moon landing hoax, recent media buzz about moon landing

[ballzac]

I don't know exactly what is going on in that last video. I think it would be far more interesting to see the unedited video and to hear the astronauts more clearly than the narrator.

I guess you really should ask yourself whether you would have come to the same conclusions just looking at the video, or whether the narration was instrumental in helping you reach the conclusions. If you believe the video speaks for itself and is solid evidence, then I'm certainly not going to argue with that.

Edited July 24, 2009 by ballzac

[ThunderIdeal]

i agree, especially after being burned the video i started this thread with....... context beyond the most interesting moments, and absence of deceptive narration are both handy. i guess it would be very hard to confirm the audio is authentic/unaltered since it wasn't officially released by nasa and same applies to it's date labels.

the video suggests is that even lunar drive-bys were probably fake.

[ballzac]

I see no reason to believe that the audio or the footage was faked by the 'documentary' makers. If they were going to fake it then they could have been a bit more ambitious...

"kshhh...ah Houston...kshhh, we're faking the moonlanding, over. kshhh... Roger"

If anyone can actually make out any of the suposedly incriminating dialogue could they please type it up, because everything I could actually make out sounded quite innocent.

[bℓσωηG]

 

why the portaloo? oh right for the film crew haha,plebs

[t st tantra]

portaloo?.....thats a later model tardis!

t s t .

[ThunderIdeal]

technical setbacks could have been offset by launching a pre-mission. it could dump supplies on the moon that are needed for the moon surface and getting the lunar lander back into lunar orbit: fuel, power, science equipment, even sleeping space for the moon walkers to save space in the lunar module.

just a portaloo-inspired idea that came to me.

[nabraxas]

[AndyAmine.]

There was a 'Moon Landing Hoax' epp of Mythbusters on the other night and it was pretty good. however conspiracy theorists would say that they are also in cahoots with Nasa/MIB and only chose subjects that they could prove were not a hoax.

Whatever the case they did a good job of proving that the un-aligned shadows were just caused by topography.

[Evil Genius]

Heard this?

http://www.survivorsucks.com/topic/56737/t...g-WAS-fake.html

Its not an official news site but the german press just aired it too. So what? Why would they fake something like this? Im sure you already know the answer. bye Eg

Edited August 30, 2009 by Evil Genius

[M S Smith]

Conspiracies, especially those as complicated as faking a moon landing, are generally made invalid in my opinion by the lack of individuals on such large scale conspiracies either mistakenly making referrence to it, or directly revealing it. The moon landing, as conspiracy, might have had propaganda purposes in the cold war era, but there would be no reason to maintain it all all in todays world.

Small conspiracies even among bank robbers are hard enough to maintain, much less ones that would demand the complicity of the astronauts, the designers of the plan, and the designers of the alleged fake soundstage, etc. What do you think the minimum number of individuals involved might be if it was a complete fake? And I mean not only those who created the fake video directly (set, sound, action people), but also those individuals who had to pretend to be involved in something that actually didn't happen?

The whole idea that not one person involved in this alleged conspiracy has intentionally or unintentionally revealed it makes it singularly preposterous. If the conspiracy was true there is not one investigative journalist worth his salt who wouldn't die to be the first to uncover the government cover-up with actual facts. Find me someone who was a direct participant in the alleged conspiracy and either have them talk about it themselves or dig into their part in the conspiracy to such a degree they are completely unable to maintain the illusion.

This same sort of argument can be used against the alien UFO phenomena as well. Where can we find just one person who tells the true story or can be proven to be lying about it? You can't find them.

~Michael~

PS - there were a total of 6 manned moon landings, and that anyone can claim all of these as hoaxes really frightens me. After writing what I did above a came across the following quote from this wiki page...

"According to James Longuski, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering at Purdue University, the size and complexity of the alleged conspiracy theory scenarios make their veracity an impossibility.[19] More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences.[19] Hundreds of thousands of people, including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers, would have had to keep the secret.[19] Longuski also contends that it would have been significantly easier to actually land on the Moon than to generate such a massive conspiracy to fake such a landing.[19]"

Edited August 30, 2009 by M S Smith

[Teotzlcoatl]

Good post Mr.Smith.

[bℓσωηG]

While what is depicted in the images may initially appear, to the untrained eye, to be some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA, I can assure you that it is actually an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the Moon. And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit! Though not immediately apparent, it is actually a two-stage craft, the lower half (the part that looks like a tubular aluminum framework covered with Mylar and old Christmas wrapping paper) being the descent stage, and the upper half (the part that looks as though it was cobbled together from old air conditioning ductwork and is primarily held together, as can be seen in the close-up, with zippers and gold tape) being the ascent stage.

The upper half, of course, is the more sophisticated portion, being capable of lifting off and flying with enough power to break free of the Moon’s gravity and reach lunar orbit. It also, of course, possessed sophisticated enough navigational capabilities for it to locate, literally out in the middle of fucking nowhere, the command module that it had to dock with in order to get the astronauts safely back to Earth. It also had to catch that command module, which was orbiting the Moon at a leisurely 4,000 miles per hour.

As can be seen in the photo above, the area directly under what is supposed to be the nozzle of the descent stage engine is completely undisturbed. Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small ‘Moon rocks’ and not a speck of ‘lunar soil’ has been displaced! And if you refer back to the earlier close-up of the module’s landing pod, you will see that not so much as a single grain of ‘lunar soil’ settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down.

