Proof of moon landing hoax/Neil Armstrong One Small Step

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by Griffo

 

Well Mr Wise Guy, your post may seem to say it must be true then... However, forget all the trick photography and professionally faked videos... All you need to consider to understand why the trip was faked is a follows;

1. The Van Allen Belt!
2. The technology available at that time
3. The President had committed the US to beat the Russians, yet with the world watching, couldn't risk frying astronauts live on TV.


If you watch ALL the youtube footage, and study all the evidence, it's easy to piece together why this never happened. Think outside of the 'box'.

They never landed and never could have - fact!

I've always thought the best argument was... why haven't we been back?

(Or, does that more support the 'other' theory that we were 'told not to') - which theory are you more crazy for believing? Both?

reply to post by PaR3v

Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked

August 31, 2009 | ISSUE 45•36
A 1969 photo showing Armstrong, or anyone, really, standing on the surface of the "moon."
o.onionstatic.com...




LEBANON, OHIO—Apollo 11 mission commander and famed astronaut Neil Armstrong shocked reporters at a press conference Monday, announcing he had been convinced that his historic first step on the moon was part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the United States government.

According to Armstrong, he was forced to reconsider every single detail of the monumental journey after watching a few persuasive YouTube videos, and reading several blog posts on conspiracy theorist Ralph Coleman's website, OmissionControl.org.

"It only took a few hastily written paragraphs published by this passionate denier of mankind's so-called 'greatest technological achievement' for me to realize I had been living a lie, " said a visibly emotional Armstrong, addressing reporters at his home. "It has become painfully clear to me that on July 20, 1969, the Lunar Module under the control of my crew did not in fact travel 250,000 miles over eight days, touch down on the moon, and perform various experiments, ushering in a new era for humanity. Instead, the entire thing was filmed on a soundstage, most likely in New Mexico."

"This is the only logical interpretation of the numerous inconsistencies in the grainy, 40-year-old footage," Armstrong added:
Although Armstrong said he "could have sworn" he felt the effects of zero gravity while soaring out of the Earth's atmosphere and through space, he now believed his memory must be flawed. He also admitted feeling "ashamed" that he had failed to notice the rippling of the American flag he and Buzz Aldrin planted on the surface, blaming his lack of awareness on the bulkiness of the spacesuit and his excitement about traveling to the "moon."

"That rippling is not possible in the vacuum of space," Armstrong said. "It must have been the wind from an air-conditioning duct that I didn't recognize because you can't hear a damn thing inside those helmets."

"This is all just common sense, people," he added. "It's the moon. You can't land on the moon."

In a symbolic display of his newfound skepticism, Armstrong then grabbed a collection of moon rocks he had kept as souvenirs and dramatically dumped them into a trash can.
One of the main arguments posited on Coleman's website—that America could not, in 1969, have realistically possessed the technological capabilities needed to put a man on the moon—was reportedly one of the first things to cause the legendary astronaut a pang of doubt. Despite having spent thousands of hours training for the historic mission under the guidance of the world's top scientists, technicians, and pilots, Armstrong said he knew the conspiracy theories were true after learning that website author Coleman was "quite the engineering buff."

"Yes, at the time I thought those thousands of NASA employees were working round the clock for the same incredible goal, but if anyone would know what was really going on, it would be Ralph Coleman," Armstrong said of the 31-year-old part-time librarian's assistant. "He knows a lot more about faked moon landings than I ever could. He's been researching the subject on the Internet for years."

"Literally years," he added.

Addressing another inconsistency brought to light by OmissionControl, Armstrong explained he was probably so focused on piloting the lunar module that he failed to notice that one of the moon rocks visible in footage of the landing appears to have the letter 'C' stamped on it. An emotional Armstrong said that the only possible explanation for this detail was that the rock actually came from NASA's prop department.
"They forgot to turn it over," Armstrong said, removing his eyeglasses to wipe away tears. "Those lying bastards at NASA went through all the trouble to fake the moon landing, but they forgot to turn over one little prop rock. And now the whole damn thing's blowing up in their faces."

Although Armstrong initially questioned why the U.S. would attempt such an elaborate cover-up, he cited one overarching explanation provided by Coleman: that it was a ploy to defeat the Soviet Union and fulfill the Illuminati's plan to unify the world's banks and control the dissemination of information.

"Just ask Ralph Coleman," Armstrong said. "He'll answer any questions you have."

To conclude the press conference, Armstrong showed reporters footage of his first steps on the moon to demonstrate that the most daming evidence was "right under our noses." Speeding up the tape and replaying the graceful moonwalk several times in a row, Armstrong explained that the iconic images of humanity's triumphant dance with the cosmos was actually just a film of him walking backwards, slowed down, and played in reverse.

"What other explanation could there be?" Armstrong asked. "It's all right here. Everything is all right here if you'd just open your damn eyes and see!"

Added Armstrong, "I suppose it really was one small step for man, one giant lie for mankind."
www.theonion.com...

