i think the 1969 moon landings were done in a movie studio

originally posted by: Carcharadon
100% fake, never went. All manufactured lies to upstage the Russians.

Didn't have and still don't have the tech to pass through the Van Allen Belt.

Also for those that care the "Space Station" has not and never will be in Space.

It's all a complete sham.

The only sham is your uneducated innuendo.

How did Apollo deal with the Van Allen radiation belts ?

curious-droid.com...

If you spent an extended period within the Van Allen belts, then the effects would be lethal but the Apollo crews spent only about 6 hours in total, about 3-1/2 hours going and 2-1/2 returning, several days later, effectively two sort bursts separated by a rest period.

More importantly, the course which each of the Apollo craft took avoided the most lethal parts of the inner belt completely and they only went through the thinnest parts of the outer belt.

All the astronauts wore dosimeters to measure their personal radiation exposure levels during the flight and reported the results back to NASA at regular intervals.

In total, the amount of radiation that the Apollo crews received during their flights to and from the moon from high energy protons, electrons and x-rays from the bremsstrahlung effect was much less than the yearly allowed dose for someone working in the nuclear industry and regularly dealing with radioactive materials.

In the end, the simple answer to why the Van Allen radiation belts were not the killer issue that some think it was and how the Apollo missions cut the radiation exposure for the crews to between just 1 and 5% of what it could have been, is because the Apollo missions didn’t need to go straight through the Van Allen belts, they basically flew around the most deadly areas and were not in the less dangerous areas for long enough to be a show stopper

a reply to: Carcharadon

And what does your false narrative have to do with third party verification of the Apollo missions, and actual proof of landing sites on the moon?

I think we DID go to the moon, but something is off about it. Not sure what though. I also believe some of the shots you see were in a studio as well, just in case it went pear shaped. There is no way the U.S would want to look bad in the eyes of the world, especially Russia.
It is a fascinating subject.

a reply to: rhynouk

What proof is their the broadcast came from a studio. None.

Unless somebody can come up with a coherent argument with actual evidence.

Why do some people believe the moon landings were a hoax?

science.howstuffworks.com...

Scientists refute this claim because of the dust kicked around by the astronauts as they jump around the moon's surface. If NASA filmed the video on Earth, the dust would gather into clouds because of air in the atmosphere. Instead, the dust is kicked up and falls right back to the ground without collecting or floating around. NASA would have had to build an entire studio and suck all of the air out to create a vacuum, something that would be incredibly difficult even by today's standards.

Let’s review.

It would be noticeable to use slow motion to try to make the astronauts look weightless.

The slow motion kills any possibility of a live broadcast.

To get the dust right, the studio would have to have the air pumped out. So it would be an incredibly large space with very thick walls. The spacesuits would essentially be real spacesuits for the individuals to survive in a vacuum.

With third party verification the broadcasts came from space. With no indication the broadcasts came from earth, and relayed to the moon? Then back to earth.

a reply to: RedRobbin

SnF OP... I do think there is weight for this theory. There are too many things that just don't add up... Why haven't we been back since? Its bizarre...

Stanley Kubrick did it I think. And through his film The Shining he tries to tell the viewer this. If the viewer has the eyes to see and ears to hear... There are so many references within the film its quite spectacular. Many viewers may just watch this film thinking its a horror film. But there is another story line within that runs parallel to the horror story. And this is the story of how he faked the Moon landing..

I do wonder whether Kubrick was killed. He died of a heart attack at 70 in his home (though we all know the CIA had heart attack guns and that was decades ago). I think Eye's Wide Shut was what did it. He was quite possibly one of the greatest and most meticulous directors of his generation. Attention to detail was Kubrick's thing. There was a reason for every single detail in his films, his was notorious for actors and actresses to work with, as he was so obsessed with detail and many scenes would involve multiple retakes, as it had to be just so...

