Moon Landing is a Fake

[pixelsmith]

you are wasting your time BrandonD. getting DB to change his mind will be like convincing him black is white. i used to think the same as him in regards to the moon landing photos. then i decided to use my skills, think for myself and draw my own conclusion.

btw your link is messed up. i suspect a paracast conspiracy.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

you are wasting your time BrandonD. getting DB to change his mind will be like convincing him black is white. i used to think the same as him in regards to the moon landing photos. then i decided to use my skills, think for myself and draw my own conclusion.

btw your link is messed up. i suspect a paracast conspiracy.

No conspiracy, but this should work with YouTube videos:

1. Place at the beginning.
2. [Update!] Put in the actual URL of the video.
3. Close the command with .

If that doesn't work, let us know. It appears to be mostly effective, but sometimes it fails, and we're asking the author of the modification that gives us that feature to help us figure out why.

When it fails, by the way, please edit your post to remove the code, and the link will still function as a link.

 

[pixelsmith]

thanks gene!

btw- gotta say it again, you guys are BOTH awesome. thanks for all you do.

 

[BrandonD]

No conspiracy, but this should work with YouTube videos:

1. Place at the beginning.
2. Enter your URL.
3. Close the command with .

If that doesn't work, let us know.

Aha, I'd copied and pasted that address from my earlier post. I just noticed that it has ellipses in it. Here's the address without the ellipses, so it should work (cross my fingers):

(if that doesn't work, I noticed that the link in my first post still works)

 

[pixelsmith]

BrandonB- do not bother DB with facts, his mind is made up... hmmm where have i heard that lately...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

BrandonB- do not bother DB with facts, his mind is made up... hmmm where have i heard that lately...

Not to cover old ground, but it may just be that David is not swayed by your evidence because he doesn't regard it as compelling, even though you clearly see otherwise. Let's leave it at that, OK?

 

[pixelsmith]

no no... i do not see clearly.. if i did i would not beat a dead horse. i have been convinced of things in the past that i changed my mind on later. ie: billy, 9/11 events, etc... if i can change my mind on things i thought to be fact then i am sure DB is capable of changing his mind if he learns new information. it is the very things the short video discusses that have been problems for me. lighting, camera angles, etc...
"leaving things at that" is something i have never done and never will.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

no no... i do not see clearly.. if i did i would not beat a dead horse. i have been convinced of things in the past that i changed my mind on later. ie: billy, 9/11 events, etc... if i can change my mind on things i thought to be fact then i am sure DB is capable of changing his mind if he learns new information. it is the very things the short video discusses that have been problems for me. lighting, camera angles, etc...
"leaving things at that" is something i have never done and never will.

David is the image editing expert in our little enterprise, so I'll leave it to him to take a look and see if he feels it warrants further investigation, OK?

 

[pixelsmith]

ok!
i do not need to debate or doubt the landing itself. i need to debate the possibilities of studio generated images used in official moon landing literature/documents.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

ok!
i do not need to debate or doubt the landing itself. i need to debate the possibilities of studio generated images used in official moon landing literature/documents.

That raises the issue of why they'd have to fake photos if the landings were genuine -- other than the fact that the real pictures were of extremely poor quality or something weird happened over there.

 

[pixelsmith]

i actually think thats what happened. they needed good documentation to get continued funding. all they got were crappy photos if any at all.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

i actually think thats what happened. they needed good documentation to get continued funding. all they got were crappy photos if any at all.

I guess, in theory at least, that might make sense, assuming the photos are fake. That's not an assumption I'm about to make.

However, the space program has gone to hell and beyond, and we are way, way behind where I'd hoped we'd be at this point. We should have had men on Mars by the year 2,000 or even before, if we had continued full tilt after the initial spate of moon landings.

 

[BrandonD]

That raises the issue of why they'd have to fake photos if the landings were genuine -- other than the fact that the real pictures were of extremely poor quality or something weird happened over there.

I don't know, but the fact that you or I cannot conceive of a reason for someone else's actions does not mean that a reason doesn't exist.

These questions veer away from the real issue, in my opinion, which is just looking at the evidence and judging it on its own merit. If it can be established that photographic fakery was involved, then we can take a step from there.

Have either you or David watched the video I linked to? What was your opinion of the analysis? I am genuinely interested.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That raises the issue of why they'd have to fake photos if the landings were genuine -- other than the fact that the real pictures were of extremely poor quality or something weird happened over there.

I don't know, but the fact that you or I cannot conceive of a reason for someone else's actions does not mean that a reason doesn't exist.

