NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

[MID]

Funny that the astronauts never remarked about the stars while out in space - never. It would be spectacular seeing the stars from space -they said they never even SAW stars!!

No blast crater as there is even a FOOTPRINT under the lander. But not even a slight indent whatsoever from the counter boosters - do you know how stupid that is? They even kick up more dirt than that, and leave footprints ALL OVER the damn place, and the rover leaves tracks everywhere. But the area under the lander is UNTOUCHED!!

The flag is moving way out of proportion to the so-called "twisting" into the ground of the pole used as the excuse for the waving. Air resistance is SO OBVIOUS by the way it erratically flutters every which way. Prove it would flutter like that in a controlled, independent test under simulated moon conditions? They can't, so they would never dare try it. They could quash that "theory" easily if it were possible.

Again, they could easily set up a controlled room that simulates moon conditions, but they never did before Apollo, and they won't dare do it now. Why would that be? mean, they have zero gravity rooms, why not 1/6th gravity rooms?

Which reminds me, they never even TESTED the lem on earth prior to going to the moon. The prototypes crashed and burned. But they just KNEW the "moon" version would work flawlessly, right?

700602[/snapback]

________________________________________________________________________

Ah...turbonium...he's an engineeer...OBVIOUSLY

Some astronauts did see stars. However, that was only on night side passes and in circumstances where they would turn off cabin lights and allow their eyes to adjust to the dark. Otherwise, no stars were visible, since the sun was out! Jesus...

What a "counter booster" actually is(other than an attempt at making yourself look smart) is not clear, but the fact is that there is disruption of the surface dust beneath the LM, obvious in many a lunar photo. However, as noted by Neil Armstrong just 2 minutes into the first lunar EVA, there was no blast crater, simply some erosion of the surface around the engine bell area, and slight evidence of some rays moving out from that area. This of course makes perfect sense given the low exhaust pressure of the LM DPS at touchdown (around 1.5-2.0 PSI), and the very firm nature of the lunar substrate.

There is nothing aberrant regarding the motion of the flag while men are manipulating it during setup. Of course it waves about. It's called inertia. It's got a firm rod insertted through the top to allow it to stand out straight and evertime you manipulate the pole, the flag waves about. Once you let it go in place, the flag stands there absolutely motionless, as is evidenced by every piece of Apollo lunar video or 16mm film taken with the flag in it (like the entire Apollo 11 video, for instance). The flag arguements are feeble, as are these idiotic suggestions regarding "zero gravity rooms" and such nit wit constructs.

A 1/6 g room...indeed!

There were no "LM prototypes" that crashed and burned. You're referring to the LLRV, which was a training device used to simulate the last 500 feet of ther lunar approach and was flown in Earths atmosphere. That vehicle had some problems on occasion, and Neil Armstrong had to bail from one in 1968 because of a thruster problem...but that was not a "LM prototype". The LM was not designed to fly in an atmosphere, it was designed to fly in space...you know, vacuum, etc.

And IT WAS TESTED IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. Apollo 5 did so unmanned, Apollo 9 did so manned in Earth orbit, and Apollo 10 did so in lunar orbit.

The LM was sufficiently flight tested and refined prior to Apollo 11s landing flight. That's what those prior missions were for....I'd bet you had no idea we had all those flights, did ya?

[turbonium]

Wrong - the VLT can take hi-res images close-up of the landng sites - but they haven't.

They can? Better tell them! Would you happen to have a source regarding this? Let me guess we've got the European's in on the hoax too...

Try reading their website...

http://www.eso.org/

Would you be able to spot a Lunar Lander in this picture?

The Moon

775931[/snapback]

Smart-ass remarks won't work, bud. I have looked at the site - obviously you haven't, or you would know what it is capable of doing. Bold text is from the links.

VLT

The Sunday Telegraph

11-25-2

Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".

The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one of the VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive optics" to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere. A trial run of the equipment this summer produced the sharpest image of the Moon taken from the Earth, showing details 400ft across from a distance of 238,000 miles.

The VLT team hopes to improve on this, with the aim of detecting clear evidence for the presence of the landers. The base of the lunar modules measured about 10ft across, but would cast a much longer shadow under ideal conditions.

Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.

Dr. West retired from the ESO in March of this year, but I'm still trying to get more information on the project.

Below is an article from this year - note the underlined text!!

VLT 2

The Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI), equivalent to a single instrument with a mirror 16 m in diameter, combines the light from the four big Unit Telescopes and from several moveable 1.8-m Auxiliary Telescopes, spaced across baselines of up to 200 m, by way of the Interferometric Tunnel. Inside this 130-m-long underground cavern, the light beams gathered by the telescopes are passed through delay lines to compensate for the slightly different path-lengths they have taken in reaching the instruments. The delay lines help to synchronize the beams, before redirecting them to a central laboratory. The interference fringes produced when the beams are finally recombined provide the information needed to reconstruct the original image in unprecedented detail, giving a picture as sharp as if it had come from a single telescope 200 m across. If there were cars on the Moon, the Very Large Telescope would be able to read their number plates.

[turbonium]

And the reply I received is pretty much exactly what I expected. Quote my entire message and address only the VLT issue...which is so simplistic that it's almost hilarious. There is no such resolving capacity on this planet, or in orbit, which he'll see if he visits the web page he was directed to.

You can also look at the post above to see what the VLT is capable of doing. Quite "hilarious", isn't it? Of course, you can make yourself look even more foolish if you claim to know more than Dr. Darling, who does have a PhD in Astronomy.

Edited August 7, 2005 by turbonium

[TheLikeness]

we landed on the moon, relax!

[MID]

"You can also look at the post above to see what the VLT is capable of doing. Quite "hilarious", isn't it? Of course, you can make yourself look even more foolish if you claim to know more than Dr. Darling, who does have a PhD in Astronomy."

____________________________________________________________________

No, you can look at the above post, read it very carefully, and see what the VLT is theoretically capable of doing. It has not been done, and, apparently, according to this source, they will test this capability in the future sometime. That of course, is just fine.

Note that the LM descent stage is described to be about 10 ft across (close enough). However, also note that it says that the stage will cast much longer shadows under ideal conditions. This alludes to the fact that a resolving capability of 10M is likely not possible, but that with a long shadow, it might be possible to image something at the site.

We do not have the capability. This of course does not mean that we wont. However, if they attain this capacity, you will not be seeing what you expect. You will see a dark mark, and you won't accept it as evidence of the lunar landings either.

You are stuck on this almost irrelevant VLT issue, which, if successful in its attempt, will prove you wrong...despite the fact that you wont believe it.

That is what is hilarious here. But not as hilarious as your inability to address the other issues that have been pointed out to you. You're stuck on this little VLT issue. We already have thousands of lunar surface photos, and more technical documentation about Apollo than we have concerning any other human endeavor in history. If you don't believe that, you certainly aren't going to believe the VLT imaged Apollo artifacts...because you won't see flags, or gold foil, or footprints...you'll see obscure elongated black marks on the surface...sort of like we've already imaged from orbit on Apollo missions. It won't do any good.

You make comments about ludicrous notions like we never flight tested the LM, you talk about flags waving in the wind, and the idea that there's absolutely no disruption beneath the LM DPS bell on the lunar surface...all silly things which are false and have been shown to be so. You don't answer these, accept what is said, or even think about them, so as perhaps to ask a follow-up question so you might get an answer and better understand how things work. You stick to a couple of obscure video frames supposedly showing an arm...and you harp on this VLT thing, which, if they're successful in attaining the capability they think they can, will prove you wrong. That, is foolish.

It's an amazing thing to observe. You have absolutely nothing to show that this incredible project, which took hundreds of thousands of people 8 years of unremitting effort to accomplish, and which produced tens of thousands of pages of scientific reporting, scads of data collected by observatories all over the world, hundreds of pounds of lunar samples, and a technological development that in fact produced the computer you use to make your "point"--was faked. Nothing you present is evidence of any acceptible kind. Yet, you insist on unsubstantiated assertions and don't listen to those who know something about what happened, how we did it, etc.

