If they'd really gone to the moon, they would have shown us footage that had no anomalies. Do you at least agree that the above anomalies show that the footage was taken in atmopshere?
I really wanted you to be more specific and concentrate on one thing, which means from all the things you consider atmospheric anomalies to select just one such that we would be saying something along the lines of "look at this single as in one only, not marital status, anomaly"...
Maybe I was not clear about seeking only one item that you considered proof.
In any event let me say this...I can look at these anomalies and being an agreeable sort of a chap move to that side and say to you "Yes that does indeed look odd and certainly suggestive of an atmosphere and man am I damn suspicious"
I may even take it further and say " You know what I am convinced that the only way we could see that effect is if it was filmed in an atmosphere".
And "this seems reasonable evidence that what you present was not filmed on the Moon"....
Are you now happy?
But what you seem to be missing is that you have in no way whatsoever established that we did not go to the Moon.
What you have proved is that NASA had the good sense to not waste valuable time making movies on the Moon but do that on Earth..after all you can't do Moon related experiments on Earth but you can make Moon movies on the Earth...do you see my point yet?
You have not proved we did not go to the Moon....
So look again at all your evidence and ask yourself what single piece proves we did not go to the Moon and do not fool yourself that proving my movie conspiracy goes in any way to proving we did not go to the Moon.
As I said you need something actually addressing the trip not the movie.
The radiation belts could be your hope..but you would need to show that a human would be killed for sure..no ifs or buts...you know..a human can survive 5000 units but the belt puts out 5,000,000 and you would end up charcoal...or to make the trip you would need 50,000 gallons of fuel and you have receipts from the rocket fuel shop that they only purchased 5,000 gallons...do you see my point..it's rather simple...you need to forget proving the movie may be made on Earth it proves zip..and I said in a recent post that you could have the movie crew from the Earth based set come forward showing how they made the movie..it does not matter as the movie is not relevant...it is not relevant where the movie was made...so please show me relevant evidence not this movie stuff.
You mention debating...can you see how you could not win a debate on this because you focus on irrelevant matters.
Now folk may think my idea is crazy and it may be but the key is that proving the movie was made on Earth only proves the movie was made on Earth.
It's like say in a criminal trial..the defendant is accursed of murder..you can provide truck loads of evidence that he is a bad man, that he is a bully, that he takes drugs and that he steals cars for a living...no of that is relevant to the crime of murder...you are in the same boat ...and it is slowly sinking.
Alex
