Did those who faked the moon photos make intentional errors?

I'm sorry, I was originally intending to post my thread directly in this window, but it was too long to hold in this window (and I don't want to shorten it).

So instead, I have uploaded the thread on my site, and I give a link to that thread.

www.angelfire.com...

you have got to be kidding right? I mean seriously...That has got to be the lamest "proof" site ever. You seriously don't think for instance that a jeep wrangler was hauled to the moon do you? You do realise we can tell you are spamming to get us to go to your site. at least have something believable for us when we get there.

I thought it was pretty interesting...

...But - Kubrick? No way man.

Nice post and some very nice pictures and explanations.

I think you are correct in your questioning but I am in too minds as to the point that they are hints.

I think with the advancement in technology and media, we are more educated to spot the mistakes!!

Good job

reply to post by uncommon-sense


But who said that?
The pictures were shot in a studio on earth.
But those who were in charge for faking the pictures didn't play the game like the NASA wanted them to, and made intentional errors to show people the photos were faked.
The photos were faked on earth because they couldn't be taken on the moon for technical reasons.
Do you also believe the astronauts would have endangered their lives by fooling around on the moon.
If their suit was torn, that was meaning death for them.
On earth, no danger, they could play as much as they wanted without danger.
And who proves you it's possible to plant the flag into the moon's ground? The photos of surveyor show a rocky ground; try to plant a flag into a rocky ground!
All the arguments I gave in my thread are good, whether you accept them or not.
Of course, suspecting Kubrik, is just a supposition, I have no proof, but the NASA financed his film "2001, a spece Odyssey", why?
Didn't the NASA think she was owing something to Kubrik?





[edit on 7-6-2009 by InquisitiveGuy]

reply to post by Irish Matador



In fact, we don't need much technology to spot the errors, they are quite simple.
If the errors went unnoticed for quite a time, it's because nobody thought they could have been faked, and nobody thought to inspect the photos closely.
Myself, I had seen the photos, and I hadn't suspected anything in the time.
Now that I know there are errors, they jump to my eyes.
They seem so obvious.
I'm sure that there exists plenty of other incoherences which are still to be found.
I think that the ones who made the errors knew that there would be some time before people would start to see them.

Nice photo's got me thinking except....JEEP? JEEP? Where did you get the picture of the jeep onthe mooon?

Kubrik said:

"If you can talk brilliantly about a problem, it can create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered. "

That's what the moon photos did: By showing astronauts planting the flag with easiness, jumping like grasshoppers, it created the illusion that the moon conquest was a trivial thing, what it was not.
The Americans were not in fact mastering the moon conquest as easily as what they were showing to the American public, it was powder to their eyes.
It was just illusion, and Kubrik was the master of illusion.

Kubrik also said:

"The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle."

The American government knew the power of image.
The fact that what he was showing was not the truth was unimportant for the American government, what only counted is what the government was wanting people to believe through the communication he was releasing to them.

reply to post by InquisitiveGuy


Couple of items... missing lem? The camera is closer to the hills in the back ground. Lem is behind the camera. Rover tracks coming out of a rock? The tracks show the rover tire turning to the left and rolling over three rocks. You can clearly see the diameter of the wheel allows for this motion and track. Could go on but...

We went to the moon. More than once. Yes the human mind is that good.

reply to post by amazing



Well, for the Jeep, I must admit I took a photo on the Net without checking.
(Which proves how easy it is to fool someone).
It's a photoshop made by someone.
I have corrected.
Concerning the first photo of the lunar "mountains" with the LEM before (which disappears on another view), it really exists, or rather it really existed:
Here is its context:

commons.wikimedia.org...:Apollo_15_LM_EVA3.jpg

It refers to a photo which once existed, but does not exist any more.
I have proven that this photo cannot be extracted from the photo which has replaced it and is known under the reference :AS15-82-11057
Isn't it strange?
The adress of the original photo was:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
This link does not exist any more.
The photo has been replaced with another one, which has a different luminosity, covers a little more landscape although it has been taken from the same place as the footprints in the immediate foreground testify.
Don't you find this strange?




[edit on 7-6-2009 by InquisitiveGuy]

See all these versions of the photo reference: AS15-82-11057, I have googled:

images.jsc.nasa.gov...

jaycut.com...

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

commons.wikimedia.org...:AS15-82-11057.jpg

images.jsc.nasa.gov...

Which one is the good one?
If you want my opinion, the whole thing is a joke.

It seems that the fakers took plenty of shots of the scene known as "AS15_82-11057" with different zooms and conditions of luminosity, and that the NASA picks among these shots and hesitates about which one characterizes best this scene that believers will believe it has really been taken on the moon.

There is a "documentary" already out that speculates on kubricks involvement with the moon landing vids... Its called Dark side of the moon... its a good watch and makes one think a little...



[edit on 6-7-2009 by IronDogg]

If you want my opinion, it happened that way:
The fakers started photographing the scene with the big projector alone lighting the scene.
But the luminosity was not good, so they added an additional projector, the one you can see above (and that the NASA says it's just a reflection in the camera).
They then got a better luminosity, more "natural"; they also changed the zoom to get a little more landscape.
What do you say?
For me, it stands for reason!
The NASA can always try to give fancy explanations, I don't swallow them.


