Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

Hi all I dont know if this has been posted yet. Neil refuses to swear on the bible that he walked on the moon. www.youtube.com... I dont know if they went to the moon. I thought the Van Allan belts would have stopped them from going there.

a reply to: illuminnaughty

Neil was well acquainted with convicted violent criminal Bart Sibrel, particularly as Sibrel had been warned by police for gaining entry into his house in his absence and harassing his wife, and who had been stalking him for months.

Conspiracy lovers always like to present the videos where the astronauts rightly tell Sibrel exactly up which orifice he can shove his bible, they are not so keen to show the footage of those astronauts that did swear on the bible. They also seem to prefer using a short video clip as proof over the wealth of data that prove Apollo happened.

Conspiracy theorists are also keen to say the words 'Van Allen Belts', while never presenting any evidence that it would have, ignoring the evidence of the trajectory and sites like this:

www.braeunig.us...

and even the testimony of Van Allen himself, who called the claims nonsense.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Conspiracy believers do not want to accept the real facts/truth because it would be another example of them coming up short in the knowledge department.

It's akin to watching reality shows on tv.
We know the people on there are or are doing something stupid.
Therefore we feel better about ourselves.

Conspiracy believers feel they know the real truth that the masses do not.
So they fell better about themselves.
When in fact it's just the opposite.

a reply to: illuminnaughty

eugene cernan DID swaer on the bible that he had preforemed EVA missions on the lunar surface - so by your " standards " - his claim is true ?

Thanks for all your replies and info although I am still not convinced it all went down as they say. But thats just my opinion.

originally posted by: boncho


The only difference being 'the real tapes' would've never been shown to the public. It almost makes it reasonable, that they 'destroyed all the originals, by accident'

You don't do yourself any good by repeating this well exposed, pathetic hoaxer lie.

Just to continue the fun of poking big holes in turbonium's ridiculous argument that LRO couldn't pick out trails made by astronauts and equipment, here's a very nice ebay item:

www.ebay.co.uk...:g:JI0AAOSwRGlXp7jV

It's a 1978 LANDSAT image, a satellite that typically orbited at around 900 km and were launched to look at Earth's environment and monitor changes in it.

If you take one of the images and measure one of the smallest identifiable things on it (one of the tracks off the main highways), it's about 5m across.

5 metres - and that's just looking at an image on eBay, not even a decent scan of it.

You can get similar levels of detail in images taken by Apollo 7 & 9 with ordinary Hasselblads.

The LRO orbits around 50km up - why shouldn't be able to find tracks and trails on the ground?

Oh, and the Apollo Panoramic Camera was based on the same camera used in U2 spyplanes - the ones that picked out missiles in Cuba, so don't try claiming the cameras weren't up to taking images of the LM on the ground then either.

And also, again just for fun, here are some photos of sand art, which entirely depends on sunlight striking disturbed ground at an angle.

freeyork.org...

originally posted by: captainpudding

originally posted by: boncho


The only difference being 'the real tapes' would've never been shown to the public. It almost makes it reasonable, that they 'destroyed all the originals, by accident'

You don't do yourself any good by repeating this well exposed, pathetic hoaxer lie.

You do yourself no good by pushing false information.

An exhaustive, three-year search for some tapes that contained the original footage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk has concluded that they were probably destroyed during a period when NASA was erasing old magnetic tapes and reusing them to record satellite data.

They built a special camera for the sole purpose of recording the moon landings, and then they "accidentally" ..."misplaced" the tapes. The feed that you watch is a feed, recorded of another feed. Like a camera aimed at a TV filming an image of an image. Hence the horrid quality.

The idea they could 'misplace' the most historical important scientific event of this century, after developing a special camera for that sole purpose is hilariously silly. I would imagine the National Archives would request or be given a copy soon after anyone, the whole thing sounds like a lie. Not even carefully crafted at that.



Search is on for original tapes.

