Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

They were there, with unmanned probes. That's how they got their images, and knew that these features were on the surface, not knowing what the features actually were, however.

Obviously, they couldn't reveal those images in public, since it would have shown the eventual 'landing sites' already existed as features on the lunar surface.

So they left out any of these details in the images we saw, and assumed that was the best images they had. This was not the reality, of course.

They showed the detailed images after the 'landings' occurred, as you know. It 'proved' we landed, you believe. That's the whole idea of it. This 'proves' the landings, with images - back then, and even today...

They had details all along, but never showed it to us.

Take a look at satellite images, from 1964...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

You can see what they could image back in 1964...years before Apollo.

It's obvious that they could take images with fairly good details of the surface, from orbit...

Without an atmosphere, the moon would be in greater detail than Earth, too..

But go ahead, you refuse to ever believe they were able to do better than these crappy images, right?

a reply to: turbonium1

And then you resort to magic and sooper seekrit stuff for which you have no evidence based entirely on your incorrect a priori assumptions.

You might want to actually look at that satellite data before claiming it does what you want. The orbital satellites weren't detailed enough. The spy cameras operated in a way impossible to replicate on the moon. The only cameras with a high enough resolution to do what you claim were operated by people.

Provide your evidence that they had photos of he lunar surface with the same level of detail as the orbital probes now show.

Explain how the time and date specific pictures of Earth were taken and also broadcast on live TV.

Explain how tracking stations on Earth pointed their dishes at the moon and got voice and data transmissions during the missions.

Do it all without resorting to making stuff up. You have nothing but "Because I said so."

Now that I'm at home and not posting on my phone I can take another look at turbonium's post.

The funny thing about the article that turbonium links to is that the photographs it shows at the start aren't from the mid-1960s, they start from 2000.

Oops.

Even funnier is that the 1964 images it refers to specifically are NIMBUS satellite images - the very same weather satellite images I use to prove that the photographs of Earth taken during Apollo missions are genuine and specific to the time and date on which they were taken.

Oops.

Had turbonium bothered to read the links I've given him to my site on numerous occasions he would know that the resolution of the NIMBUS satellites is more than adequate to show weather patterns at a large scale, but not objects a few feet across. They did not use film.

Oops.

The other satellite mentioned (Corona) were satellites in the loosest sense of the word - they were launched on rockets, took photos then sent their film payload back to Earth. They needed human intervention, just like the same cameras did when they adapted them to run in the Apollo Panoramic Cameras and the Hycon camera.

Oops yet again.

Another bad choice of links to use and another fine demonstration of argument from ignorance.

Here's another source for you...

lta.cr.usgs.gov...

lta.cr.usgs.gov...

A section of KH-7 imagery showing the western
edge of Dakar, Senegal, Africa (1966)


And now, from the above source, here is some data for you...I've bolded the dates and resolution, to make the point clear...

Satellite System Mission Designator Successful Missions Film Acquisition Periods Best Ground Resolution
CORONA KH-4 9031-9032 2/1962-12/1963 25 feet
9035
9037-9041
9043-9045
9047-9048
9050-9051

CORONA KH-4A 1001-1002 8/1963-9/1969 9 feet
1004
1006-1031
1033-1052

LANYARD KH-6 8003 7/1963-8/1963 6 feet


They could, and did, resolve the above satellite images of the Earth's surface to 6-9 feet - BEFORE Apollo had 'landed' on the moon.

And again, that is on the Earth, which has an atmosphere.

Without an atmosphere, like on the moon, what do you believe they could have resolved images of the lunar surface to, BEFORE Apollo? Even smaller objects could be resolved, obviously. Smaller than 6-9 feet, yes?


Don't talk about ignorance, when you are a prime example of it....

a reply to: turbonium1

Once again you're making the big mistake that you've uncovered something new and that you can teach me something I don't already know.

Once again I suggest you go and read how the various Keyhole satellites worked and then tell us how they did that in lunar orbit. I've already told you once how it was done, so I'm not going to educate you again - find out yourself, that way you'll realise how impossible what you're claiming is and how dumb your claim is.

The cameras used in the Panoramic Camera and Hycon system were based on Corona. They could resolve objects as small as 2 metres across - less if you measure things precisely. That's how they managed to take photographs of the LM's and the progression of the EVAs.

onebigmonkey.com...

When you're finished educating yourself you can tell us when these alleged probes of yours were launched to lunar orbit and where the high resolution images of the lunar surface are and how they took and returned the photographs.

