Moon Landing is a Fake

[rohnds]

Van Allen radiation belt doesn't completely encompass our Earth. The shaped of the belt closely resembles the magnetic flux of the earth and it various. During a direct flight from Earth to Moon, the astronauts spent about 4 hours in the belt.

NASA plotted an appropriate path (thinnest part of the belt) to follow the edge of the belt avoiding the danger.

Eohn

 

[Mogwa]

I'm stumped as to why anyone would call me closed minded on this subject simply because I disagree that there is any mystery here. I've enunciated my points clearly, one by one, and have offered evidence to support my conclusions.
If anyone wishes to believe the moon landings are a hoax in spite of the mountains of evidence to the contrary, fine. That doesn't mean I think they're stupid, dishonest or closed minded, they're just wrong.
I suppose I've said all I have to say on this subject; there seems to be no point for me in continuing to flog a stone dead horse.

 

[BrandonD]

I'm stumped as to why anyone would call me closed minded on this subject simply because I disagree that there is any mystery here. I've enunciated my points clearly, one by one, and have offered evidence to support my conclusions.
If anyone wishes to believe the moon landings are a hoax in spite of the mountains of evidence to the contrary, fine. That doesn't mean I think they're stupid, dishonest or closed minded, they're just wrong.
I suppose I've said all I have to say on this subject; there seems to be no point for me in continuing to flog a stone dead horse.

Well... you did hop back on the subject so you must have felt there was still something left to say.

I probably spoke too impulsively with the "close minded"' thing, sorry about that. Your tone appeared to be condescending, which is the common tone of people on the negative side who discuss this subject.

I don't believe the moon landings are a hoax. I believe there is evidence to support a legitimate mystery, and just like any other mystery it's intriguing and warrants investigation. In fact, I think I restated that point in my last post. I think the explanation behind this mystery could be any number of things.

So... I'm not sure to whom your hoax statement is referring to, because I'm not a hoax believer.

Regarding the mystery itself, my interest is primarily in the elements showing photographic fakery. I've honestly asked people for explanations because it's just a mystery to me and I'm not some sort of "moon crusader".

But the explanations given (heilegenschein etc), when I actually looked into them, turned out to be completely incorrect. So in my opinion there's still a mystery there.

And yet when I say, "Hey there's actually a real mystery here as far as I can tell," the response to me is just ridicule and derision. And among the people whom I'd consider open minded!

I'm just mentioning this stuff in case you're wondering why I might jump to conclusions about your comments.

If you have an explanation regarding the photos that I haven't read yet, I'd like to hear it. If not then I'm cool with a civil disagreement.

 

[pixelsmith]

most people believe that all NASA moon exploration images are genuine. it is so obvious many photos were faked! NASA even admits it! so if NASA admits they faked photos why do some people refute that?
Gene and DB are a couple of these people. they will not give in to the FACT that many of the NASA moon photos are indeed fake.

 

[rohnds]

most people believe that all NASA moon exploration images are genuine. it is so obvious many photos were faked! NASA even admits it! so if NASA admits they faked photos why do some people refute that?
Gene and DB are a couple of these people. they will not give in to the FACT that many of the NASA moon photos are indeed fake.

I would love to see the press release or the news info or an official statement by NASA where they admitted faking the photo.

Do you have any proof of this?

Rohn

 

[musictomyears]

I am beginning to think that this debate is entirely futile. People see what they want to see. Some see glaringly obvious evidence of fakery, such as light reflections from wire rigs. Some see nothing at all.

 

[Gil Bavel]

Think what you like! It's a free country and a free forum. Saying you think it's futile isn't going to make any of us change our minds or think differently, or the way you want us to.

It's just a call to shut down the thread, which G and D have already said they won't do.

If you don't like the thread, feel free to ignore it.

 

[rohnds]

Kenn Thomas, thanks for a great info.
If the we were able to track the Lunik III in space then we must assume that USSR were also capable of tracking our probes in space. Thus they would have easily tracked each of the Apollo mission. If our spacecraft didn't orbit moon, USSR would have easily known this and cried "Hoax". But they didn't.