Tapes are lost, but claims they aren't.

"I would simply like to clarify that the tapes are not lost as such, which implies they were badly handled, misplaced and are now gone forever. That is not the case,"

Houston, We Erased The Apollo 11 Tapes - they are gone forever.

One Giant Cover-UpScrewup for Mankind

NASA Admits tapes were erased.

NASA erased original moon landing tapes.

Another note, is that the official story is they erased the original 45 tapes while degaussing stores of tapes for other operations. However, the other tapes they were getting, included 40,000 boxes & 200,000 tapes.

It's fairly hard to believe that 45 tapes couldn't have been kept separate from 200,000. It's kinda hard to believe they wouldn't be specially labelled. Kinda hard to imagine any of the yarn they are trying to spin....

Especially when there was other tapes which were found many years later & the NASA archives just by name seem like they'd archive stuff - and you know.... take it seriously.

"What we found in the records and what will be detailed in a report to be issued was that in 1970 to 1974 we pulled out 40,000 boxes of tapes... five tapes to a box, that is 200,000 of these tapes, that was to support on-going Apollo missions, to support Apollo-Soyuz, to support Skylab. They were needed in the network," said Nafzger.

And the "remastered" versions are not the same thing. They were filmed off a monitor, from a feed.

Nafzger's team, which included Apollo-era engineers like himself who helped produce the 1969 live broadcast of the moonwalk, acquired the best of the broadcast-format video from a variety of sources for the restoration effort.

"So they were saying, 'This is great!'" recalls Lebar. "And the truth of the matter was, it was being degraded something awful."

Converting the Originals

The images were being degraded because the lunar camera was recording in a format that was incompatible with commercial-television broadcasts. So the footage had to be converted to the right format.

Here's how it worked: The lunar camera was sending images to three tracking stations: Goldstone in California, and Honeysuckle Creek and Parkes in Australia. At these stations, the original footage could be displayed on a monitor.

To convert the originals, engineers essentially took a commercial television camera and aimed it at the monitor. The resulting image is what was sent to Houston, and on to the world.

With the system employed, and with no original tapes to compare the feed to, it's very easy and possible the feed was fake (if need be). The convoluted system in fact would hide any discrepancies.


So, the point stands. I never said the moon landing was a hoax. Never said we didn't go there. Never said anything besides the fact they "lost" the tapes is deeply troubling, in an agency that originated with military & POTUS ultimate authority, able to veto or annex whatever needed under 'national security.' That being said, they had moon chambers, production sets, and all the equipment to film a fake version of the landing. If there was something they didn't want shown, it's entirely possible the broadcasted version was different from the filmed version. It implies nothing about 'not going to the moon', it simply offers up a possible scenario where the feed they broadcast was fake, to cover up something for whatever unknown reason. It would also make sense for the CIA to push a "moon hoax" theory themselves, as controlled opposition, which would make anyone who questioned the provenance of the Apollo-media instantly associated with "hoaxers" and "hoaxer lies".

a reply to: boncho

And yet there are still complete recordings of the Apollo 11 EVA in existence.

The press watched the entire thing live, as did millions of other people, possibly billions. Has anyone come forward and said 'hang on, this copy isn't right, it's not what I remember'?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: boncho
And yet there are still complete recordings of the Apollo 11 EVA in existence.

Are you arguing my point for me? Right, so you agree there's something wrong with the situation, you admit they kept tapes of the EVA but then erased the landing tapes for some reason.

Good call. Excellent deduction.

By the way, was the EVA done on the lunar surface? That's new. Wait, no it wasn't. Or else it wouldn't be an EVA. Do you have any other straw man's to argue?

The press watched the entire thing live, as did millions of other people, possibly billions. Has anyone come forward and said 'hang on, this copy isn't right, it's not what I remember'?

