Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1

You still need to prove your own claims!

Apollo's surface and orbital photographs show details of Apollo hardware and human activity. Those surface details and human activity are completely vindicated not just by LRO imagery, but by Japanese, Indian and Chinese satellites.

Your claim is that images show details of landing sites, with footpaths, and tire tracks. They all match up perfectly to Apollo footpaths, and tire tracks, left on the lunar surface during their missions. And, other nations have taken images which match up perfectly to the NASA images.

I have proven it, as I have repeatedly demonstrated many times in this thread and others, as well as on my website, which is in my sig. Apollo images taken from orbit even document changes in the lunar surface during missions.

onebigmonkey.com...

But when it does NOT match to Apollo landing sites, to begin with, all you do is make up a 'phenomenon' that doesn't exist, as if it's reality! As if it's an established fact or something!

You cannot show a single example of this 'phenomenon' exists, in reality.

You cannot create, or describe how to create, this 'phenomenon' on Earth, in any way, shape, or form. To prove it exists, we must be able to duplicate it.

This phenomenon is simply a fantasy, created out of nothing, to 'refute' the truth, no matter what it takes, to not admit failure..

Really?

I can't describe it?

Engine exhausts discolour ground and change the way the surface reflects light.

You can see this effect an any airport, or even anywhere that a car is started regularly.

In this case the exhaust is directly from above, and will have more of an influence the closer to the ground the engine gets. This is why the change is gradual. Most normal people who venture beyond their tinfoil lined basement once in a while will understand that such a gradual change is unlikely to be easy to see from the ground, and even more difficult to photograph from the ground - although it was commented on by Apollo astronauts during EVAs, and we do have photographs of discoloured ground directly underneath LM engine bells.

How's that for describing it? Prove it didn't happen.

Researches from several countries have used data from probes to demonstrate this effect can be observed in Apollo photographs. Prove them wrong.

Have some photos of discoloured ground on launch pads

www.nasa.gov...

upload.wikimedia.org...

i.space.com...

i.space.com...

and tell me how well you think that gradual discolouration would show up from photos taken at eye level.

And tell me what the photo I linked to previously shows.

Then tell me what details can be resolved from Corona satellite images. Even Hasselblad photos taken in LEO show narrow roads and surface details, why can't the LRO resolves details from 50 km?

a reply to: Bluntone22

No, just black mail us.....

Just recently Russia stated they wanted proof of the moon landings....and we never heard of it again.....hmmmmmmm

a reply to: CB328

My,thoughts exactly! !!I

it's all in the logistics. Airless environment, logistics are critical.....and this was,done in the late 60''s..early 70's......yea.....

a reply to: pfishy

Yea....

Run the logistics on that amount of fuel......lol.....cuz' I don't see the tanks man....especially when they took off from the moon

originally posted by: Komodo
Just recently Russia stated they wanted proof of the moon landings

They did not, care to provide a source for that silly claim?

First off, cannot believe my username and password still exists after being dormant for over 10 years. Reading through this topic was like watching 12 angry men but turning it off before the woman's glasses bombshell. Like most, I tend to lean away from the government's official story. A lie like this doesn't require thousands of participants, I would say maybe 50.

Number two, watch a via satellite interview on the news channels. Count the delay between the news room and the corespondent across the pond, 5 seconds give or take. Now watch an old Apollo 11 telecast. Barely a second or two.

Number three, Apollo 11's crew was about as disinterest and sour as you can get during their interview. This was a group of guys coming back from the greatest journey of mankind, but appeared as though they had just gotten back from a trip to hell. One word answers, could barely keep the answers from the slow pitched questions straight. I sent my parents to Europe for a couple weeks, 20 years ago, they still talk about like it happened yesterday. Not Apollo 11, one becomes a drunk hermit and the other one a complete lunatic that sells lunar garbage.