Rohn

 

[musictomyears]

This debate seems futile because it is so similar to the 9/11 debate. The believers keep avoiding to acknowledge the points raised by the critics, but divert attention to arguments that are entirely irrelevant. Like: Why didn't the Russians say anything, if they knew Apollo was fake, or why didn't insiders come forward in all that time. There are probably answers to these questions, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the evidence. It is similar to asking: "Why should OJ have killed his wife?", and then, in the absence of a good or "logical" reason, concluding that he couldn't have done it. Bullshit! Human beings have all kinds of weird motives for their actions - I should know, I'm one of them (although sometimes I wonder ).

Stop asking these idiotic questions about why NASA and the government(s) would have done it. You can figure that out AFTER you have established whether or not there is evidence for fraud. Get your priorities straight.

So:

Is there evidence for fakery in the official record? I'd say there is. Entire books have been filled with them, movies have been made. All we have to go by are the official photos and film footage. The inconsistencies start with fill-in light used to avoid stark contrast in a single light-source environment, and end with a moon rover video camera that magically followed the ascent of the lunar lander back into orbit, even though there is no shred of evidence that this camera was motorised or remotely controllable.

Start discussing facts. Stop arguing over ifs and buts and maybes.

 

[rohnds]

Fact: We were able to track Lunik III.

That fact indicates USSR was able to track our space crafts.

Fact: Russian and America was on space race to reach the moon.

This fact would indicate each other would raise doubt if there is a slightest evidence the other was fabricating hoax.

Fact: USSR never claimed (or cried) hoax when we landed the moon.

These fact alone is enough to prove the validity of the moon landing.

Fact: USSR and other nations such as Australia tracked our progress.

If you like to discus item by item, you are more than welcome.

Rohn

 

[rohnds]

The inconsistencies start with fill-in light used to avoid stark contrast in a single light-source environment, and end with a moon rover video camera that magically followed the ascent of the lunar lander back into orbit, even though there is no shred of evidence that this camera was motorised or remotely controllable.

This show utter lack of knowledge of the subject. Try visiting the LM at the Smithsonian Institute. Maybe you should try researching the subject before speculating wild claims.
Rover did carry a camera and was operated by mission control.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4214/ch13-3.html

Apollo 15 Surface Operations Overview

The funny things was diagram of the cameras on the mission was given to the press prior to each mission.

Utter lack of knowledge.

As for the single source light ....
This again shows lack of knowledge. Unlike Earth, on the Moon there are more than one source of light. I am not going rehash what has been written ... unless challenged.
Do a simply google search ...

Rohn

 

[musictomyears]

rohnds, I didn't write in direct response to your post, although it probably looked as if I did.

Anyway.

The arguments are truly always the same, over and over. That's why I say "futile debate". People don't learn, but repeat their cemented views ad infinitum. Ugh!!!

Ok. The Russians also have a space programme. So do the Chinese and the Europeans. Has it ever occurred to you that they might share a common goal, which is giving the impression of technological prowess and superiority that reaches as far as space? For example, what is a better argument against visitations from space aliens, than saying: "Look, citizens of the world, there are no aliens out there. Honest. We looked. We went to the Moon, we even went to Mars. Nothing. Not even space bugs. Just empty sky. And we have the photos to prove it. If you see lights in the sky, or get abducted... Well, sorry folks, that's just your imagination playing tricks on your confused little minds".

And so on. Has it ever occurred to you that all super powers have the same agenda? The agenda being control over their respective populations.

But all this reasoning IS irrelevant, I said that much before. Give me the facts. I.e., where is the technical documentation for this amazing lunar camera? A few drawings, even better, the complete technical details. Who made it, who provided the components, who tested it, who operated it remotely. The whole shebang. Or are we stupid enough to simply believe the camera existed? Are we?

Not to mention the fact that there is a time lag of roughly 2 seconds either way for signals to and from the Moon, making it 3-4 seconds in total. Yet, when we look at the footage, we see perfect camera movement, and even an expertly executed zoom... Hello? All this in spite of a time lag of several seconds? These NASA engineers should have worked for Hollywood... Hang on, they probably did.