What they saw live back then was the feed. Which was recorded off a feed to a monitor which was sent out as another feed. This is the point. Why wouldn't it be what they remember?, it's exactly what was broadcasted and what was "restored" by the Hollywood studio, dear god, that is the entire point as there is no original tape to compare the feed to.

Do you not get it, or are you being willfully obtuse? They projected a feed, back during the landing, it was received by 3 stations, than rebroadcast by aiming their cameras at the monitor receiving the feed. Because of this the quality was reduced by magnitudes.

If there was an original tape, they would then have a perfect quality tape, by a camera specially designed for the sole purpose of recording a perfect copy. This copy was 'lost' of course. So there is no way to compare what was broadcast to what was actually recorded at the time.

Therein lies the rub. It's possible the feed itself was prefabricated, or other. That would then be sent out as the "live feed" and the original tapes would then be a recording of something different. It could be the feed was exactly as it was recorded, but the convoluted method of degradation was purposely employed to obscure some data or information that would been seen in perfect quality recording.

This doesn't imply they were not on the moon, (in fact it would confirm it), and it doesn't imply the moon landings were a hoax or anything else. (I mean, hypothetically it might support a fake landing, but not the orbit). It's really just neutral information as it is, that supports a strangeness by the actions of the agency, which might support a number of possibilities.

Point being is the tapes were destroyed. The most important event in this century, by an agency that exists for the sole purpose of recording data, lost/destroyed the data of the pinnacle of its mandate.

originally posted by: boncho


By the way, was the EVA done on the lunar surface? That's new. Wait, no it wasn't. Or else it wouldn't be an EVA. Do you have any other straw man's to argue?

So what, you think they landed on the moon, hung around in the lunar module for a bit playing cards and then just took off? Of course they did EVA's on the lunar surface, what the hell are you smoking? I also notice you changed your argument form all the original tapes being lost to only the apollo 11 tapes. What do you think is on those copies that aren't on any of the other copies that were made?

a reply to: boncho

Hurling abuse at people does nothing to make your point, whatever it is.

EVA's are done outside the LM, the entire EVA was broadcast an is available. Your argument that erasing the back up tapes of one mission means the mission didn't happen as recorded is a poor one.

There are surface features shown in that EVA broadcast that were not known about prior to landing, feel free to prove otherwise. They did an EVA on the lunar surface, feel free to prove otherwise. They left equipment that sent back data, feel free to prove otherwise.

Hysterical screeching about erasing tapes and studios proves nothing.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

posted by
Hurling abuse at people does nothing to make your point, whatever it is.

You should probably stop doing it then:

posted by
Hysterical screeching about erasing tapes and studios proves nothing.

Calling out illogical arguments or efforts to straw man or misrepresent another person's argument is not "abuse". If I do the same thing feel free to call me out on it.

EVA's are done outside the LM, the entire EVA was broadcast an is available. Your argument that erasing the back up tapes of one mission means the mission didn't happen as recorded is a poor one.

What are you talking about? No. That was not my claim. You claimed there were original EVA Tapes and by process of elimination, I presume these could not be moonwalk tapes (because as provided, those were all lost), so the only EVA tapes they could be are outside the ship in space.

Why do you keep arguing stawman's and obfuscate my point? The Tapes were "lost", end of story. That is why they look like:













From every source found it says that all the videos that exist of the landing from Apollo 11, are restored videos, done by a Hollywood studio, of the original recordings done of monitors back in the 60s. The original tapes, from the specially made video equipment, specifically for the sole purpose of documenting the most important event and mission in NASA history, were destroyed.

The only thing that remains is the "restored" broadcast.



From the Apollo 11 files homepage, here's the full list of restored videos.

Then there is this angle & it appears two videos of only that angle, which, while I admit is not an identical claim to the point made about an EVA in space, the same point applies:



This is higher quality, and says is 16mm, there's a couple videos, which are Neil grabbing rocks, but absolutely no angle other than the one presented here.