This is an interesting watch - you have to bare with the guy!!! But some of the info is incredible!!! I'm not so sure about some of it, but a lot of it is spot on ime...



I'll pick out just one thing.. Just look at this scene.. Look at little Danny's jumper!!! And note the hexagonal like pattern on the carpet looks awfully similar to the NASA launch pads. Danny happens to be situated right in the middle of one. As the scene progresses, he stands up to reveal his jumper, then happens to walk to Room 237 (237,000 miles to the Moon and I think Room 237 symbolizes the Moon through Danny and Jack's story) - after Danny has been and left Room 237, he will not talk about it.





Why for any reason would Kubrick have Danny wearing an Apollo 11 USA jumper? It just doesn't make sense for the film in any way...

The only way it makes sense is if, there really is another underlying story in The Shining that is an admittance of him faking the Moon landing...

This very scene with Danny is reflected in a scene where Jack enters Room 237 and is seduced by a beautiful naked woman, after being seduced by her she turns into an ugly, scary looking old woman creature. Could this again reflect Kubrick showing the viewer how he was seduced by the Moon landing project, and then only after being captured by it, realised what this meant? Without doubt Kubrick had been privily to things that most are not.

Was he trying to tell us through his films?...

Really all very interesting, been looking at Kubrick and his films the last couple weeks - sent me down a rabbit hole!

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Why so surprised, and offended?

What's the motto of this site??

The motto isn't "Believe every little crackpot notion that comes down the pike."

Every single time this topic comes up, it's been most thoroughly debunked. Proven to be, the pun is unavoidable, moonshine and faery dust, time after time after time. This is but the latest in a long series of threads on this topic. I've been here nigh on this my 13th year as a member--many have been here even longer.

Every year, every month it seems sometimes, "proof" of the hoax is brought forth. Would you like to know how often it's something new?? Never. It's nothing that hasn't been proven to be false advertising.

As Kand pointed out, correctly I might add, it was, in the '60's easier to actually travel to the moon, then it was to fake it.

ETA: Death threat? Seriously? He was speaking of the astronauts. Death threat...'fraid not.

People coming to this or any site don't expect to be subjected to that high level of intolerance based on opinion .
The user base you are discriminating against don't expect to be called trolls for sitting at home and thinking about things discussing their thoughts here .
Who do you think you are was the question - the thought police ?

When the site staff is hiding posts and trashing accounts based on the false idea that it s 'moderation' , users are rightly taken aback by being interfered with in such a threatening manner .

And you're doing so on the basis of staff opinions , only that ? Maybe a little admin excuse here and there . It's a shocking policy that makes this site look like some ridiculous troll's trap : what's the touted basis of this discussion forum site ? False advertising , that'd be it , come and be sidelined and bullied out of sight .... for having thoughts or opinions which don't agree with ours. It's correct to complain .

When you're alluding to 'crackpot notions' you're attacking people's mental health which happens time and again with your biases in mind . You've offended and besmirched a lot of people doing that . It would make anyone wonder what depths you might sink to just to hold an opinion on the faked moon landings . I'm afraid I disagree with your opinion / and others do . And in all honesty you should get used to it , not continue to try and justify the blatant staff discrimination and abuse towards certain users - who only hold a contrary opinion on this topic - as you clearly don't mind admitting is policy .

Fact is , we (are 'we' nasa as well the site's staff , eric?) ..... we did not even have the tech to fake it properly ....

a reply to: fluff007

And not a single piece of evidence from you the moon landings were shot from a studio.

Talking about the jumper. You don’t get kids want to be astronauts? You have to glaze over a basic truth to create innuendo? What kid with immigration doesn’t dream of exploring space?

And a kid wearing a jumper is not any proof of a broadcast coming from a studio. It’s call innuendo, with no supporting evidence.

Do you have actual evidence?

Stanley Kubrick’s Daughter Addresses Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory

variety.com...