Fourth, the incredibly expanding earth. To prove they have left earths orbits, they point a camera out the window, with nothing to reference the size of the earth. And of course the earth appears tiny. After demonstrating this optical illusion, they turn the lights back on and film themselves goofing about. Then the cameraman accidentally pans back towards the window, and what was once a tiny earth, now encompasses the entire window. During the blood moon, I tried getting a good picture without anything in the background. The moon appeared tiny and without any features. Then I took a picture with a building in the background, and magically the moon appeared red and large. A neat trick, but come on, that earth was the size you expect to see in low orbit.

Finally, you have footage of mankind's greatest achievement, do you send it straight to the library of congress, national archives, or the smithsonian. Obvious you destroy it, which somehow saves a couple grand. Because you know, who would ever pay millions at Christies to get their hands on the original copy of the first moon landing? It would be like I have to record the Seinfeld finale back in the day, but don't have any blank tapes, so what the hell, I'll grab the one that says wedding day, or the wife giving birth.

But yeah, the soviets didn't put up much of a fuss, the Indians have some fuzzy photos of potential landing sites, and I can bounce a laser off the surface. A trick Marconi did during radio's infancy and was later done with inferior lasers well before a Saturn v took off.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Komodo
Just recently Russia stated they wanted proof of the moon landings

They did not, care to provide a source for that silly claim?

Nope, you,can search itjust as,well as I did....

Google is,your frienenmy 😃

originally posted by: Komodo
Nope, you,can search itjust as,well as I did....

How can you search for something that never happened? Your inability to back your silly claim up is noted.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Engine exhausts discolour ground and change the way the surface reflects light.

You can see this effect an any airport, or even anywhere that a car is started regularly.

In this case the exhaust is directly from above, and will have more of an influence the closer to the ground the engine gets. This is why the change is gradual. Most normal people who venture beyond their tinfoil lined basement once in a while will understand that such a gradual change is unlikely to be easy to see from the ground, and even more difficult to photograph from the ground - although it was commented on by Apollo astronauts during EVAs, and we do have photographs of discoloured ground directly underneath LM engine bells.

How's that for describing it?

It doesn't..


You assume it is a gradual disturbance, as if it's already an established fact.

Why would you say it is a gradual disturbance. Who described it as a gradual disturbance? And if they did, was it claimed to be an absolute fact? If so, what reason(s) were given for the latter claim?

Afaik, no such claims were made.

However, if they did, you can also post the sources, right?...


Anyway, let's assume it IS gradual, for now..

It is a distinct area, which is unlike the area around/beyond it. They identified it, as such.

If it is, as you claim, a gradual change...

The Apollo surface images would show it, as a gradual change.

Look at the images taken near to the LM. Many of these images show the surface, beyond the (supposedly) disturbed soil.


You SEE the area beyond the 'disturbance', and IMAGES show the area beyond the 'disturbance'. Yet, there is no difference, when comparing the two areas. Not anywhere, in fact. It is the same, uniform, all throughout.

Why would the images not show a gradual change? It certainly would.


You're talking about an area which is too large to define from the outlying region. An area that isn't captured in surface images, because it's too large, to see anything beyond the disturbance, from ground level. It is only seen from high above, in orbit.

THIS is not what we have, which I've explained to you, over and over again...


The exhaust from a car, or plane, is seen (or not seen) in images from the ground, for the very same reasons.

You're trying to use this as your example, but you don't actually show it.

You probably have clued in to the fact you can't show it, right?

The area was identified as a distinct feature on the moon. It is the exact area where the LM landed, supposedly.

Now, they assume an LM landed, at that spot.

This LM must have caused a disturbance, and that is the feature identified in the images, taken from orbit.

It all fits...or so they thought.

There is no area of disturbance in the Apollo surface images, which is a very serious problem..

That's why a magical 'phenomenon' was then created, out of thin air. So it had to be invented, or else Apollo would've been cooked.

originally posted by: jhh


Finally, you have footage of mankind's greatest achievement, do you send it straight to the library of congress, national archives, or the smithsonian. Obvious you destroy it, which somehow saves a couple grand. Because you know, who would ever pay millions at Christies to get their hands on the original copy of the first moon landing? It would be like I have to record the Seinfeld finale back in the day, but don't have any blank tapes, so what the hell, I'll grab the one that says wedding day, or the wife giving birth.

