Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: CB328

oh FFS - " no stars " - please review the :

ilm sensitivity
shutter speed
lens arpeture

used in the apollo cameras - and explain why you think there should be stars visible

a reply to: Willtell

Not that it matters (because it was only a movie, not historical fact), but when I first saw Diamonds are Forever, I simply thought that that they were practicing/rehearsing a Moon landing, not faking one. The place that the practice was being done in the film was at a company belonging to the industrialist Willard Whyte (played by Jimmy Dean) who in the film supplied space equipment to the government -- something like Boeing or Grumman, who supplied some of the Apollo hardware.

The real NASA did the same sort of practice sessions, and they were not at all secret. I assumed the film was just alluding to those types of Apollo Mission practice sessions that NASA was holding at about the same time the movie was made:

Apollo practice images from NASA:

You seriously expect anyone to believe that neither still cameras nor video cameras can record stars in space with no atmospheric disturbance? Yet they can film them here on earth with no problem?

originally posted by: CB328
Notice that there are no stars in any of the photos, even the ones that are supposed to be taken from space on the way to the moon and while orbiting the moon- not just the photos from the surface.

Not to mention that between massive temperature swings and space radiation there's no way camera film could survive let alone take perfect pictures.

There is no longer any doubt that Apollo was completely fake.

Here's a simple test for you.

Go into the centre of a busy town where all the street lights are. Now, look up and try seeing some stars.

Basically it's the same thing with some of the Apollo photos. The street lights would be the light reflecting from the Earth and the Moon and any other objects.

originally posted by: CB328
Notice that there are no stars in any of the photos, even the ones that are supposed to be taken from space on the way to the moon and while orbiting the moon- not just the photos from the surface.

Not to mention that between massive temperature swings and space radiation there's no way camera film could survive let alone take perfect pictures.

There is no longer any doubt that Apollo was completely fake.

Because of the brightness on the Moon (similar to being in the middle of a sunlit asphalt parking lot/car park), the camera exposure needed to be set to near daylight settings. With exposure settings similar to daylight settings, the exposure would not be long enough to capture stars in the images (if any stars, maybe just the brightest, and under the right conditions).

If you don't believe me, take your own camera for which you can manually set the exposure. Set the exposure as if you were taking daylight sunlit images, and then go outside on a dark and starry night with a sky full of visible stars and take a picture of the sky. The image you end up with will also show no stars.

We can see stars when the moon is full so that reflection argument is bogus. Even if it were true the astronauts would have been able to see them, yet one said he saw no stars.

Why are there no stars when they allegedly photographed the earth from the halfway point, or while they were orbiting the moon?

All the moon photos and videos look extremely fake to me. Especially when their capsule takes off from the surface of the moon, it's obviously a model on a string.

originally posted by: CB328
We can see stars when the moon is full so that reflection argument is bogus. Even if it were true the astronauts would have been able to see them, yet one said he saw no stars.

Why are there no stars when they allegedly photographed the earth from the halfway point, or while they were orbiting the moon?

All the moon photos and videos look extremely fake to me. Especially when their capsule takes off from the surface of the moon, it's obviously a model on a string.

I guess you've never seen the pictures from the Hubble telescope?

The cameras used in the Apollo missions weren't meant to capture photos of stars. They were meant to document what was going on.

So how would you expect everything to look? Exactly the same way it does in the movies?

And as for seeing stars when you can see the moon from here? Yep, apart from the stars in the field of vision closest to the moon. But our eyes are not a CAMERA.

a reply to: CB328

ok - the put up or shut up moment

get a camera

select manual exposure then :

ISO 200
F 5.0
S 1/125

then take 2 pictures

1 of a building in full sunlight
2 at midnight on a clear night - pointed at whatever stars YOU can see

post both pics on ATS

the moon hoax idiocy really has come full circle - we have an idiot screaming "" what about the stars "

originally posted by: CB328
We can see stars when the moon is full so that reflection argument is bogus. Even if it were true the astronauts would have been able to see them, yet one said he saw no stars.

Why are there no stars when they allegedly photographed the earth from the halfway point, or while they were orbiting the moon?

All the moon photos and videos look extremely fake to me. Especially when their capsule takes off from the surface of the moon, it's obviously a model on a string.