Now let’s turn our attention to the subject of shadows. As skeptics have noted, some of NASA’s photos seem to depict nonparallel shadows, indicating more than one light source. ‘Debunkers’ have claimed that all such discrepancies can be explained by “perspective” and topographical variations on the surface of the Moon. And truth be told, many of the images that I have seen on websites on both sides of the aisle are ambiguous enough that such explanations can be plausibly argued. But there are, as it turns out, images in NASA’s collection that aren’t quite so easy to debunk.

There are, in fact, images that demonstrate unequivocally that more than one light source was used. Take, for example, the image below of one of the landing pods of the Apollo 11 lunar module, allegedly parked on the surface of the Moon.

The primary light source, meant to simulate the sun, is obviously positioned to the right of the scene, as is clearly demonstrated by the shadows of all of the objects in the background. But there is just as obviously a secondary light source coming from the direction of the photographer. We know this because we can see in the foreground that the shadows coming off the small ‘Moon rocks’ point away from us. We know it also because we can see the light being reflected off of the gold foil wrap onto the ground in front of the pod. But we know it most of all because we can actually see the light reflected in the foil wrap on the leg of the pod!

The shadows in the foreground and in the background are at nearly right angles, a phenomenon that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be explained away as a perceptual problem – especially when we can clearly see the reflection of the secondary light! One other question concerning this particular photo: how do you suppose you would go about capturing such a low-angle shot with a chest-mounted camera? Was the astronaut/photographer standing in a foxhole?

The other issue involving shadows concerns the fact that, in the majority of the photos allegedly taken on the Moon, objects lying in the shadows are clearly visible even though, due to the Moon’s lack of atmosphere and the fact that sunlight therefore does not scatter, those shadowed areas should be completely black. The Moon, you see, is kind of a black and white world. If something is in the direct path of the unfiltered sunlight, it should be well lit (on one side); if it’s not, it should be as black as NASA’s starless lunar sky.

[bℓσωηG]

Now how does the rover fit in the Lunar Module exactly?

Legend holds that a dozen astronauts walked upon the surface of the Moon for varying amounts of time. The Apollo 17 astronauts alone were purportedly there for three days. For the duration of their visits, each of the twelve would have been treated to what was by far the most dazzling display of stars ever seen by the human eye. What they would have seen was many times more stars burning many times brighter than can be seen anywhere here on planet Earth.

Collectively, the dirty dozen took thousands of photos throughout their alleged journeys. And yet, amazingly enough, not one of them thought it might be a good idea to snap even a single photograph of such a wondrous sight. Of course, endless photos of the lunar modules and the monotonous lunar surface are exciting too, but just one or two photos of that dazzling lunar sky might have been nice as well. It’s as if someone went to Niagara Falls and the only photos they brought back were of the car they drove sitting in a nondescript parking lot.

 

[Teljkon]

asdad

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[Teljkon]

echo

Edited March 14, 2010 by Teljkon

[bℓσωηG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw

Well live by the sword die by the sword eh!

A person who violates the rights of others and infringes on their freedom creates an energy of restriction around himself. That in turn, pulls to him others who will violate his rights. It is not crime and punishment in the sense of retribution for sin, it is more energy in motion, its consequences , if you like .

[ThunderIdeal]

that video was posted earlier in the thread. it is very compelling indeed, i wonder if there is research to back up everything the narrator is saying.

[Legba]

Couldn't this be settled by pointing a telescope at the moon to find the tell-tale signs of human presence...the rubbish they left behind?

[ballzac]

I doubt such a high resolution telescope exists. However, they did leave mirrors there, and you can bounce a laser off them.

[atomar]

Couldn't this be settled by pointing a telescope at the moon to find the tell-tale signs of human presence...the rubbish they left behind?

 

Not exactly a telescope but the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter captured some of the 'rubbish' left behind.

Then again, the images are released by NASA: LRO Apollo Landing Sites

my 2c

[Chiral]

The logistics involved in getting a rocket to launch from earth are very complex and difficult...what made them think that they could just drop men in a tin foil module on the surface of the moon and simply work out the the take off from the moon back into orbit when they got there...?

Also footage shows them leaving the moon and the camera follows the module taking off...how or who was taking this footage and how were they able to follow the module so accurately up into space in the viewfinder...?

When the first man took steps onto the moon there was also footage taken from outside of the module depicting this, who was filming this and if so how did they get outside of the module without being the first one outside instead of Armstrong...?

There is no way these men went to the moon with the technology they had in the 60's, in particular the taking off from the moon in that pissy little module and on the very first time too...wow..

As for MSSmiths rebuttle, his only defense against the moon landings seems to be that it's a conspiracy to large to hold onto, where is the proof or hard evidence that shows us it wasn't a hoax, it's all very well to say that it's a conspiracy too large for anyone to maintain, but where is your proof man and hard facts that it wasn't...?

There are conspiracies much larger than the moon landing...religions and the 12 men who are the world order are huge conspiracies that many many many people can believe, so what makes the moon landing conspiracy so hard to believe..?

Good post Mr.Smith.

LOL @ Teotz...such magnificent input brother...typical patriot stuff there...

[ThunderIdeal]

I doubt such a high resolution telescope exists. However, they did leave mirrors there, and you can bounce a laser off them.

 

for the sake of argument, there have been unmanned missions to the moon so a mirror left on the surface isn't compelling proof that it went down like history says.

[C_T]

if they have telescopes that can see stars moving millions of light years away, i'm sure they can see footprints on the moon...

and these telescopes do exist.

[ThunderIdeal]

a quick search infers that hubble (which is not hampered by the atmosphere) would not even be able to see the base of the lander.

[C_T]

ok i guess they don't exist...