The Lunar Orbiter cameras also used previously classified camera technology developed for the Corona programme and are also capable of resolving images as small as a couple of metres across under perfect conditions (good enough to show the Surveyor probes, for example). The limitations they had revolved around the way their photographs were developed and transmitted - modern reproductions of the stored data are much sharper. The transmitted images from the 1960s contain blemishes from that development and transmission process. What they don't contain, anywhere, is any evidence that looks anything like any Apollo spacecraft or EVA activity.

The only evidence of your claim that they do is completely fabricated by you, relies entirely on "because I said so" mixed in with "They could have, so they must have". Well they had the technical capability to get to the moon, so your argument falls flat on its arse right there.

You skipped over the NIMBUS images. I assume you're now conceding that the NIMBUS satellite record that you linked to before is a valid source of evidence, and that the weather patterns they contain are accurate representations of meteorological conditions at any given time? Like the ones in the Apollo images?

A KH7 satellite image, from 1967...



fr.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:KH7_ShuanchengtzuMissileCenterA19670529.png

Yup, they sure couldn't get any better images of the lunar surface than we saw, before Apollo!!!

a reply to: turbonium1

Once again a swing and a miss:

HOW DID THEY GET THAT IMAGE?

Where is your evidence that pre-Apollo photos show Apollo artifacts?

Oh, you don't have any because you made it up?

If you listen to yourself all you are doing is arguing that the photographs taken by Apollo are genuine.

And once again, does this represent a genuine image of Hurricane Bernice just as it appeared in Apollo 11's live TV test transmission and that appeared on the front page of the next day's newspapers?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Once again I suggest you go and read how the various Keyhole satellites worked and then tell us how they did that in lunar orbit. I've already told you once how it was done, so I'm not going to educate you again - find out yourself, that way you'll realise how impossible what you're claiming is and how dumb your claim is.


When you're finished educating yourself you can tell us when these alleged probes of yours were launched to lunar orbit and where the high resolution images of the lunar surface are and how they took and returned the photographs.

The transmitted images from the 1960s contain blemishes from that development and transmission process. What they don't contain, anywhere, is any evidence that looks anything like any Apollo spacecraft or EVA activity.

Why oh why would they ever have needed to use the Keyhole satellites to carry those cameras to the moon??

Are you seriously claiming that we were sending manned spacecraft into lunar orbit by 1968, and safely returning them to Earth, yet it was completely impossible to get any Keyhole cameras to the moon, into lunar orbit??

The Clementine probe went to the moon in 1994, but couldn't get images of the lunar surface 'landing sites' anywhere close to the resolution of 1960's Earth satellite images??

This is a complete joke.

And while I'm here, don't you think it's kind of comical that you are happy to claim that the modern probrs are incapable of showing the Apollo landing sites in high enough resolution to show the equipment and signs of activity, but they did in the 1960s?

I find that kind of cognitive dissonance hilarious.

Just so we're clear, I am not claiming and never have claimed that the capability to take high resolution images of the moon did not exist in the 1960s, because clearly they did and were taken by astronauts - it's the only way they could have been taken.

I am claiming that no such high resolution photos exist showing the Apollo landing sites showing anything remotely resembling the Apollo mission prior to those missions occurring.

See if you can grasp the difference there.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
And while I'm here, don't you think it's kind of comical that you are happy to claim that the modern probrs are incapable of showing the Apollo landing sites in high enough resolution to show the equipment and signs of activity, but they did in the 1960s?

I find that kind of cognitive dissonance hilarious.

Just so we're clear, I am not claiming and never have claimed that the capability to take high resolution images of the moon did not exist in the 1960s, because clearly they did and were taken by astronauts - it's the only way they could have been taken.

I am claiming that no such high resolution photos exist showing the Apollo landing sites showing anything remotely resembling the Apollo mission prior to those missions occurring.

See if you can grasp the difference there.

So they had the capability to get such images of the lunar surface before Apollo 'landed', right?

You only claim they never took such images before Apollo?

That claim is based on NASA's word, and nothing else!


Think about it...

Nobody had ever set foot on the moon before, in 1968. The plan is to locate suitable landing sites on the lunar surface, because the Apollo 11 mission is a year away.

They have the capability to get detailed images of the lunar surface with unmanned craft.

But nobody bothers to take such images, for some strange reason.

