't shine, and it has been this way since the 1940s. I'm a Foy-certified flying technician, and I designed and built the flyrig for the 1000-seat theater I sometimes work in. I'm also familiar with the proprietary Cirque du Soleil flyrigs. But don't take my word for it. Go get a good Blu-Ray transfer of
Mary Poppins from a 70mm print. It dates to the same time as the Moon landings. Have a look at Dick Van Dyke's wire-assisted dance dressed as a rag doll for the Baron's birthday. Can you see the wires? Only if you look very, very carefully and you have a good high-def television. Even back in 1969 Hollywood knew how to conceal wires to the point where they don't register on a 70mm negative and a set lit with a hundred kilowatts. And you're telling us NASA is stupid enough to use shiny wires that can be seen on 16mm film and field-sequential television. No, film producers of that era weren't that stupid.
Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?
Because hands-on experience and correct, adjudicated knowledge are better than watching television. I live in the desert. I'm also an engineer, which means working with graded and sifted particulates from time to time. Dust is simply ubiquitous, and what I see in the lunar videos bears no resemblance to how I see dust, sand, and general particulates behave in an Earth environment.
The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.
It's clear you've never been within ten miles of any actual advanced engineering and manufacturing facility. Since aerospace engineering is principally what I do for a living, and what I've done for 30 years, please tell me all about how airplanes and spacecraft are actually assembled. Please go into as much detail as you need to get your point across, because I guarantee there is no chance you'll be talking over my head. And the regulars here love to hear the details.
The "designers" you speak of -- anonymous in your story -- were actually already giants in the industry: Tom Kelly, Max Faget, Bill Tindall, Charles Draper, etc. They worked for companies that already had long and glorious histories. Their reputations were already made. Now in hoax circles no one knows any of the important names, except of course for Wernher von Braun. No hoax claimant has yet given a convincing reason why all these made men would risk their reputations by agreeing to help perpetrate a hoax which, if they were caught, would amount to criminal behavior. It's like asking a millionaire if he wants to go pick pockets at the train station. They have no incentive whatsoever to go along with a hoax and every incentive not to.
Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.
Except I've spoken at length with Tony Frewin, Kubrick's assistant, and he can attest that Kubrick had nothing to do with anything that you're talking about. Nor would he have agreed to do any such project on those terms. He wasn't just someone else's photographer. Frewin insists Kubrick would not be interested in any project over which he didn't have substantial if not full control. And this is consistent with all the other people I've interviewed who worked with Kubrick.
The jumper on its own could be just coincidence...
And was, since the costume designer arranged for it on her own and Kubrick didn't know anything about it until he saw Danny Lloyd wearing it on set.
...it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.
...on a page full of misspellings intended to show Shelly Duvall just how unhinged her husband has become. You haven't explained why the "obvious" interpretation is not the simple, parsimonious one suggested by the plot of the movie the scene comes from. "A11" is not any sort of abbreviation used in the industry or in government to refer to the Apollo 11 mission.
Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you...
Or rather, once you've convinced yourself that a film is full of Easter eggs, you'll keep lowering your critical standards until you see them. People do this all the time to support any number of non-conspiratorial fan theories. Work on a real film just once in your life and you'll see that there simply isn't time or material available to have intended all the Easter eggs people say they see.
No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive...
Or so you say. Until they come here and attempt it, you can't say that for sure.
...which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT.
I don't debate on YouTube because the comment format and interaction controls don't really allow for comprehensive, fair debate.
...to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.
Several of our regulars have come from YouTube and can speak from experience. I've debated a few ex-YouTubers including Jarrah White, and I can say that they are charlatans. By that I mean they profess knowledge and understanding they clearly don't have, and are clearly trying to fool their audiences into believing they are as well-informed as they claim. White even went back to the third-party forum where I debated him and deleted all of his posts so that he could then lie about it back on his YouTube channel. Similarly Bart Sibrel claimed on his YouTube channel that his invitation to participate in a U.K. Channel 4 program that I was also in had been rescinded when the producers were unable to refute his claims. That's a bald-faced lie; Sibrel was dropped from the cast because he demanded an exorbitant fee. So when I say so many of the YouTubers on this point are charlatans, it's because I know them to be. Before Ralph Rene died, we filmed him for the History Channel for an unaired pilot, and all he could do was whine about how all the other conspiracy theorists had robbed him of his living by allegedly stealing his material and passing it off as their own. These people know exactly what they're doing and who their audience is.
I've been listening and responding to conspiracy spew since the late 1990s. You can hardly accuse me and the others here for allegedly not considering other people's observations and opinions. We have listened patiently to people who repeat the same debunked rubbish over and over again, every one of them thinking it was something new and earth-shattering. You're not telling us anything we haven't already heard before and already debunked a hundred times already. So it's going to be really hard for you to succeed with the "You're all so closed-minded" ploy.
It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.
You're telling us what "there would have to be," but you don't say what or how it was done, or show any evidence that it
was done. Telling us what the premise would have to be in order for your belief to hold is not the same thing as proving the premise. This is all too common in conspiracy-related argumentation. The holes in the theory are simply plugged with speculation, accompanied by no evidence at all. This reinforces a sort of inferential way of reasoning. You've convinced yourself that the missions were a hoax, so that becomes your foundation on which to speculation that somewhere, somehow, something must have been done to solve the problems your theory raises.
This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told...
Where is your evidence for this? We don't even believe everything we tell each other on this site. The other people have a contest to give out virtual T-shirts to people who catch me in an error. You on the other hand seem to have believed a lot of the nonsense YouTubers have fed you, with little if any attempt to verify their claims. You've even gone as far as suggesting above that YouTube is your trustworthy source and that you don't have to study anything in order to properly interpret what its contributors are telling you.
...as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources...
The reliability of the source of information is indeed a factor, but mostly this ends up being an
ad hominem ploy to avoid having to face contrary evidence because "it comes from NASA," or some such nonsense. As far as simply believing what we're told, you clearly don't know your audience very well. A few of us are professionally qualified in the areas that we speak on regarding the hoax claim, such as photography, photographic analysis, film and theater stagecraft, engineering, geology and science, radio communications, and so forth. And you'll find that many of us can back up our explanations of things with details and demonstrations. In contrast, when asked to substantiate the foundation for your beliefs and expectations, you mostly seem to be relying on intuition and YouTube.
...you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.
You seem to be groping for excuses not to read information that challenges your belief.
At the start of the first alleged practice transmission...
Actually one of the broadcasts that Sibrel tries to tell you was only a practice session really was broadcast. He didn't know that because he really did no research into Apollo before trying to make a quick buck off of it.
...when a third party voice instructs the alleged astronauts to talk.
No, you hear a noise that Sibrel insists is a person saying the word "talk." He doesn't try to interpret any of the other crosstalk garbles that happen all over in the Apollo audio.
One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe...
No, the "bright blue sky" you see is scatter that is blooming on the pickup tube whose aperture is set too open. Some of us are old enough to have owned and used vidicon-based video cameras.
...which suggests a different method of trickery was used.
Or that TV cameras work differently than people intuitively expect, such as when they have manual apertures and color vidicon pickup tubes. You've just swallowed Sibrel's nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Here's a hint: Sibrel doesn't have much experience with that equipment either.
So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion.
Have you see the footage from Apollo 13? From Apollo 8? Do you realize that there is more evidence than just for Apollo 11?