NASA liked the idea of shooting Apollo 11's historic mission in glorious full color, for the footage taken inside the spacecraft.

But, after we land, and walk around on the moon, let's go with the crappiest black & white footage since the golden age of silent movies...OK?

Thus, proving just how simple it was/is to fool so many people, in doing so.

Constellation attempted to 'return' to the moon, using Apollo's 'magical' technology.

That sure proved it .. WAS just like 'magic'!

originally posted by: turbonium1

NASA liked the idea of shooting Apollo 11's historic mission in glorious full color, for the footage taken inside the spacecraft.

But, after we land, and walk around on the moon, let's go with the crappiest black & white footage since the golden age of silent movies...OK?

Thus, proving just how simple it was/is to fool so many people, in doing so.

Hint...what was the medium shot in color inside, and what was it in b&w outside? They're different. One's real time, one's not.

I think in a way we've been looking at it backwards.

There are a couple clues.

First Kennedy had to sell some kind of amazing plan, and it had to be something that would give the US an edge in the cold war.

He couldn't just say 'I -think- we'll do this or that' he had to sell it with complete confidence. It had to be something 'out there'. It had to have a back up plan, so that it could not fail.

So ask yourself, how could he sell the Moon landing idea with such confidence? Remember at that time most of our rockets were exploding on the landing pad.

The way I came to this idea was I mused aloud 'WHY didn't Kennedy say 'we're going to build a very robust and forward-looking space station around Earth'? 'We're going to make it possible to live and develop science in Low Earth Orbit and we'll do joint missions'.

But that idea was thinking 'TOO SMALL'. It would be the best PATH, but it would be hard to sell, to galvanize the country, and the worst part was IF IT WOULD FAIL, for whatever reason, he would have nothing.

He couldn't FAKE a Space station in LEO. Even if they did develop one, it wasn't a huge propaganda tool. People would not be jaw-droppingly amazed.

So, he had to propose something far out, something that he COULD fake some of if necessary, and he had to sell it and get everyone excited. So that idea had to be 'go to the Moon'.

Imagine all his advisors saying 'Man, we can't do that - we can't even get reliable launches. We don't have the ability to get a multi-stage rocket to the Moon, land, and come back.' REMEMBER the plan for using an orbiter and a lander was one that had little favor and wasn't even being considered at the time he made his speech. Dr. John C. Houbolt's idea, the only one that could work was a dark horse back then.

www.nasa.gov...

So, rather than ask 'did we go to the Moon', ask 'why didn't we take the reasonable course of building a robust (and international) space station which would have been the LOGICAL method.

JFK proposed that because he KNEW that IF they couldn't actually do it in the final phases he COULD fake it, though it wouldn't be easy and it would be risky.

They build simulations and mockups in parallel to the mission objectives, covering them as being essential to the fine details. But, hiding in plain sight, these mockups could be filmed and those inserted into 'live' coverage as needed.

It's really the only explanation that covers the bases, and explains why such an optimistic and far-fetched plan was initiated. Kennedy was just the man to -sell it- big and with confidence, but he had NO IDEA if they could actually do it. And to propose something like that in public with no real idea and to do it so persuasively, he had to have a back up plan of being able to fake some if it.

So, while this doesn't address if we faked some or all of the landings or some or all of the round trips (maybe we got there but some didn't make it back), it does explain why they picked the Moon and not the logical choice of a great LEO spacestation.

Had we done it the right way, we'd have a colony of scientists and others on the Moon, and we'd have a space station around the Moon and Earth and shuttles back and forth and not be relying on an aging Russian launch capability and have dead astronauts and be proposing something so monumentally dumb as going to Mars, with absolutely no groundwork and prep.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: turbonium1

NASA liked the idea of shooting Apollo 11's historic mission in glorious full color, for the footage taken inside the spacecraft.

But, after we land, and walk around on the moon, let's go with the crappiest black & white footage since the golden age of silent movies...OK?

Thus, proving just how simple it was/is to fool so many people, in doing so.

Hint...what was the medium shot in color inside, and what was it in b&w outside? They're different. One's real time, one's not.