They don't need to see where the first humans try to land down on alien moons and planets - it's way more fun when it's a big surprise!!!


Good one..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
And while I'm here, don't you think it's kind of comical that you are happy to claim that the modern probrs are incapable of showing the Apollo landing sites in high enough resolution to show the equipment and signs of activity, but they did in the 1960s?

I find that kind of cognitive dissonance hilarious.

Just so we're clear, I am not claiming and never have claimed that the capability to take high resolution images of the moon did not exist in the 1960s, because clearly they did and were taken by astronauts - it's the only way they could have been taken.

I am claiming that no such high resolution photos exist showing the Apollo landing sites showing anything remotely resembling the Apollo mission prior to those missions occurring.

See if you can grasp the difference there.

So they had the capability to get such images of the lunar surface before Apollo 'landed', right?

You only claim they never took such images before Apollo?

That claim is based on NASA's word, and nothing else!


Think about it...

Nobody had ever set foot on the moon before, in 1968. The plan is to locate suitable landing sites on the lunar surface, because the Apollo 11 mission is a year away.

They have the capability to get detailed images of the lunar surface with unmanned craft.

But nobody bothers to take such images, for some strange reason.

They don't need to see where the first humans try to land down on alien moons and planets - it's way more fun when it's a big surprise!!!


Good one..

They launched satellites to the moon prior to Apollo to map the moon, the Lunar Orbiter program and the Surveyor program, it was no big surprise.

When the astronauts got to the moon they reported that several of the chosen landing spots were not properly suitable for landing and updated it with the information provided by the Apollo astronauts.

So yeah, nothing hard to understand there.

originally posted by: turbonium1

So they had the capability to get such images of the lunar surface before Apollo 'landed', right?

You only claim they never took such images before Apollo?

That claim is based on NASA's word, and nothing else!

As opposed to your completely fabricated and historically unsupported version that "well they could so they must have.."?

If you think they are out there, and remember you are the one who claimed you'd seen them, then post them.

Think about it...

I have. You should try it.

Nobody had ever set foot on the moon before, in 1968. The plan is to locate suitable landing sites on the lunar surface, because the Apollo 11 mission is a year away.

They have the capability to get detailed images of the lunar surface with unmanned craft.

But nobody bothers to take such images, for some strange reason.

They did take detailed images of the lunar surface of the areas they considered as suitable candidates for landing spots. They built simulators and drew maps based on them, as you well know. Those maps and photographs have been public realm for decades. You can only take the best photographs you can - you can't magically make them more detailed than you have the ability to get. If your camera can't spot a 1m wide boulder and that's what you find then you have to dodge round it - which is exactly what happened as I detail about halfway down this page:

onebigmonkey.com...

They don't need to see where the first humans try to land down on alien moons and planets - it's way more fun when it's a big surprise!!!


Good one..

Blah blah bah usual eye rolling defence of a pointless and totally evidence free argument.

Now, let's look at what you've avoided here: did the NIMBUS satellite images show accurate time and date specific depictions of the weather as shown in Apollo images of Earth?

Did Corona and other Keyhole satellites take photographs on film that were then returned to Earth and intercepted by aircraft before going on to be developed and do you think that was possible in lunar orbit?

Did Apollo's Panoramic camera images show details of Apollo hardware and evidence of EVA activity - evidence that was public realm at the time?

Are you finally going to concede that seeing as they had the capability to take high resolution images of the Apollo sites in the 60s and 70s that they actually have that technology now and high resolution images of Apollo sites are accurate?

Or are you just going to carry on with the knee-jerk argument from ignorance denial?

originally posted by: turbonium1

You are suggesting it is "reality" that NASA couldn't have ever have made any mistakes, obviously!

The fact is that we humans make mistakes all the time. Nobody is perfect. Not even your great heroic icons at NASA....

Deal with it.

humans do make mistakes.. but in the 40+years the only people who believe NASA made such a glaringly obvious mistake is basically just you..

no one claims that it is missing in the surface images.. only you.. NASA even took images of directly underneath the descent engine to see what the direct disturbance caused by the descent engine would look like.. but you are the only one claiming that they forgot to make it bright as **** not once but in every single surface image.

so not only are you claiming that humans are not perfect, you are claiming that NASA are complete and utterly incompetent by missing such an obvious error in the thousands of images and video footage that they took on the surface..