“There are many, very real conspiracies that have happened throughout our history,” Vivian Kubrick wrote. “But, claims that the moon landings were faked and filmed by my father? I just can’t understand it!!?”

She added, “… the so called ‘truth’ these malicious cranks persist in forwarding – that my father conspired with the US Government to ‘fake the moon landings’ – is manifestly A GROTESQUE LIE.”

Vivian Kubrick worked on the set of “The Shining” with her father where she shot a behind-the-scenes making-of documentary about the film.

Wild Film Theories: Does “The Shining” hint that Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo 11 moon landing

screenprism.com...

Plus, as filmmaker S.G. Collins poignantly argues, the technology to go to the moon existed in 1969... but the technology to fake the footage on a live television broadcast actually didn't.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: rhynouk

What proof is their the broadcast came from a studio. None.

Unless somebody can come up with a coherent argument with actual evidence.

Why do some people believe the moon landings were a hoax?

science.howstuffworks.com...

Scientists refute this claim because of the dust kicked around by the astronauts as they jump around the moon's surface. If NASA filmed the video on Earth, the dust would gather into clouds because of air in the atmosphere. Instead, the dust is kicked up and falls right back to the ground without collecting or floating around. NASA would have had to build an entire studio and suck all of the air out to create a vacuum, something that would be incredibly difficult even by today's standards.

Let’s review.

It would be noticeable to use slow motion to try to make the astronauts look weightless.

The slow motion kills any possibility of a live broadcast.

To get the dust right, the studio would have to have the air pumped out. So it would be an incredibly large space with very thick walls. The spacesuits would essentially be real spacesuits for the individuals to survive in a vacuum.

With third party verification the broadcasts came from space. With no indication the broadcasts came from earth, and relayed to the moon? Then back to earth.

All I'm saying is it would be stupid not to have some sort of back up plan ready in case it all went wrong and they were seen crashing into the moon, live on TV. It's just common sense. If everything is fine, they stick to the plan.

The evidence that we went to the moon that people constantly wave at everyone who thinks otherwise is second or third hand. We all say NASA lies to us, yet when they show some numbers and pictures, you all swallow it without question.

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

First off: All opinions here on ATS are welcome, so long as they are not a direct personal insults, lies or self promotion.

Second off: Expect to be challenged on your views. ATS is made up of a very large amount of intelligent people who will not hesitate to challenge those who would simply post "woo-woo" things and not be ready to back it up with proof and evidence.

Third off: Grow a thicker skin. There are absolutely certain members that literally troll these and other threads. The will start to go with personal attacks, fake outrage and all the while continue to argue after they've already been proven wrong until they are blue in the face. ATS is not unique to that. It's the Internet. It's everywhere.

No one here has threaten anyone at any point. Merely pointed out flaws and issues with the proposed idea. Explained how the OP's subject has been already argued here many times over (bringing it up again is okay however......you'll notice the thread is till here, yes?).

Last point: ATS staff members are "members FIRST, staff SECOND", here's a bit for you to review:

Moderators Are People Too. (and they have opinions)

We're all here with our opinions, thoughts and ideas. If you can't stand having your ideas, thoughts and opinions challenged, then ATS is most likely NOT a place for you. This is not a "safe space" for people to spout off whatever they want to and go unchallenged (like some other web sites I could name), where people who dare challenge others or question them, or ZOMG!!! Demand proof and evidence, suddenly get banned (like some other sites I could name).

If people challenging the OP on this subject upsets you: you should have been here on ATS during 2012........

a reply to: rhynouk

explain what the A13 " backup plan " was ?

a reply to: rhynouk

We all say NASA lies to us, yet when they show some numbers and pictures, you all swallow it without question.

I don’t swallow anything. That is why I am at ATS to challenge what I believe. It forces me to do research to form my conclusions.

So far, all that is presented is the moon landings were a fake because a kid in a jumper?

Innuendo is no evidence.

Again, there is third party verification.