Which brings us to the point I made before. If that single angle is the only video provided, it's bizarre, that not they have that single angle, kept those tapes but not the others. One would assume they'd all be kept together, that there'd be no need to

As stated, they had the technical means and ability, to pre-tape the landing, create a fiction and present it as real. For what reason they may have done that, I have no idea. It remains a possibility.

A skeptic appreciates the reality and consistency (or lack thereof). It is contradictory to how the agency stores and tracks data, and their mandate to simply lose data like that.

Im not even making a claim that it was faked, Im saying its possible in the way it was handled, and in the events that transpired later. For what reason or purpose, I don't know, but there is 100% a red flag over that mission. End of story.

a reply to: captainpudding

So what, you think they landed on the moon, hung around in the lunar module for a bit playing cards and then just took off? Of course they did EVA's on the lunar surface, what the hell are you smoking?

I don't "think" anything. Im providing facts. It's odd that they have very limited tapes of the Apollo mission, that the most important section of the mission is missing. That they 'lost' it. That they claim they needed it for other projects, where they re-used 200,000. One would think common sense, or even a warning in marker, or policy, or simply archiving mandates, would ensure that 45 tapes would not get re-used before 200,000 others.

I also notice you changed your argument form all the original tapes being lost to only the apollo 11 tapes. What do you think is on those copies that aren't on any of the other copies that were made?

I didn't change anything, the discussion went from broad and general to specifics. My original comment was a generalized comment, a principle. A logical element.

I said (or implied--I'll reword it because it appears you are having trouble with it): Even if the video from a single mission, or all the missions were faked/doctored/altered, it does not change the fact that we went to the moon. There is plenty of other evidence, of why we went there.

Now, when you talk about specifics, I can't see them re-creating all the footage, though I would imagine its within the realms of possibilities. Specifically though, it's very odd the Apollo 11 tapes were lost. Especially when certain ones were kept, but the most important ones, and it appears there are none with the horizon in them, this is absolutely a large red flag. What it means or implies? I never claimed anything other than that. I am just speaking to the believability of the information and its not believable.

Therefore, given the fact that missing information exists, you can ask yourself why it might exist. It wouldn't surprise me if they shot simulated footage of the landings before leaving (for whatever reason). Maybe they were expecting company up there, maybe they experienced company up there. I have no idea.

Im only speaking to the facts of the case. Mocking is appeal to absurdity.

So what, you think they landed on the moon, hung around in the lunar module for a bit playing cards and then just took off?

It's not an argument, it's not a logical argument. If you weren't there you have no idea yourself what exactly went on up there, or why the tapes didn't get archived properly.

originally posted by: boncho

Therefore, given the fact that missing information exists, you can ask yourself why it might exist. It wouldn't surprise me if they shot simulated footage of the landings before leaving (for whatever reason). Maybe they were expecting company up there, maybe they experienced company up there. I have no idea.

.

You have presented nothing but wild speculation that missing information exists, do you have any evidence of these claims or that just what you wish to be true?

originally posted by: boncho

Therefore, given the fact that missing information exists, you can ask yourself why it might exist.

its not exactly missing information.. they were more of a missing back up that was deemed no longer needed.

only years later when technology arose to the point where they would realise they could provide better visuals with these tapes, then it was deemed of interest. its still not new information since the tapes were only kept as backup for the live broadcast.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

You can't see narrow paths and dirt roads from satellites?

visions-of-earth.com...

environmentalresearchweb.org...

or other human activity?

listosaur.com...

A you happy that when LRO can show you pictures of CHang'e-3 and Lunokhod that those are genuine? What about the Mars rovers - is it impossible to photograph the tracks they leave as well?

However, it also shows they have remarkable details, which aren't found in any of the lunar images..

I'm fine with being wrong on seeing footpaths, since if it is true...

....because the lunar images only show these blobs, without any details at all, which supposedly are the LM's, with its disturbed soil, around them...