Notice something very interesting:
Look on the GIF I made (which I made to prove the first photo was not a sub-set of the second one): The additional projector of the second photo is outside the field of the first photo; if the fakers had not changed the zoom, the additional projector would not be visible on the second photo; by changing the zoom, they made it visible, and gave a hint that the luminosity had been artificially modified, which could have gone unnoticed otherwise.
Meditate about that!
A new piece of evidence about the fact that the fakers intended to show that the photos were faked!


[edit on 7-6-2009 by InquisitiveGuy]

[edit on 7-6-2009 by InquisitiveGuy]

I'm more and more convinced that there are still plenty of things to discover in the Apollo Journal.
The fakers have hidden plenty of other hints for us to discover.
Who wants to play the game?

About Kubrik, I can't help thinking about him.
The fact of adding the additional projector to change the luminosity, but also changing the zoom to catch this projector on the photo is really shrewd.
Somebody like Kubrik would be able to pull something like this off.
Is this kubrik's game?



[edit on 7-6-2009 by InquisitiveGuy]

OK, I now know the complete scenario:
Kubrik positioned the big projector in such a way that he knew the scene would be badly lit; we see that strange luminosity.
So Kubrik said: We are going to add a new additional projector to get a better luminosity.
What was done.
But before taking a new shot, Kubrik changed the zoom so that he would get the additional projector on the photo...and he screwed the NASA!
LOL!


Thank you, Mr Kubrik; without you, the moon hoax wouldn't exist.
This is fully your style.


[edit on 7-6-2009 by InquisitiveGuy]

NASA installed a lunar ranging system which measures the distance from the moon to earth and alot of other intresting things about the moon we would not know unless this device was installed on the moon.

You can read about it here. NASA on the moon

Please read the entire article. It's the end game for non-beleivers. Thank you and enjoy!!

reply to post by Darth Logan



I didn't say men didn't land on the moon.
What I'm saying is that the American government wanted to give a fancy vision of what happened on the moon, not the reality.
I know about the lunar reflectors; Russians also managed to put theirs with unmanned missions; it is said that the American ones are better oriented, so they would have been oriented by man's hand.
May be.
But the American government wanted to give an idyllic version of what happened on the moon.
The lunar ground is too rocky for a flag to be planted into?
It's too dangerous to make the astronauts jump like grasshoppers for the delight of American public, because they might fatally rip their suit?
Never mind, we then fake it on earth.
The main thing is to give to the public what he wants: Dream!
What's funny is that the NASA trusted fakers who betrayed her.

See that link:

books.google.fr... pP3p&sig=DYvMv96ukFv-aON5v8CEafCs7yQ&hl=fr&ei=FxMtSvTKL5-UjAeDsvn9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA210,M1

Well, the link doesn't seem to work on this forum (as many other links), but it's a link to the book:

"ONE SMALL STEP

The great moon hoax and the race to dominate earth from space".


And here is an excerpt of it:

"And it it were possible to take accurate aim at those reflectors, would this prove that manned Apollo spacecraft had landed on the moon? Not really, since setting up a reflector does not require a manned landing. Any unmanned lunar module could do the job just as well. Moreover, one would have to ascertain whether the Americans were the only ones who had set up reflectors on the moon. But they were not. The soviets also claim to have installed laser reflectors there, with Luna 17 (launch November 1970) and Luna 21 (Launch January 8th 1973).
Anyway, why would the Soviets want to put a laser reflector on the moon's surface in November 1970 when the Apollo crew had already done so? A passive instrument like that, which basically functions like a mirror, can be used by anyone. The reflector couldn't care less whether it finds itself reflecting an American or a Soviet Laser beam. So the Soviets might as well saved on payload weight. But no, even after the Americans claimed that Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 had left two more laser reflectors, the Soviets, not to be outdone, sent yet another one to the moon with Luna 21. But, of course, there is no law against paving the whole of moon's surface with reflectors."

Originally posted by InquisitiveGuy
"ONE SMALL STEP

The great moon hoax and the race to dominate earth from space".

Gee, this doesn't sound biased at all... lol

Any unmanned lunar module could do the job just as well.

Any unmanned lunar module can setup a retroreflector? Really? It's my understanding that only the soviet lunokhud probes had that capability. And just as well? Let's see about that...

Moreover, one would have to ascertain whether the Americans were the only ones who had set up reflectors on the moon. But they were not. The soviets also claim to have installed laser reflectors there, with Luna 17 (launch November 1970) and Luna 21 (Launch January 8th 1973).

Lunokhud 1 (Luna 17) carried a retroreflector, but it fails to return a signal, probably due to a failure in its alignment system - bet your book didn't mention that part. Lunokhud 2 also carried a retroreflector, but its signal is weaker despite bigger reflecting cubes due to poor alignment compared to the man-placed apollo reflectors:
www.spacetoday.org...
So the notion that unmanned probes can do it "just as well" is complete nonsense in every aspect.

Anyway, why would the Soviets want to put a laser reflector on the moon's surface in November 1970 when the Apollo crew had already done so?

For the same reason that apollo 15 carried a retroreflector after apollo 11 had already long since succeeded. Both Apollo 15 and Lunokhud carried larger reflectors, which in theory should generate a larger return and a better signal to noise ratio. Additionally, the lunar terrain is not flat, so it's no doubt helpful to have reflectors in multiple locations so that you can use all of them to find the true distance to the moon instead of just the distance to a given piece of topography.

But no, even after the Americans claimed that Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 had left two more laser reflectors

Indeed they did, and they can still be pinged today.