You seem to be misunderstanding the reflection argument. The analogy of a streetlight is a valid one because when a person is under s streetlight, their eyes are acclimated to the that light, not acclimated to darkness (i.e., the pupils are smaller in bright light, and the pupils get larger in darkness).

The astronauts on the Moon had light reflecting in their eyes from the lunar surface (as I mentioned above, the lighting conditions are similar to being in the middle of an old asphalt parking lot on a sunny day), so the pupils in their eyes would be smaller to acclimate to the brightness. Under those conditions, it would be difficult to see stars.

If they would have looked straight up and let their eyes acclimate to the darkness of the sky, then they would have seen stars.

By the way, the third astronaut orbiting in the command module had similar issues. When he looked out the window facing the sunlit Moon, he saw no stars in space above the surface because his eyes were acclimated to the brightness. However, when he was on the night side of the moon, and had the lights off in the CM, and looked outward toward deep space, he saw an incredible number of stars.

In his autobiography "Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys," by Michael Collins (the third Apollo 11 astronaut) Collins wrote about his experience as the command module passed behind to the night side of the Moon, and left him in complete isolation (not even able to communicate with Earth for some of that time, due to the Moon being in the way):

"I feel this powerfully -- not as fear or loneliness -- but as awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation.

I like the feeling. Outside my window I can see stars -- and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void, the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars."

So Michael Collins did see stars. Not when the brightly lit Moon was mostly in his field of view, but when his eyes were in darkness.

To add to my post above, I honestly don't know how the astronauts saying that they couldn't see stars when their eyes were in the full sunlight of the bright lunar surface is evidence of a hoax...

...I mean, the hoax believers cry "it's obvious that they would have been able to see stars, so the missions must have been hoaxed!". However, if people think it is so obvious that stars should have been easily visible, then you would think the lie from the astronauts would have been "Heck yeah! We saw stars everywhere as we walked on the Moon!"

originally posted by: CB328
Notice that there are no stars in any of the photos, even the ones that are supposed to be taken from space on the way to the moon and while orbiting the moon- not just the photos from the surface.

This is false - please go check out the work some of us have bothered to put in on the subject:

onebigmonkey.com...

Many pictures of stars and planets taken by Apollo astronauts, and many quotes from astronauts describing stars and planets.

Not to mention that between massive temperature swings and space radiation there's no way camera film could survive let alone take perfect pictures.

I woudn't bother mentioning it, as you'll just betray your lack of knowledge. Do please tell us what temperatures were involved during the missions, the temperature of what, and how much radiation there was. Bear in mind that many probes prior to Apollo took film into space with no problems at all.

There is no longer any doubt that Apollo was completely fake.

Only with people how know nothing about it.

originally posted by: CB328
You seriously expect anyone to believe that neither still cameras nor video cameras can record stars in space with no atmospheric disturbance? Yet they can film them here on earth with no problem?

Funny, I just went outside and not a star to be seen (it is 7am). So going from you that means you cannot see stars from earth!

Who said camera's cannot record stars in space?

Here's something I've been working on that shows a different angle.

In 1973 Russia landed a small craft in Le Monnier crater, north of Taurus-Littrow, and sent a little rover trundling around - Lunokhod-2.

Turns out that the things it photographed can be seen in photos taken by orbiting Apollo 17 and 15. The place it landed in is empty in Apollo images, because they were taken before Luna 21 touched down. The craters and rocks Lunokhod 2 photographed are not visible in any pre-Apollo photographs taken by Lunar Orbiter 4.

To save space I've written it up here:

onebigmonkey.com...

Meanwhile there were Soviet probes on the ground while Apollo CSMs were in orbit above them.

Luna 20 landed in February 1972, and was photographed by Apollo 17's Panoramic Camera. Here's a detail from Apollo image AS17-P-2934 (left) compared with the LRO view (right):



Apollo 16 also managed (just) to spot Luna 16 in AS16-P-5208, which landed in 1970:



LRO is on the left there, and the cut out is an enlarged inset of Luna 20 that was confusing the picture.

Apollo photographed Luna probes from lunar orbit, and took photographs of features on the ground that Lunokhod 2 confirmed.

I'm sure turbonium will claim this is a deliberate diversion, it isn't - it's putting new information out there instead of regurgitating the same old nonsense and demonstrating that it is actually possible to put your money where your mouth is.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

If you speed up the total of the live TV footage by x2 you will see that they aren't moving at Earth speed.