These questions veer away from the real issue, in my opinion, which is just looking at the evidence and judging it on its own merit. If it can be established that photographic fakery was involved, then we can take a step from there.

Have either you or David watched the video I linked to? What was your opinion of the analysis? I am genuinely interested.

To be perfectly honest, I am not qualified as an image analyst and thus wouldn't be able to render a meaningful verdict.

 

[pixelsmith]

gene, consider watching the video anyway and use your common sense. it doesnt take an image analyst to see what we are talking about. it only takes someone with a pulse and a couple minutes of time.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

gene, consider watching the video anyway and use your common sense. it doesnt take an image analyst to see what we are talking about. it only takes someone with a pulse and a couple minutes of time.

Time, yes. Pulse? You might be pushing it there

 

[Gene Steinberg]

ok!
i do not need to debate or doubt the landing itself. i need to debate the possibilities of studio generated images used in official moon landing literature/documents.

Just FYI: I did watch the video. It is certainly interesting, but I would defer to David as far as whether the points raised are sufficiently compelling for further analysis.

 

[pixelsmith]

thanks for having an open mind. the camera angle of the one shot alone is enough to throw up a flag.

 

[cottonzway]

We never landed on the moon! We never landed on the moon!

LOL

Sorry, I am listening to tonights Podcast (thank you for being off tomorrow, Labor Day) and it brough this thread to my attention again. This thread is great because no matter how much I howl at the moon with my own views I look at this thread and smile.

 

[Kenn Thomas]

read the full version of this in an upcoming issue of FATE Magagazine

The First Moon "Hoax"
by Kenn Thomas
steamshovelpress.com

***the new issue of STEAMSHOVEL PRESS (#23) IS OUT***

Many people feel that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed, but assume for the moment that they were not. Where would anyone come up with such a crazy idea? The answer to that actually may be found in the early history of the US-USSR space race of the 1950s. The first wide-eyed conspiracy nuts to suggest that a lunar encounter did not happen may have been US government scientists.

As with many conspiracy tales, this one comes out of a suspicious official silence--the boasting-prone Soviet Union keeping mum about a legitimate score in its space conquest competition against America. Hours after its Lunik III rocket was due to send back radio transmissions, the Soviets issued no statements about whether or not the craft had accomplished its mission to swing around the moon. American monitors concluded that the rocket had failed.

After all, in October 1959 space science and technology was still in its infancy. The Russians had to create a craft that would balance the gravitational pull of the earth against the speed of the Lunik III rocket---25,000 miles an hour. If the rocket went too fast, it zipped on past the moon; too slow and the first moon landing would have been a crash. US scientists doubted that their Soviet counterparts could achieve their goal of creating just enough momentum to swing Lunik III around the moon, have it take 29 photogrpahs, and head it back toward earth. USSR had its doubts, too: the news agency Tass quoted a Dr. Alexander Voldek of Estonia as saying the moon rocket may just become a satellite of the earth.

At the United Nations, Soviet first deputy Vasily V. Kuznetsov had been attacking the United States for denouncing China's involvements in Tibet and Laos and for supporting Turkey over Poland in a bid for an open seat on the UN Security council. The Cold War was on. America did not relish the idea of a propaganda space victory for the USSR.

Nevertheless, Lunik III performed as predicted by its Soviet controllers. Low signal strength had prevented the craft from successfully sending back its first photo images, and the Russian scientists kept up the stonewall of silence until better imaging occurred on Lunik III's trip back to earth. On October 7 Tass proudly trumpeted that "after passing a point of minimum distance from the moon, the automatic interplanetary station (Lunik III), circumventing the moon, continues to move away from the earth", but it took until October 18 before fuzzy photo images were transmitted back as the craft headed back toward and got nearer to its home planet.

America didn't believe that explanation and instead cried "Fake!" The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory had used its twelve tracking stations to photograph Lunik III and from that data it concluded that it had not circled the moon. Dr. Charles Whitney, the physicist in charge of research at the Smithsonian concluded that Lunik III had passed about three hours behind the moon and underneath its pass. He told the Associated Press that if the moon left an imaginary trail behind it in space, a similar track left by Lunik III only encircle the trail. He offered this as an explanation for the long silence between October 7 and October 18.

Space scientists now recognize the rather crude photographs taken by Lunik III as the first real images of the back side of the lunar surface. In the late 1950s, however, an acknowledgement of that accomplishment did not fit in with the cold war atmosphere, and perhaps set the foundation for popular paranoid reaction to the moon landing of the following decade.