No. They filmed the 'Earth' out the capsule window, with the color camera, and Houston saw it, 'live', and replied to them about it (ie:'the TV picture looks great').

There is no reason for Apollo 11 to use a b&w camera, instead of a color camera, for footage on the lunar surface...

Unless they were NOT on the lunar surface, of course. So that's why they used grainy b&w footage, on a fake lunar surface.

I think they were still trying to figure out how to simulate 1/6 g at the time, for one thing. They slowed it down to 1/2 speed, but it doesn't allow for hours of continuous footage. As well, we had film projectors that could be set to double speed, in our homes. Apollo 11 surface footage is given away (as natural movement) when it's put to 2x speed.

They obviously still weren't ready for color footage on Apollo 12, either. They claimed the color camera was 'mistakenly' pointed at the Sun, soon after they started filming. So they drop the camera - on the spot. And we can obviously see the camera DOES still work - it continues to film the surface, on its own.

Of course, nearly everyone still believes the camera was pointed at the Sun, 'accidentally', and that's why the astronauts couldn't film footage on the 'moon', anymore. While ignoring the fact it continues to film the moon afterwards. While ignoring the fact Houston would have noticed the camera still worked, but didn't bother to - um - mention it still worked to the astronauts!

Just go with whatever NASA says, because NASA wouldn't lie to Americans!

Well, how about Apollo 13? They had already used grainy b&w. They'd already used the 'Oops, I 'accidentally' pointed the color camera at the Sun, and ruined it' excuse.

'We can't land on the 'moon'. Problem solved, once more.


Finally, by the FOURTH 'moon landing' mission, they filmed it in color. Hours of continuous color footage directly from the surface of the 'moon'.

Nobody noticed that the Apollo 14-17 astronauts were moving slightly faster on the 'moon', than the Apollo 11 astronauts moved.

The reason is that any speed slower (or faster) than normal, Earth speed is unnatural, to us. Going in 1/2 speed to 2/3 speed appears to be the same - it is all slow, alien, and that's it.

The best way to understand that they did - without a doubt - changed the speed from 50%, on Apollo 11, to 66.66%, on all later missions...

Put Apollo 11 footage to 2x speed. It becomes normal, Earth speed.

Now, put Apollo footage from a later mission to 2x speed. What happens? The astronauts move TOO FAST compared to normal Earth speed...too fast, compared to Apollo 11 footage at 2x speed.

This is - as you know - utterly impossible. Whatever the environment, on Earth, in 0 g, on the moon, etc. - humans will move CONSISTENTLY, AT THE SAME SPEED, within the same environment.

We know that, don't we?

You would claim we move slowly on the moon, as shown by Apollo astronauts moving slowly.

But there is absolutely NO way you can get around the fact that the astronauts move at different speeds.

originally posted by: turbonium1
NASA liked the idea of shooting Apollo 11's historic mission in glorious full color, for the footage taken inside the spacecraft.

But, after we land, and walk around on the moon, let's go with the crappiest black & white footage since the golden age of silent movies...OK?

I don't think you grasp the technology level available in 1969. A lot of stuff you take as natural now came from developments spurred by these flights.

But for Apollo 11, the color camera wasn't ready for outside duty. It still wasn't really ready for 12, as you saw when Bean burned out most of the video sensor in a blink.

Try designing for exposed space duty, you'll find you run up against a lot of problems.

originally posted by: Maverick7
I think in a way we've been looking at it backwards.

There are a couple clues.

First Kennedy had to sell some kind of amazing plan, and it had to be something that would give the US an edge in the cold war.

He couldn't just say 'I -think- we'll do this or that' he had to sell it with complete confidence. It had to be something 'out there'. It had to have a back up plan, so that it could not fail.

So ask yourself, how could he sell the Moon landing idea with such confidence? Remember at that time most of our rockets were exploding on the landing pad.

The way I came to this idea was I mused aloud 'WHY didn't Kennedy say 'we're going to build a very robust and forward-looking space station around Earth'? 'We're going to make it possible to live and develop science in Low Earth Orbit and we'll do joint missions'.