Would you like to give an example of a NASA lie concerning the moon landings with supporting evidence it’s a lie? Or we just going to discuss what period jumper a kid is wearing in a movie based on a fantasy novel?

originally posted by: rhynouk

All I'm saying is it would be stupid not to have some sort of back up plan ready in case it all went wrong and they were seen crashing into the moon, live on TV. It's just common sense. If everything is fine, they stick to the plan.

This was the back up plan:

www.lettersofnote.com...

The evidence that we went to the moon that people constantly wave at everyone who thinks otherwise is second or third hand.

It doesn't matter how many hands it has been through, what matters is whether or not is true. You don't get to decide on the criteria for that evidence's acceptability, you either prove it to be incorrect or you don't.

We all say NASA lies to us,

No, "we" don't all say that. People with paranoid fantasies who think NASA has some secret agenda they don't know about and who don't understand what they do or how they work say they lie to us.

yet when they show some numbers and pictures, you all swallow it without question.

Again, don't presume to speak for everyone. I could equally argue that everyone who argues against the landings is merely repeating some BS they saw on youtube or some nutcase's website and hasn't actually come up with anything of their own other than deep seated delusions and a lack of education to support their claims. Would that be fair?

Someone claims it was all done in a movie studio but can't produce a single shred of evidence that their claim is true and I'm just supposed to accept that without questioning it just because it offends someone's anti-NASA sensibilities? Tough, it doesn't work like that.

Some of us have spent years looking at the Apollo landings from all kinds of angles and not once has there been any suggestion that the evidence in support of them is wrong, or false. Not all of that evidence comes from NASA. The photographs taken by India, China and Japan all show the same disturbance around the landing sites that the LRO shows, and that disturbance matches the still photographs taken on the lunar surface.

a reply to: RedRobbin


Ummm...I am so thoroughly amused by these type threads...
Thank you for providing me with my morning chuckle as I drink my coffee...

Personally I think true believer conspiracy theorists are the crown princes of trolldom...

I would rather think flat earther’s and fake moon landing believers are trolling...than to think they had some mental condition which prohibited them from accepting reality...

That way I get to...not...label them as deficient mental midgets...


So......thanks for the trollery...

This way you get to keep the false image of you all being intelligent...mentally healthy individuals...that I had previously imagined you as...








YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

Why must the fake moon landing always be combined with flat earth? Even if they thought of it first, the fake moon landing is by now its' own idea and, I believe, more credible than flat earth. Whenever I introduce evidence written by a flat earth advocate, it is quickly smeared by their other writings and not even considered on its' merits. No one even reads it.

It's possible even for a complete lunatic to come up with a good idea every now and then. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. Should we throw all his ideas out the window because he was a "kook"?

a reply to: eriktheawful

There is a really good reason why we place threads like this in Skunk Works:

That sounds like ats policy to me , all joined up , where the mods all agree on a collective opinion , and proceed with a subsequent discriminating course of action . Then they appear to hide behind personal opinions as being the motivating force for that course of action .

We do have some die hards around here still that tend to troll the threads,

Then certain accounts are demarked and overpainted with prejudice for having been operated by rational skeptics (that's how you do Science) .


It says a lot when as the op mentions , nasa "lost" the original footage . Because 50 years on , if people were to see that - the only evidence there is that really matters - the cat would be straight out of the bag .

They didn't keep any copies at all ? Come on , you know better than that - we all do .

The Russians have their own martial art it's called Sistema - uses the weight of gravity against the opponent - and helps you against yourself whenever possible's .