The problem with conspiracy sites is that in asserting unsubstanbtiated bilge like the lunar hoax business, you de-value research and investigation into the actual conspiracies that have occurred. It's all lumped under one heading: nut-cases. Thus, real conspiracies, even if good researech and substantive evidence is shown, are ignored by the masses, because, hell, nowadays everything's a conspiracy! So what!?

The fact is, even if we return to the moon sometime in the future, and you're around to see it, you won't believe even that. The only way you'll believe it is if you go there yourself and see the artifacts sitting there. That, of course, isn't going to happen.

No one's ever going to prove we didn't go to the moon, since we obviously did. Heck, think about it, no one's ever going to step up and produce the person or people who actually killed Robert Kennedy. No one's ever going to admit that it was a conspiracy. Sirhan Sirhan is the accepted assassin, despite the fact that scientific evidence abounds proving he did not (incontrivertible proof, mind you, not the sort of proof you produce regarding this moon business).

If that's the case, and it is, what's the point in bantering about regarding this alleged moon hoax? The lunar landings are "proved" beyond any reasonable standard of evidence in existence. The fact is, you can't prove World War II ever happened either. We have photos and documents and all sorts of artifacts...but it all could've been faked. Of course, everyone knows it did happen, despite the fact that most of us weren't around, or were actually there to see it happen.

There is no point in what you do. You merely want yourself heard. Which is fine, of course. Lots of people, knowledgeable or not, are in the same boat. However, it is a waste of time, as I'm sure this post is...which is too long and says too much to be absorbed by you.

Like the prior poster said (in much more succinct fashion)..." we landed on the moon, relax."

Edited August 7, 2005 by MID

[turbonium]

No, you can look at the above post, read it very carefully, and see what the VLT is theoretically capable of doing. It has not been done, and, apparently, according to this source, they will test this capability in the future sometime. That of course, is just fine.

What are you even talking about? What do you see as theoretical about "If there were cars on the moon, the VLT would be able to read their number plates". He doesn't say anywhere "in theory" this could be done, nor is it said they will "test this capability in the future sometime". Talk about creative interpretations!!

[turbonium]

Note that the LM descent stage is described to be about 10 ft across (close enough). However, also note that it says that the stage will cast much longer shadows under ideal conditions. This alludes to the fact that a resolving capability of 10M is likely not possible, but that with a long shadow, it might be possible to image something at the site.

We do not have the capability. This of course does not mean that we wont. However, if they attain this capacity, you will not be seeing what you expect. You will see a dark mark, and you won't accept it as evidence of the lunar landings either.

This is even worse than your first paragraph. Now they can't do it? Why don't you let them in on your superior knowledge and call up Dr. Darling - "Yes, uh, hello there Dr. Darling? I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. We do not have the capability to get any kind of decent image of the Apollo landing sites......what's that? Oh, you're most welcome. Glad I could help"

[turbonium]

There is no point in what you do. You merely want yourself heard. Which is fine, of course. Lots of people, knowledgeable or not, are in the same boat. However, it is a waste of time, as I'm sure this post is...which is too long and says too much to be absorbed by you.

Yes, absorbing tripe is not much fun, it's tedious, boring, and a waste of time. In the meantime, have a look at these TV monitors the Apollo guys brought to the moon. They never told us they were watchng Gilligan's Island up there!!

[MID]

Amazing.

You didn't read what I said. Which is completely understandable given your previous performance. I didn't say they can't do it.

Anything that has not been done, even if it is stated that we should be able to do it, is a theoretical possibility. We thought we could execute translunar flight with the Apollo package in 1968. It was theoretically possible. However, it was not a capability UNTIL WE DID IT that December. Then, it was a capability. As of December 1, 1968, we did not, therefore, have the capability. A few weeks later, we did...because we did it.

I realize this is a tough thing to grasp.

And still, you ignore everything selectively and concentrate on proving yourself correct about the VLT imaging capability...which, as I said, is irrelevant. And, you continue to put obscure, unidentified images of lord-knows-what on the screen and say innane things like it is a monitor that the Apollo guys brought to the moon.

Whatever this image is, it shows nothing...Gilligan's Island included (Jesus..)