But that idea was thinking 'TOO SMALL'. It would be the best PATH, but it would be hard to sell, to galvanize the country, and the worst part was IF IT WOULD FAIL, for whatever reason, he would have nothing.

He couldn't FAKE a Space station in LEO. Even if they did develop one, it wasn't a huge propaganda tool. People would not be jaw-droppingly amazed.

So, he had to propose something far out, something that he COULD fake some of if necessary, and he had to sell it and get everyone excited. So that idea had to be 'go to the Moon'.

Imagine all his advisors saying 'Man, we can't do that - we can't even get reliable launches. We don't have the ability to get a multi-stage rocket to the Moon, land, and come back.' REMEMBER the plan for using an orbiter and a lander was one that had little favor and wasn't even being considered at the time he made his speech. Dr. John C. Houbolt's idea, the only one that could work was a dark horse back then.

www.nasa.gov...

So, rather than ask 'did we go to the Moon', ask 'why didn't we take the reasonable course of building a robust (and international) space station which would have been the LOGICAL method.

JFK proposed that because he KNEW that IF they couldn't actually do it in the final phases he COULD fake it, though it wouldn't be easy and it would be risky.

They build simulations and mockups in parallel to the mission objectives, covering them as being essential to the fine details. But, hiding in plain sight, these mockups could be filmed and those inserted into 'live' coverage as needed.

It's really the only explanation that covers the bases, and explains why such an optimistic and far-fetched plan was initiated. Kennedy was just the man to -sell it- big and with confidence, but he had NO IDEA if they could actually do it. And to propose something like that in public with no real idea and to do it so persuasively, he had to have a back up plan of being able to fake some if it.

You may be right that JFK knew it would be done, as real or fake. We'll never know. It would certainly explain his confidence in saying we'd get to the moon by the end of the decade, when we were nowhere near capable of it at the time he said this.

As I see it, however, JFK was reassured by NASA telling him a manned moon landing is going to be done before the end of the decade. Because NASA knew if they couldn't do it, they would fake it, by that time.

NASA, like all our military, operates on a 'need to know' basis. JFK did not need to know NASA's plans were 'if we can't make it, then we'll just fake it'. Furthermore, it would be an unnecessary risk to inform him, since he might not have gone along with it, as a fake. And NASA would also have known there might be a different president, by the time it was going to be faked. So then, they'd need to tell another president about the fake. Or if JFK was still the president, THAT'S when he would 'need to know' about the faking. Not 7 years earlier.

Anyway, your post got me thinking about it, so thanks for that.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: turbonium1
NASA liked the idea of shooting Apollo 11's historic mission in glorious full color, for the footage taken inside the spacecraft.

But, after we land, and walk around on the moon, let's go with the crappiest black & white footage since the golden age of silent movies...OK?

I don't think you grasp the technology level available in 1969. A lot of stuff you take as natural now came from developments spurred by these flights.

But for Apollo 11, the color camera wasn't ready for outside duty. It still wasn't really ready for 12, as you saw when Bean burned out most of the video sensor in a blink.

You originally claimed it was because "One's real time, one's not". And I explained to you that is wrong, that they both shot footage in 'real time'.

Now, you claim it is because they "weren't ready for outside duty" on Apollo 11/

Meaning, in fact, there was only one reason they "weren't ready for outside duty" on Apollo 11 - they didn't want to make them ready!

NASA claims that it was "decided" Apollo 12 would be the first mission to use the color camera on the moon.

"After the successful operation of the Westinghouse field sequential color cameras in Apollo 10 and 11 Command and Service Modules the decision was made to use it on the lunar module for Apollo 12. Westinghouse took the camera used on Apollo 10 and modified it for use in the vacuum of space on the surface of the Moon."

www.hq.nasa.gov...

For some reason, they didn't decide to paint the camera and use metal gears before Apollo 11, right?

Why would you have a camera which could film the first ever manned moon landing in color, what's the big deal?

Sure, they could have slapped some thermal paint on it, and put in some metal gears, but they "Decided" not to!! Just decide to modify it whenever you feel like it....there's no rush!

Incredible crap.

edit on 25-10-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-10-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-10-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)