The reality is that no blast zones are seen in any of their surface images.

you mean when they took close up images of directly under the descent engine it isnt an image of the blast zone???

thats your reality???

Nobody but NASA knows why they didn't recreate blast zones for their surface images. Perhaps they simply forgot to put them in, or perhaps they DID know about it, but made a decision to not follow through with it, for whatever reason(s) at the time...

forgetting to put it in once, is a big mistake. forgetting twice is catastrophic.. forgetting over and over again for thousands of images and video footage is impossible..

you seem to forget that you are claiming that it should stick out like dogs balls and be easily visible at any angle.

It is not relevant to know why they didn't do it.

it is more relevent to know why you think you are special in thinking that it should be painfully obvious to see. why you think you are the one that made this discovery.

That's like saying a criminal can't be stupid enough to leave evidence of a crime, since he'd obviously know such evidence would incriminate him.

no what you are describing is a criminal leaving a note saying he did the crime with video footage and his name address and phone number at every single one of his crime scenes.. not just a single mistake.

You would argue that NASA isn't comparable to a typical criminal, because NASA would have had all sorts of resources available to them, unlike any other criminal would....

This is quite true, but mistakes happen, no matter how great the resources....

It's a mistake, and nothing will excuse it...

lets say you accidentally drove on the wrong road on a highway one time.. thats a mistake.

but to repeat this mistake every single morning on your way to work IS NOT A MISTAKE.

originally posted by: choos
humans do make mistakes.. but in the 40+years the only people who believe NASA made such a glaringly obvious mistake is basically just you..

You just called it "a glaringly obvious mistake".

What does that tell you?

originally posted by: choos
no one claims that it is missing in the surface images.. only you..

It's not only me, and even if it was, that doesn't mean it's not true.

But if 'everyone' else sees it, then they'd be able to prove it is there. Which nobody has done, because it is NOT there!

It isn't proven by some so-called majority of people saying so, it is proven with valid evidence, and nothing else matters.

originally posted by: choos
NASA even took images of directly underneath the descent engine to see what the direct disturbance caused by the descent engine would look like.. but you are the only one claiming that they forgot to make it bright as **** not once but in every single surface image.

Because it is NOT in any (supposed) 'surface' images!

I don't know if they "forgot" to match the actual feature, or if they knew, but for whatever reason(s), they didn't do it.

The fact is that no feature is found in any surface images. The reason(s) for that fact are not the least bit relevant.

originally posted by: choos
so not only are you claiming that humans are not perfect, you are claiming that NASA are complete and utterly incompetent by missing such an obvious error in the thousands of images and video footage that they took on the surface..

Again, it doesn't matter if it was total incompetence, or not.

It's the plain reality.

originally posted by: choos
forgetting to put it in once, is a big mistake. forgetting twice is catastrophic.. forgetting over and over again for thousands of images and video footage is impossible..

Same point as above.

originally posted by: choos
you seem to forget that you are claiming that it should stick out like dogs balls and be easily visible at any angle.

It SHOULD be easily visible, that's the reality here.

originally posted by: choos
it is more relevent to know why you think you are special in thinking that it should be painfully obvious to see. why you think you are the one that made this discovery.

It's not about being "special", it is about the truth.

You've been pointing out how all of it matches up so perfectly, over and over.

So when I point out one thing doesn't match, then you claim it was 'such an obvious mistake', they'd never be so stupid to 'forget' about it!!

To you, there's never evidence of a hoax, because it is impossible for them to ever have 'forgotten' to remove any evidence of a hoax! The lack of this 'blast zone' around the LM in surface images would have been noticed at the time, because it's blatantly obvious. And they'd never have forgotten to add it into their 'surface' images', at the time!

Your whole argument is that they wouldn't have been so stupid, so it must have an explanation, which nobody can yet explain, yet someday it will be explained, and that's good enough for us!!


If evidence of a hoax is so blatantly obvious to see, it can't be evidence, since they'd never be so stupid to leave it in. Sure, of course!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

As opposed to your completely fabricated and historically unsupported version that "well they could so they must have.."?

If you think they are out there, and remember you are the one who claimed you'd seen them, then post them.

I didn't see them, as I've told you over and over again.

But you would never lie, right? You can now prove me wrong, with my actual quote(s)?....

Otherwise, you'd only be proving that you're a shameless liar, right?