It's interesting that you are able to see them moving at a faster than normal speed, and need no measurements to prove it is faster than normal. Yet, when I show a clip where I say they move at normal speed, you (supposedly) cannot believe it, and declare that measurements are needed to prove it is normal speed. You don't know what I need to measure, but you need them, or it's only my opinion.

You must be joking, right?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
You will also note that the objects falling and the dust arcing also doesn't represent Earth gravity.

This is not relevant to my argument. It fails to hold anyway, and I've already explained it in detail, when it was relevant to discuss. But it's not relevant to my point, as I said.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Now, if you keep the speed as it is you will notice that they are moving in Moon gravity

So, if I keep the footage at 2x speed, I will notice they are moving in Moon gravity? Are you actually saying that?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So let's recap;

Normal speed=Everything moves, falls and arcs in a predictable Moon gravity that is verifiable with MATH.

X2 speed=Astronauts are only moving at Earth speed sometimes. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower. Objects fall at a rate which is not consistent with Earth gravity. Dust arcs and falls at a rate not consistent with Earth gravity.

All of those can be checked with relatively easy MATH.

Shows that your OPINION of x2 speed for Apollo 11 is flawed to the point of being obviously WRONG.

What the??..

"X2 speed=Astronauts are only moving at Earth speed sometimes. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower."

Are you kidding me?

We move at the same speed, within any one environment. Whether it is 1 g of Earth, or 1/6 g of the Moon, or 0 g of space, the speed we move is a range of speeds consistent with the specific environment. For example, running or walking on Earth are consistent in Earth's environment - those movements are at 'normal', or 'Earth', speed.

To change the speed in a clip on Earth, to 2x faster, our movements are shown faster than normal, AT ALL TIMES. It does not vary, faster and slower. A 'Benny Hill' clip at fast speed is ALWAYS at fast speed. It does not vary from normal speed to fast speed, within that clip. BECAUSE IT IS NOT AT NORMAL SPEED.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
You're basing your whole argument on a single 20 second clip out of 2.5+ hours of live footage.

You've ignored the fact of objects falling, dust arcs and the rest of the footage to prove your theory.

If you could do it with the whole footage you might be onto something, but 20 seconds out of 2.5+ hours only proves that if you speed that 20 seconds up by x2 it seems they might be moving similar to how they would on Earth.

You don't get the point.

Let's say, for argument's sake, this is the only clip of Apollo 11 at 2x where they move at normal, Earth speed...which is not the case, but let's say it is...

You still need to address the problem. It does not go away, just because you'd like it to. Just 20 seconds are at normal speed, and you proclaim that ALL the footage must be at normal speed, or it is nothing but an 'opinion'....right??

Wrong.

You can't make up excuses for it.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

If that's how you want to do it then you're being dishonest to yourself as you're not looking at all the evidence. You're picking a minute amount of video to prove a point, but ignoring everything else.

Whoa, think again!...

YOUR side has consistently ignored the ORIGINAL evidence I cited, which was used for MY OWN argument... from day one, and ever since.

YOUR side even tried to push in SOMETHING ELSE as 'evidence', and you have the gall to claim that I need to address YOUR evidence, after ignoring mine!!

Now, you try to lecture to me about being dishonest??




However, I should note that you are the first Apollo-ite to admit the movement in the clip I cited is at normal speed. You can see it is, and you admit it.

None of the other Apollo supporters have yet to admit it. But you were honest about what you saw in my clip... and that's much more of a step than anyone else on your side has managed, so far.

The next step is to try and explain it. Since it is, indeed, a big problem, and it won't go away..
..

Double post

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's becoming more and more absurd, as it all unravels.....

It most certainly is, but yet here you are, still clinging to it...

lets re-itterate a quite simple challenge - that has been made and ignored countless times in almost every apollo hoax thread :

to the hoax believers - please make a vid of yourself preforming a series of simple manouvers consistent with the EVA activities of the apollo astronauts . the clip must be continuois and last at least 2 min

then using the vid editing software of your choce - resample it at the the % speed of your choice

post the origional and resampled clips to youtube and link them in an ATS post

it is my hope - that if you actually attempt this - and see the utter farce which you end up with - you will realise that your claims are utter bollox

failure to do this simple experiment - which will take 5 minuites of studio work - 10 minuites of post production editing and 10 seconds ATS post shall be taken as admission of failure also

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

By the way, the third astronaut orbiting in the command module had similar issues. When he looked out the window facing the sunlit Moon, he saw no stars in space above the surface because his eyes were acclimated to the brightness. However, when he was on the night side of the moon, and had the lights off in the CM, and looked outward toward deep space, he saw an incredible number of stars.