About multiple light sources on the Moon... Well, just look at recent shuttle footage. Inside the shadows, there is complete, black darkness - and there would be, due to zero atmosphere, resulting in absence of light diffusion. And you would agree the shuttle is very close to Earth, so the Earth couldn't have provided more ambient light on the far distant Moon. The Moon dust btw, as has been documented many times, has a similar luminosity to asphalt.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

I once leaned to the side of the moon missions having been hoaxed, but discovered some material that helped to sway me fully to the side of "it happened".

One of the moments that made the most difference was the time lapse footage of the astronauts working around the flag without any flag movement at all. Had it been filmed in a studio there would have definitely been some waving, even if slight... it was no doubt a vacuum.

 

[Gil Bavel]

Okay, Frozen Burrito, I watched your video. Now watch mine*.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="

"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

If you watch the entire thing, you'll find questions to which there are no credible, complete answers.

I don't expect you to watch it, of course, but then, if you don't, you can't argue the facts, having not examined them. If you don't examine the facts, you can't form an informed opinion. Then you aren't arguing, you'd just be screaming at a wall.

Merry Christmas, everybody!
---------------------------
*The beginning is a little long, sorry. It's a film, the film maker is trying to use creative license to make his point. If you're really that short on time, fast forward to about halfway through this segment.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

Okay, Frozen Burrito, I watched your video. Now watch mine*.

Already seen it, quite some time ago. Even though there are some moments in there that either cause or caused me to raise a Spockish brow, none of it is "enough" to sway me any more... especially considering that it lost almost all credibility when I saw the rest of the "uncut" footage that supposedly shows them placing a transparency on the window. Firstly, I never say anything in there that showed them placing a transparency on the window despite the narrators insistence that they were, and secondly, I have seen the truly uncut version of the same footage and in the doc you linked they cut right before the lights turn on and it shows everything to look as it should.

Another thought that brought me over to the "it really happened" camp is the idea that if it were REALLY a hoax, they would have done it ONE time and been sweating over getting caught. If they pulled it off they would be relieved that it all worked out, enjoyed the glory and moved on. Instead they went back several more times despite the dangers of being "found out" growing with each attempt... that just defies any common logic based on knowing some of the most basic human psychology.

 

[musictomyears]

if it were REALLY a hoax, they would have done it ONE time and been sweating over getting caught. If they pulled it off they would be relieved that it all worked out, enjoyed the glory and moved on. Instead they went back several more times despite the dangers of being "found out" growing with each attempt... that just defies any common logic based on knowing some of the most basic human psychology.

Do you mean to say that criminals typically stop after committing their first crime, because they get overwhelmed by fear of being found out? And that's due to "most basic human psychology"?

The prisons of the world are filled with repeat offenders, including thieves, con-men and murderers. Criminals tend to repeat their activities because they believe they can get away with. In fact, many criminals DO get away with it. Crime pays, a lot of the time.

However, this is again a discussion about possible motives for a hoax, which is secondary to the fundamental question of whether or not there is evidence of trickery in the footage.

Here is some, showing "astronauts" dangling from wire rigs.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="

"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

The prisons of the world are filled with repeat offenders, including thieves, con-men and murderers.

Sure, but the difference in scale between a domestic homicide and the Apollo program are significant enough to make the folks in the prisons and the moon landing "cons" to be an apples to random, non-food related item comparison... psychologically speaking. The grandiosity and complexity would make a major slip up much more likely.

Here is some, showing "astronauts" dangling from wire rigs.

Seen it... some time ago. When I originally saw it it really caused me to take pause, but it is not definitive... the flashes could be lens related and do not to my eye look like light reflecting off of wires.

Rather than watch these cherry picked clips, I wound up downloading HOURS of raw moon walk footage and after studying several key moments over and over, I drew a personal conclusion that they were real despite a few slightly "questionable" moments. I would definitely suggest seeking out much more than what these "doc" makers are selecting, editing and presenting... for instance, the above footage of the supposed transparency over the window... once you watch just a few seconds beyond what the filmmaker has presented you see that they knowingly conned the viewer.

 

[musictomyears]

The prisons of the world are filled with repeat offenders, including thieves, con-men and murderers.

Sure, but the difference in scale between a domestic homicide and the Apollo program are significant enough to make the folks in the prisons and the moon landing "cons" to be an apples to random, non-food related item comparison... psychologically speaking. The grandiosity and complexity would make a major slip up much more likely.