But in your image on Earth, we can see trees, and we can even see the shadows cast by those trees. We can clearly identify such details in the Earth image....

If nothing is seen in lunar images but blobs and dots, why would tiny footpaths ever be seen, at all?

The LM cannot be seen in lunar orbit, but the disturbance created by the LM can only be seen in orbit images, not anywhere on the surface, where the LM is seen, with incredible detail!!

Not possible to replicate this 'phenomenon', whatsoever...

originally posted by: choos

indeed i could.

i can make a footprint just behind a very small crest which just covers my line of sight to the footprint, but an aerial view with the sun low in the horizon will cast a shadow inside the footprint.

or, i can make a footprint and i can be viewing the footprint down sun (ie. sun is behind me) makin gthe footprint nearly invisible.
and aerial view of the footprint will see the shadow cast by the footprint which was previously covered from my point of view when i was on the ground.

It is not hidden behind a crest, or anything else....

The ground is seen beyond the supposed disturbed area of soil, not hidden behind any sort of 'crest', or whatever!!

All the surface images prove my claim, in fact.

Not that you can ever accept it as a fact, of course..

Areas beyond the 'disturbance' are found in many of the surface images. Do you want me to show you images where we see the surface well beyond the disturbance??

Nobody on your side has claimed the ground beyond this disturbance is not in the surface images....except for you, now...

What supports your claim, if anything at all?

originally posted by: choos
not sure, probably manufacturing safety standards, safety factors, manufacturing standards (hand made compared with production line or machine production) six sigma quality process was introduced in the 80's and has been adopted world wide by manufacturers..

are you trying to suggest that leading aerospace companies have never bothered to improve their standards since the 60's??

So you admit you don't know diddly squat, but somehow you know it couldn't work because of that??

Are you serious??

a reply to: boncho

The second set of video, the 16mm ones, were recorded by a 16mm camera mounted in the LM window - the same one that recorded the descent from orbit.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that they should have kept the original tapes, and that it is embarrassing that the tapes were over-written (which is still the assumption, not actually proven), no-one is going to disagree with you. You can also make as much play as you want about the 'Hollywood studio' aspect, which makes it sounds all suspicious but it is actually a company specialising in restoring old films

www.nasa.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

bu the fact remains that the restored version is not the only version - you can still find copies of the original TV broadcasts all over the place.

What matters is: is what is in the video genuine?

No-one has ever proved they are not genuine. The video ties in exactly with the documented historical record, and there are features in it that match what can be seen in orbital images taken many years later. Those features were not known about prior to the landing.

The TV of the landing is what it is, deal with that, not with what you would rather have or think they should have done instead.

originally posted by: turbonium1

However, it also shows they have remarkable details, which aren't found in any of the lunar images..

I'm fine with being wrong on seeing footpaths, since if it is true...

....because the lunar images only show these blobs, without any details at all, which supposedly are the LM's, with its disturbed soil, around them...

But in your image on Earth, we can see trees, and we can even see the shadows cast by those trees. We can clearly identify such details in the Earth image....

If nothing is seen in lunar images but blobs and dots, why would tiny footpaths ever be seen, at all?

You are obviously not looking in the right place. The LRO images reveal remarkable levels of detail including the lunar modules and lunar equipment. Try reading my pages on it again - all of them:

onebigmonkey.com...

The LM cannot be seen in lunar orbit, but the disturbance created by the LM can only be seen in orbit images, not anywhere on the surface, where the LM is seen, with incredible detail!!

Yes it can, even Apollo missions could see it:

onebigmonkey.com...

Not possible to replicate this 'phenomenon', whatsoever...

It has been replicated, by India and Japan, which both show the same human activity.

The LRO has also spotted Lunokhod and its trails:

www.nasa.gov...

Are those fake?

Chang'e-3 too:

www.nasa.gov...

Is that fake?

What about all the small rocks and craters visible in the LRO images that are also in exactly the same places in Apollo images, are they fake too?