In his autobiography "Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys," by Michael Collins (the third Apollo 11 astronaut) Collins wrote about his experience as the command module passed behind to the night side of the Moon, and left him in complete isolation (not even able to communicate with Earth for some of that time, due to the Moon being in the way):

"I feel this powerfully -- not as fear or loneliness -- but as awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation.

I like the feeling. Outside my window I can see stars -- and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void, the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars."

So Michael Collins did see stars. Not when the brightly lit Moon was mostly in his field of view, but when his eyes were in darkness.

The problem is Collins changed his story.

When they first were asked about the stars, it wasn't a question Collins should have addressed, as he did.

They were asked if they could see the stars, when looking up from the lunar surface! Collins was (supposedly) orbiting the moon, and was never on the surface.

Armstrong said he couldn't see the stars from the lunar surface, without using the 'optics'. Iirc, Aldrin said nothing at all.

But, Collins chimed in, and said 'I don't remember seeing any' stars.

Why would he say that, when he wasn't on the moon?

And not only that, if he was orbiting the moon, he WOULD have seen stars, on the far side of the moon, which was in total darkness!

He said something he shouldn't have, obviously.


This book was written after the fact, and he is only trying to cover his ass about what he said earlier. It's worthless, of course.

If Collins meant he couldn't remember seeing stars from orbit, it doesn't make sense either, because he would have seen countless stars from lunar orbit, especially when in total darkness. And he would also see it from the sunlit side, just like we can see stars from the sunlit side of Earth, in orbit, and Earth is even brighter than the moon, more reflective (its albedo)

So why did he say he couldn't remember seeing ANY stars?

If he really orbited the moon, he would have seen countless stars. That would mean he is lying about seeing no stars. It makes no sense to lie about it, if he was actually in lunar orbit.

It only makes sense if he was NOT in lunar orbit.

If Collins went to lunar orbit, he would have first-hand experience of it. And seeing stars would be an unforgettable experience from the dark side of lunar orbit.

That means he was never in lunar orbit. Otherwise, he would have seen countless stars, which he would NEVER forget.

I think Collins had viewed their monitors, which were hidden from our view, placed in a recess of their table..
These monitors were used by the astronauts, to provide 'answers' to any questions from the media.

The monitors would have told the astronauts what to say, because they didn't have a clue what to say, since they couldn't speak from personal experience, on what is seen, or not seen, from the lunar surface, or lunar orbit.

And so, the question about seeing stars came up. The monitors probably said something like 'We couldn't see any stars from the lunar surface. Not without using the optics.'

So, I believe that Collins said he couldn't remember seeing any stars, because he was reciting it from their hidden monitors. This was the 'official' answer on stars - that they couldn't see stars. So Collins said he couldn't remember seeing any stars.

It was also a bit peculiar that Collins didn't actually direct his comment on stars towards the press, he directed it towards Armstrong.

Anyway, that's my take on it...

a reply to: turbonium1

And you say I don't understand? That's funny.

If you take the whole live footage you can calculate they are in Moon gravity. It's that simple. Every single movement, items falling, dust arcing, everything.

If you speed it up there are errors in the footage. The reason for that is it turns the natural Moon gravity movement into something not consistent with Earth or Moon gravity.

It's that simple. A 20 second clip proves nothing. You've ignored all evidence and claim a whole 20 seconds prove everything. You ignore items falling and dust arcs and say it's irrelevant. It's only irrelevant as it doesn't fit your story.

You can't ignore evidence to fit your own belief. It's called dishonest and you lose all credibility. Something you have lost, imo, in this thread.

a reply to: turbonium1

Your take on it is wrong.

As you know full well, they were asked about seeing stars in the solar corona.

Collins states that he did not see any stars with specific reference to that.

Aldrin used optics on the surface to fix a position using stars.

Armstrong described stars during the mission.

There is no official position on seeing stars - they used them to navigate, so if there was one it was "we can see stars".

Here's the press conference in its entirety:

www.youtube.com...

Please show us where the hidden monitors are.