What is it to be, then?

a reply to: turbonium1

You claimed you did. You claimed that photographs existed showing details that resembled Apollo artifacts taken before the missions and that you had seen them. I called you out on it at the time, you pretended you hadn't seen it - just like the many many other times you have been proven to be wrong that you have hoped to bury in a wall of text later. I really. really, cba to trawl through your weekly bilge to find it again.

If you're now saying that no such photos exist and you never saw them then that's fine. If you're so convinced that isn't what you said and want to call me liar, go ahead and find the words yourself - with your perfect recall it should be no problem for you.

So when I point out one thing doesn't match

You have never done this. Not once. Denial of the evidence does not actually count there. Repeating ad nauseam 'this does not match' when actually it all does is not the same as something not actually matching up. Not matching up to your ill-informed expectations is not the same as something not actually being real.

There is evidence of a blast zone around the LM. There is evidence of astronaut activity disturbing the ground. There is evidence of the engine having discoloured the surface. It was all publicly available at the time. It has all been confirmed by independent sources. Your inability to understand this does not prevent it from being so.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
You claimed you did. You claimed that photographs existed showing details that resembled Apollo artifacts taken before the missions and that you had seen them. I called you out on it at the time, you pretended you hadn't seen it - just like the many many other times you have been proven to be wrong that you have hoped to bury in a wall of text later. I really. really, cba to trawl through your weekly bilge to find it again.

If you're now saying that no such photos exist and you never saw them then that's fine. If you're so convinced that isn't what you said and want to call me liar, go ahead and find the words yourself - with your perfect recall it should be no problem for you.

You can't be serious!

YOU made the claim, so YOU have the burden of proving the claim.

You can go around making claims about what I said, but you better be able to prove those claims, or don't bring them up in the first place.

Here's what you're basically saying....

'This 'blahblahblah' is what you claimed. So, you need to prove to me that you didn't claim it!'

Wow, I guess somebody needs a reality check!


You're so sure about what I said, but haven't a clue as to why you would ever need to prove it!!

Yikes..

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
You have never done this. Not once. Denial of the evidence does not actually count there. Repeating ad nauseam 'this does not match' when actually it all does is not the same as something not actually matching up. Not matching up to your ill-informed expectations is not the same as something not actually being real.

There is evidence of a blast zone around the LM. There is evidence of astronaut activity disturbing the ground. There is evidence of the engine having discoloured the surface. It was all publicly available at the time. It has all been confirmed by independent sources. Your inability to understand this does not prevent it from being so.

The 'surface' images show no such disturbance around the LM.

Denial of the evidence is certainly true, without a doubt.

'It's there', is not a good argument to counter the valid evidence

Imagine it in a court of law...

Your evidence consists of some images taken in lunar orbit, showing a specific disturbance on the surface.

You claim it is a disturbance caused by an Apollo lander.

That claim is based on what NASA claims to be there, about mid-point within this (supposed) disturbance.

The NASA claim is not proven. Although you keep on claiming it, as if it were already a well-established fact.

When you cannot show the court any evidence of an Apollo lander really being there, at that spot, then your claim of the feature being a disturbance, which was caused by this Apollo lander.... is purely hearsay.

And then, what would be considered the supporting evidence of your Apollo lander actually being there, at that exact spot?

It would be, of course, the Apollo 'surface' images!

These images show an Apollo lander, and the surface around it, far beyond the point of this alleged disturbance, it is said to have caused ..


No disturbance can be found, in any of the surface images...


That is not a matter of opinion, it is an absolute fact.

I'd like you to try drawing a line on the surface images, but you won't, because you already know very well that it isn't there....

Suppose that the Apollo 'surface' images DID show the disturbance....

You'd claim that it IS evidence, and you damn well know that you would.... right?


Apollo 'surface' images cannot be considered evidence if it supports my claim... but you'd consider it great evidence if it had ever supported your claim!!


A footprint matches up, you say it's evidence.

A disturbance doesn't exist, you say it's not evidence. You think 'It's there, it is just very hard to see it...it only seems to not actually be there.... just the hoax side claims it cannot be seen!'

a reply to: turbonium1

Imagine it in a court of law...

Yes, imagine it in a court of law. Tens of thousands of engineers and expert witnesses take the stand to explain their contribution to the project, and how it all worked. Hundreds of thousands of witnesses testify to the successful launch of the rockets. Thousands of hours of film documenting every aspect of the missions, hundreds of tons of documents, rocks that match samples brought back by a rival superpower.... And your case is "I don't understand why the ground looks funny in this picture."