You're right: absorbing tripe is not much fun. And it is a waste of time. You've made that abundantly clear. You are obviously incapable of understanding anything regarding Apollo. My last post was obviously beyond your capacity to comprehend...too long. Sorry.

But I'm sure you'll continue have fun supporting your unsuportable position, ignoring facts, posting incomprehensible unidentified images, and making "definitive" statements that have no substance behind them. However, as one who was there, there's really no point in continuing, so long as you're around to interfere with actual exchanges of information.

I'd heard there were people like you out there. It's hard to believe, but it's true!

Out

[turbonium]

Amazing.

You didn't read what I said.  Which is completely understandable given your previous performance.  I didn't say they can't do it.

Anything that has not been done, even if it is stated that we should be able to do it, is a theoretical possibility.  We thought we could execute translunar flight with the Apollo package in 1968.  It was theoretically possible.  However, it was not a capability UNTIL WE DID IT that December.  Then, it was a capability.  As of December 1, 1968, we did not, therefore, have the capability.  A few weeks later, we did...because we did it.

I realize this is a tough thing to grasp.

And still, you ignore everything selectively and concentrate on proving yourself correct about the VLT imaging capability...which, as I said, is irrelevant.  And, you continue to put obscure, unidentified images of lord-knows-what on the screen and say innane things like it is a monitor that the Apollo guys brought to the moon.

Whatever this image is, it shows nothing...Gilligan's Island included (Jesus..)

You're right: absorbing tripe is not much fun.  And it is a waste of time.  You've made that abundantly clear.  You are obviously incapable of understanding anything regarding Apollo.  My last post was obviously beyond your capacity to comprehend...too long.  Sorry.

But I'm sure you'll continue have fun supporting your unsuportable position, ignoring facts, posting incomprehensible unidentified images, and making "definitive" statements that have no substance behind them. However, as one who was there, there's really no point in continuing, so long as you're around to interfere with actual exchanges of information.

I'd heard there were people like you out there.  It's hard to believe, but it's true!

Out

777802[/snapback]

Amazing, indeed. I find that I've been wasting my time arguing with someone who has no idea what the word "capable" means.

ca·pa·ble

adj.

1. Having capacity or ability; efficient and able: a capable administrator.

2. Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment; qualified: capable of winning.

3. Having the inclination or disposition: capable of violence.

4. Permitting an action to be performed: an error capable of remedy; a camera capable of being used underwater.

See, if a top ranked team, for example, is playing in a chamionship game, they are 'capable' of winnng that game. If they win the game, they are no longer just 'capable' of winning it - they have won it! And if they lost the game, they were still 'capable' of winnng it, but instead they lost.

I really hold little hope that you are 'capable' of understanding this, however, because I don't think you are 'capable' of independent and logical thought processes regarding anomalies that have not been near to having any explanations given that could support the Apollo story.

Edited August 7, 2005 by turbonium

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Sorry,turbonium but MID is the one that makes sense. This theory is whacky to start with. Your supposed evidence is weak when you compare it to the truth. I do like watching both of you joust back and forth.

[turbonium]

Sorry,turbonium but MID is the one that makes sense. This theory is whacky to start with. Your supposed evidence is weak when you compare it to the truth. I do like watching both of you joust back and forth.

777883[/snapback]

The "truth"? I believe the truth has yet to come out. And if we all had the same opinion on everything, we could just call ourselves the Borg collective!

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

What is that pic under your name from? It looks familar.

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

That picture is annoying, you should change it.

[Nethius]

OKay turbonium you quoted this article Biggest Telescope To Prove US Went To Moon

My comments in italic

Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team

was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing

sites". {Aiming to acheive, meaning they are not able to do so as of now}

The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one

of the VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive

optics" to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere. A trial

run of the equipment this summer produced the sharpest image of the Moon

taken from the Earth, showing details 400ft across from a distance of

238,000 miles.  {400ft is not high enough resolution to see the landers}

The VLT team hopes to improve on this {Hopes to improve on the 400ft Res, notice the word "hopes"}, with the aim of detecting

clear evidence for the presence of the landers. The base of the lunar

modules measured about 10ft across, but would cast a much longer shadow

under ideal conditions.

Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one

VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use

the power of all four mirrors. {The have yet to try using all 4 mirrors at once] "They would most probably be sufficiently

sharp to show something at the sites," he said.

[Nethius]

Yes, absorbing tripe is not much fun, it's tedious, boring, and a waste of time. In the meantime, have a look at these TV monitors the Apollo guys brought to the moon. They never told us they were watchng Gilligan's Island up there!!

What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!???

.

Edited August 8, 2005 by Nethius

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

He doesn't know

[cow666]

I think this pointless. There was thousands of people involved in the apollo projects why has no one come forvard with the big lie. If it is a lie.

[turbonium]

That picture is annoying, you should change it.

778545[/snapback]

Says the guy with the llama fixation.

[turbonium]

Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one

VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use

the power of all four mirrors. {The have yet to try using all 4 mirrors at once] "They would most probably be sufficiently

sharp to show something at the sites," he said.

The article is from 2002. All four mirrors are in use now, that is the point, they can use all four, and have been able to for over two years now. And the other quote from Dr. Darling states that they could read the number plates on a car if it was on the moon right now.

[turbonium]

What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!?!

It's a color monitor! I don't think they brought any of them to the moon, do you?

[MID]

I thank you ericraven2003 for your support.

It appears that more than one of you are a little confused by turbonium.

And as to jousting...I really didn't come here to joust. I had indicated that I am only interested in addressing such things as this in order to stimulate folks to actually investigate on their own and learn. It's been very fulfilling quite honestly.

I ususally ask a question like, "Why don't you believe we went to the moon?" The reply may be something like, "Because the photos are faked," or something to that effect. Then I'll ask them to give me some specifics. Then, they do. After a time of explaining what they're seeing, and illustrating in depth that such things are visible on earth photos as well...it's just that we never notice them on earth photos because we are accustomed to seeing things in the environment of our planet...they begin to say, "Well, yea, I suppose so. I can understand that, I think." Then, I'll propose that they conduct an experiment, and show them, for instance, just how to make a panorama that shows different shadow angles when the photos are assembled, which the suspect Apollo photos all show (since they're panoramas, assembled, and cleaned up by modern computer techniques to eliminate the seams...i.e., they all look like single wide-angle-type pictures). I might explain to them that curved surfaces affect what a two dimensional print shows, vis-a-vis shorter shadows being projected on an up-sloped surface, etc.

And the conversations may move into technical aspects that seem to be in question, like blast craters under the LM engine bells, and no dust being present in the LM footpads, or stars in the sky (ad-nauseam, I might add), or no rocket engine noises over the COMM loops during launches, or even discussions of how the LM couldn't possibly fly without spinning out of control.

These things seem wierd to those of us who were involved, but I can understand how a generation of people, removed from the events by decades, and exposed to what we have today, might be influenced by the prattlings of certain people (the "founders" of this whole silly business). My goal is to give them a taste of what actually happened. They can learn, and I can, from listening to them.

One young person actually sent me a list all of the "32 questions that need to be answered" off of the Cosmic Conspiracies" website. I answered them for him. I'm willing to do that for the sake of exchange, and stimulating someone to dig into this stuff himself. I like questions...although I admonished him to ask his own questions from now on...word them himself, and please...one at a time!

However, some folks will only reply off-topic continuously until they're assured of being dominant. They will accuse others of being smart-asses, all the while giving smart-assed remarks themselves, and they will emphasise silly irrelevancies, such as not realizing that I'm using the engineering definition of capability, rather than the normal definition used in everyday language. And, they'll harp on it to inflate their self-importance (it's like the use of the word "nominal". We use it in a completely different context than normal language uses it (nominal means pretty darn good, just as predicted, or, "sweet, baby!", to me. Normally, it means minimal, marginal even).

But do we have to argue about such nit-picking stuff? I'll explain, certainly, but I'm not about to get into an arguement about such idiocy.

I'm interested in questions. I spent a good part of my life in this area, and it's always gratifying to be able to clear things up. Some people won't ask questions, or even present anything for comment. They'll post unidentified images with nothing intelligible showing, or ignore everything said and stick to some irrelevancy.

That I have little time for. Likely, most intelligent people are of the same mindset.