When they saw America's nasa had made itself a future laughing stock , whacking itself in the face with a wet fish , they may well have thought , hahaha , long may it continue . It's not as if the ex Soviet empire had much chance to make any truth to be known in the West at the time anyhow . And if they got so close , why didn't they go to the moon too ?
The space race was about getting a man in space , which they won , not about grasping an imaginary ice cream and calling it your own . Faking it was the greatest mistake ever made . 50 years of coverup later ... and a big wedge of cost for nothing - lies are always expensive

The Indians never accepted it in the first place , they called it faked at the time . When the Western media is not run by Indians , of course nobody properly heard them either .
It 's all about who runs what , eh .
And who loses what ... oh where's that footage

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Yes, it really IS official policy. Staff does not set policy. Owners of this private discussion board who's rules are set by them and you agreed to when you became a member are who set policies. Staff just enforces them.

Skunk Works forum is not a "place of shame", it is a forum for "highly speculative" discussions, named after Lockheed's Skunk Works facility.

Why the policy? As I said: the huge amount of threads where the evidence is overwhelming that we went, and the evidence that we didn't is almost non-existent and limited to personal opinions ("it's just what I believe"), high speculation with no evidence ("they were able to fake it because they had access to very secretive tech that allowed them to.....but I don't have any evidence of this.") and conjecture ("The Government lies, therefore NASA must also lie" - akin to "Elephants are gray, therefore everything gray is an elephant!").

Plus it helps us keep things tidy around here.



Disprove the evidence using more than conjecture or just opinions.

The "You just showed pictures, but those can be faked!" is true, but people are going to have to do better than "because there are no stars in them!", clearly showing that they lack in understanding how photography works, and most certainly do not have the understanding that I (and many others on here) have of Astrophotography from our own experience with said cameras and capturing star shots.

The "Video and film was faked! They shot it in a studio and just slowed it down to fake the Moon's gravity!" has been proven wrong over and over again: sorry, but that's just not possible. Both the tech to do that, and the ability to pull it off flawlessly is simply not there.

In fact, the counter argument to this has been presented many, many, many times: Apollo 14's SEQ pendulum. It's been shown over and over again - you simply can not fake the Moon's gravity by slowing down or speeding up video. Many have tried, all have failed.
I and many others on here have shown it and asked repeatedly over and over: show us how this was faked.
Some have tried, each explanation easily shot down and debunked. Others - well, they just seem to ignore it, as if it will go away, by changing the subject, deflecting, or (like here) attacking the poster that presented it.

I and others are still waiting.

But, I will tell you how you can fake it.....at least NOW it could be done. It certainly could not have been done back in 1971 when Apollo 14 went to the Moon.

You're going to need some high speed computers running video rendering software, software to create the meshes, and software to create the texture packages.....you know, that technology that is quite available in today's world....but not 47 years ago.

Most of the Moon Hoaxers we have on here tend to be young people. In their 30's and younger. None of them were even alive when the Moon landings happened. Most of them grew up with a lot of the tech that we have now....but didn't exist back then. They've enjoyed watching movies or TV with special effects that are computer generated and for the most part can be made to seem really real......so it's not surprising that many of them seem to think it would have been possible to fake the Moon landings using a studio and SFX. Most of them need to sit down and put on a scifi movie that was actually made back then and see just how horrible SFX was back then!

So here I sit, still waiting on someone to actually show me how they faked the Apollo 14 SEQ pendulum, how they faked all the video (with equipment that didn't exist back then), how stars are suppose to be visible in a photo that is not exposed anywhere long enough for star light to show up, and how they were able to fake a single light source (no double shadows) that was able to cover an area that vast with absolutely NO falloff just like the sun does from 93 million miles away.

a reply to: eriktheawful

One big question?

Why are there not photos of the flag available?

Seems like NASA could have sent a drone over to check it out, years ago, if there was really a flag there.
6 missions to the moon, you would think they might take a few snap shots along the way of the flag, especially if people are doubting if there was a moon landing... how hard would it be to take a foto?

There are actually five different flags on the moon. The nations of the United States, The Soviet Union, Japan, China, and India. There is also a flag representing the European Space Agency.

a reply to: dojozen

They have:

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

this again?
i swear every week someone makes this exactly thread saying the exact same thing and they are always proven wrong