• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Funny "proof" of faked moon landing.

Free episodes:

this video really shows proof in my opinion. we may have went there but NASA obviously faked the majority of the official photos.
 
One small step blooper vid = admitted hoax.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp

Apollo11

I suppose one could just throw out the disinfo card and say the government is spreading disinfo to cover it's tracks at leaked footage etc....... But I'll place my bets on this being a practical joke instead.


The wire vids. Wires aren't needed to get those effects. If that vid constitutes proof for you, I'm amazed you aren't impressed with the evidence that exist that the film is of humans actually on the moon.
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most, if not all the arguments gave against us going there (everytime) has been dealt away with.
The Moon Hoax Debate

Seeing something you can't explain isn't proof of anything other than something you don't know. Even if and when there is a genuine anomaly that doesn't equate conspiracies or the paranormal.

Later I might post info. on the guy giving commentary. Not flattering if I remember correctly.
 
i make my conclusions based on my knowledge of photography, lighting and also basic common sence. we know they faked photos, we know they faked video, we know they faked a lot of things. why shouldnt we believe they faked the whole man on the moon thing? i believe it may be a combination of both.
 
It is a bit strange, everybody seems to have made up their mind already. There isn't much of a genuine, rational debate going. In particular, the Apollo believers can act quite defensively, to the point of name calling. Was it here, or where did I read that, as an Apollo sceptic, one was just the same as a holocaust denier, or flat-earther, or something? Most peculiar. Apollo believers sometimes appear to have invested a lot of emotional energy in the notion that the moon landings were the greatest human achievement ever. It's a bit like arguing over religion - a lost cause.

Anyway...

A.LeClair, you provided this link (thanks for that):

The Moon Hoax Debate

From the site:

"When Apollo 17's Lunar Module lifted-off the Moon the video camera followed the ascent, yet no one was left on the surface to operate the camera.

Apparently the hoax advocates have never heard of a remotely operated camera. The video camera that shot the LM launch footage was mounted on the Lunar Rover and was controlled remotely from Mission Control in Houston. The signal commanding the camera to pan upward was sent early to account for the 1.3-second time delay."

There is just about everything wrong with this type of debunking.

Where, exactly, is any kind of evidence for a remotely operated camera. Where is NASA's documentation, where is photographic evidence of its very existence. Who built the camera, who tested it.

How did NASA manage to anticipate the 1,3 seconds delay (both ways - uplink and downlink - making it closer to 3-4 seconds). Ok, so they knew the exact figure from doing the maths, and adjusted for it. Let's accept that for the sake of the argument. But how did they manage to artfully zoom in as well? I have heard the idea that the zoom was created after the event, on film only. Well, for a start, there is no evidence whatsoever that this might be true. Furthermore, when you look at the actual footage, there are no indicators that the resolution suffers from the zooming. Remember: We are looking at 1960s analogue technology. Compare the clarity of the Lunar Module take-off with the extreme blurriness of the rest of the Apollo video footage. Why so many inconsistencies?

However, the footage is totally consistent with what one would expect from a controlled studio environment.
 
musictomyears said:
Most peculiar. Apollo believers sometimes appear to have invested a lot of emotional energy in the notion that the moon landings were the greatest human achievement ever. It's a bit like arguing over religion - a lost cause.

Absolutely, I see that quite a lot - there's a lot of national pride involved, as you said, putting a man on the moon is one of America's greatest achievements (if it actually happened).

The Lunar Module take-off has *always* looked faked to me - the first time I ever saw it, I thought to myself "that thing is on wires". If that footage had never been seen and was presented today on youtube as 'lost NASA footage', everyone would say it was a poor fake.

But in the end, I dunno. I've had doubts about the Apollo missions for a long time now. I'm not yet convinced that they didn't go, but I am convinced that NASA is holding something back about the missions. I'll be interested to see what happens during the 'gold rush' for lunar helium-3 that's due to start in 2020...
 
Rick Deckard said:
I'll be interested to see what happens during the 'gold rush' for lunar helium-3 that's due to start in 2020...

Yeah, I read about that. I have yet to be convinced that these kind of pronouncements are more than clever ways for extracting taxpayer money, and sticking it in some corporate pockets. We need to go to the Moon, because we can't solve our energy problems here on Earth? Bull.
 
Back
Top