Here is some, showing "astronauts" dangling from wire rigs.

Seen it... some time ago. When I originally saw it it really caused me to take pause, but it is not definitive... the flashes could be lens related and do not to my eye look like light reflecting off of wires.

Rather than watch these cherry picked clips, I wound up downloading HOURS of raw moon walk footage and after studying several key moments over and over, I drew a personal conclusion that they were real despite a few slightly "questionable" moments. I would definitely suggest seeking out much more than what these "doc" makers are selecting, editing and presenting... for instance, the above footage of the supposed transparency over the window... once you watch just a few seconds beyond what the filmmaker has presented you see that they knowingly conned the viewer.

I've seen the rest of that footage, and I didn't feel conned at all by those who presented the truth to us. For decades, NASA has been sitting on this footage and withheld it from the public, for reasons only known to them. They are the ones that con people. Do you ever stop to ask yourself what actually went on in those moments when the "Earth" was obscured by objects that came in between the camera and the window? What were the astronauts doing? To me, it looks exactly the way it is suggested in the film: They were trying to give the impression that they were far away from Earth, and that they had entered the darkness of space, when in reality they were orbiting Earth in LEO.

You think it unlikely, even impossible, that a hoax on this scale could have been perpetrated? It has been pointed out many times that only very few people knew the big picture, and were actually aware of the hoax: The astronauts, obviously, and a comparatively small number of people at mission control. To everybody else, the missions proceeded as planned - remarkable well, in fact, without as much as a hiccup. Only the last mission had all the drama of a Hollywood movie.

Much bigger hoaxes have been perpetrated by governments. Only recently, imaginary stockpiles of WMDs served as justification for two major invasions, killing some 1 million Iraqis in the process - none of who had anything to do with 9/11. That's not fraud on a grandiose scale? And did the perpetrators get away with it? Sure they did.

Coming back to Apollo, I watched hours of raw footage, not only selected clips. However, my mind seems to work differently from yours. When I see evidence of trickery in only a few sequences, I conclude that the entire footage must have been faked. I find this a logical conclusion. I do not argue with myself or try to convince myself that I must be mistaken for seeing something seemingly improbable. I trust my senses. I am not afraid of concluding that governments, in collusion with big business, do perpetrate fraud on occasion in order to further their goals.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

Only the last mission had all the drama of a Hollywood movie.

I didn't know anything went wrong with Apollo 17.

However, my mind seems to work differently from yours.

Obviously, and that's cool.

I am not afraid of concluding that governments, in collusion with big business, do perpetrate fraud on occasion in order to further their goals.

Nor am I, and am 100% convinced that it is the norm.

 

[musictomyears]

Only the last mission had all the drama of a Hollywood movie.

I didn't know anything went wrong with Apollo 17.

You are quite right, I was thinking of Apollo 13, which was not the last mission.

I would like to add one thought. The moon landings - genuine or not - took place at a time that was very different from ours. I am not referring to the cold war, but to practicalities of everyday life. Governments and politicians were generally regarded with high esteem, and it was unheard of to ask politicians or celebrities tough and probing questions. Furthermore, what we consider high-tech was only available to the absolute elite. It took decades before domestic video recorders became available. The internet was not even a distant dream. In this environment, it was very safe for NASA (and their paymasters) to perpetrate a hoax, since the probability of being found out was virtually nil: The mass media wouldn't dare question the astronaut's apparent bravery and patriotic sacrifice (it still doesn't, to this day), and the regular punter at home was simply not in a position to scrutinise the dodgy video sequences over and over again, the way we can today. Little errors in the script, or mistakes made during the filming of the missions, would remain practically undetectable to the wider audience, and only be apparent to those who already knew what to look for. In a way, it was the perfect crime: NASA had the motives and the means. They also had total control over the flow of information: Like all monopolies, they controlled both supply and demand.

I find it extraordinary when people who have seen clips with astronauts dangling from wire rigs don't realise that this proves, beyond doubt, that the entire Apollo programme was faked. If there was only one inconsistency, it would throw into question the authenticity of the Apollo programme. However, there are dozens, probably hundreds of inconsistencies. The logical conclusions are inescapable.