So, please, if anyone wants to, ask something. Present something (something identified and visible). I'll be glad to give someone feedback. Indeed, there are some other people on this forum that could answer such questions as well. It'll be interesting to see the exchange.

...and, it seems turbonium did actually ask a question! Regarding the color monitor: "I don't think they brought any to the moon, do you?"

My answer is, I don't think they did either. I am not an Apollo camera expert (sorry, I only looked at the feeds with interest, I didn't read all the tech manuals on them), but I think all the CSM monitors were B/W (there were no monitors on the surface cameras). As such, I'm inclined to say that this is not an Apollo TV camera monitor. But not only because the monitors I know of were all B/W.

The image you present is approximately 1.25:1 (l:h) in aspect ratio. The Apollo color camera monitor had a screen that was a mere 2.75" x 2" in size, pretty tiny. That's an aspect ration of 1.38:1. Therefore, the image you put on here is not of the right proportions to be of an Apollo TV monitor screen (unless of course you've somehow compressed it). And of course, being unidentified, it is therefore relatively valueless as a piece of "evidence".

I'll state to you of what I've told others (a basic jurisprucence idea that escapes lots of people).

It is not our job to prove that we did this thing back in 1969. You are the accuser. Thus, you must prove that it is a hoax. All that is necessary from people like me is that we defend, and, even that's not necessary. I simply choose to do so because it can lead to some stimulation and learning.

It is not difficult to defend the position that the world is round. And that pretty much equates to what is necessary in "defending" against the Apollo hoax business. It can, however, be cumbersome, because some of what is not understood and mis-interpreted as evidence of a hoax can involve some technical stuff. Add to that the utter fabrications put forth by many moon-hoax sites, and you're in a conundrum of confusion which takes patience to explain adequately.

But I'm game. It's interesting.

However, if certain people are unreachable, or so stuck on themselves that they can't address the actual issues, but prefer to hear themselves, then I'll ignore them.

[beatle boy]

i think turbo is just crying for attention (no offense), he never made the post expecting his opinion to change from our evidence, all he wanted was to argue, please, we went to the moon, PERIOD.

i dont care who thinks we didnt, as long as i know we did, who really cares.

im sad that this pathetic post went on for so long.

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

Yah, I think he's all out of ideas. I mean he's been proven wrong soooooo many times. He hasn't been posting in this thread much lately. I wonder why

Edited August 10, 2005 by lonelyalpacafarmer

[turbonium]

such as not realizing that I'm using the engineering definition of capability, rather than the normal definition used in everyday language. And, they'll harp on it to inflate their self-importance

The engineering definition for capability, even though you didn't specify which field of engineering, still refers to the ability of a given device to perform to specifications. I've worked within the engineering industry for 20 years, so I'm not naive as to what you are referring to. It's not harped on for an ego trip, it's done to point out the fallacy of your argument.

but I think all the CSM monitors were B/W (there were no monitors on the surface cameras). As such, I'm inclined to say that this is not an Apollo TV camera monitor.

Good. That I appreciate - an honest answer to my question. With no color monitors on the moon, we have to look at the still I posted with consideration for what is really going on here. The image, though distorted, still shows the distinctive test pattern color bars of a color monitor, as would be used for monitoring the display from a color video camera. It therefore holds the strong possibility that this is a monitor used on a film set on Earth. That's the point I have been trying to get across with the many stills I have posted with anomalous objects in them.

I began the thread with what I see as a bare arm moving about, and other stills which I see as people below a black "shade", pulling down on it. I then posted what I see as a chair, and another man sitting in a chair near to that chair. I then posted another still which I see as nothing else but a bare arm pulling at the edge of some material. The stills and the actual video clip combined reinforce my conclusion that this video of Apollo 12 was not from the moon, but from the Earth. In my view, no reasonable alternatives have been provided that explain these objects as being things that are on the moon.

I really don't care if some others don't see these things as I do. I know many people who do see them the way I do, so I'm confident in my perceptions beyond being concerned about accusations that I have seen here and elsewhere. If you don't agree, fine, just leave it at that. I have my view and you have yours. I believe time will prove I am right.