MORE: blackhole.xerces.com...
he two men responsible for the design and early operation of the Lunar Landing Research Facility were Donald Hewes (left) and his division chief, William Hewitt Phillips (right).


Hewitt Phillips, a soft-spoken, MIT-educated engineer born in Port Sunlight, England, remembers how the idea for the Lunar Landing Research Facility originated between 1962 and 1963: "Since we knew that the moon's gravity is one-sixth that of the Earth's, we needed to support five-sixths of the vehicle's weight to simulate the actual conditions on the moon."29 Perhaps, some practical method could be devised to lower the apparent weight of a mock-up LEM to its lunar equivalent by a method of suspension using vertical cables attached to a traveling bridge crane.

From this basic notion, the design evolved. A huge gantry structure was built that would dominate Langley's landscape for years to come. Phillips and Hewes wanted the supporting gantry to be even taller, but because of the heavy military air traffic from adjacent Langley AFB, the structure was limited to 200 feet. The completed facility, however, stood 240 feet 6 inches, excluding the top warning lights and antennae. Two long cables provided the desired vertical lifting force equal to five-sixths of the vehicle's weight, thereby opposing the pull of the earth's gravity and simulating the low gravitational force of the moon's surface. The cables were attached to a servo-controlled hoist system in a dolly unit mounted under a traveling bridge; the hoist system was controlled automatically by load cells in each support strut. As the test vehicle moved up and down and back and forth in response to the controlling pilot, the bridge and dolly responded to signals from the vehicle and from cable angle sensors at the top of the cables to....L-69 6324 Langley's Lunar Landing Research Facility, completed in 1965, helped to prepare the Apollo astronauts for the final 150 feet of their lunar landing mission by simulating both the lunar gravity environment and the full-scale LEM vehicle dynamics.


....stay directly over the vehicle at all times and to keep the cables vertical. Because the bridge and dolly system were driven hydraulically, they provided a responsive servo-control system. Moreover, safety features were built into the system to prevent the lunar landing vehicle from crashing or the bridge and the dolly from overrunning their tracks in the event of an equipment malfunction or the pilot exceeding the safety limits of the system.

The lunar landing test vehicle itself could be flown up to about 17 miles per hour within the confines of the overhead structure, which provided a travel range 400 feet long, 50 feet wide, and 180 feet high. The vehicle could also be hoisted to the overhead platform, where two cables connected to the trolley units on the lower horizontal truss structure could catapult the vehicle downward at 35 miles per hour. To make the simulated landings more authentic, Hewes and his men filled the base of the huge eight-legged, red-and white structure with dirt and modeled it to resemble the moon's surface. They erected floodlights at the proper angles to simulate lunar light and installed a black screen at the far end of the gantry to mimic the airless lunar "sky." Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing.
history.nasa.gov...

I swear...the only people who believe the landing was faked are those not intelligent enough to see the proof.

The more refutations and facts they are bombarded with, the more ludicrous the claims get.

Seriously, i think going to the moon was easier than pulling off the hoax they claim happened.

reply to post by awcgs

APOLLO REALITY
How, and where NASA faked the lunar orbit, landing and lift off.
This web page will show how, and where NASA faked the lunar approach, lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar take off, for all the Apollo Moon landing video's. Contrary to what many believe, the sequences were not shot in a desert, Hollywood studio, or Area 51. There may have been the odd picture taken at Area 51, and a few Apollo pictures that were taken in some remote desert, but the majority of stills and video were performed at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. Scientist's at NASA knew in the early 60's that a manned mission to the Moon was impossible within 8 years, and a plan to fake the Moon landings was put into operation.

NASA's fake Moon pictures were taken at various locations such as KSC, JSC, LRC, and of course the odd one or two desert locations. I would also like to point out to that the art of faking both still photographs, and movie film is as old as photography and film itself. The 1930's film "King Kong" showed a huge gorilla scaling up the Empire State building. If it's on film are we led to believe it's real? No of course not, but that is exactly what PAN's, (Pro Apollo Nutters) are claiming. Their ridiculous debunking claim is that digital manipulation of photographs and film was not available back in the 1960's, but they did not have digital artifacts back in 1930 when the film "King Kong" was made. Langley is NASA's space research facility, and staff are sworn to secrecy. All files pertaining to the Apollo (fake Moon missions) are stored there and not due for declassification until 2026. Other artifacts including the burnt out Apollo 7 capsule which killed Grissom, Chaffe and White. They have the facilities to perform anything, fake backgrounds, simulated orbiters etc. First piece of evidence is the large 250 foot traverse crane shown below. Notice fake Moon crater surface created beneath the crane.
This crane was PURPOSELY built in 63/64 to perfect the lunar landing as close as possible to the real thing, and used to suspend both astronauts, and the LM itself. It enabled movement of the astronauts and LM in all directions, i.e., up down, left right, forward and reverse. The trial runs were so good, and with NASA, fully aware that a Moon landing was impossible, opted to use the setup for faking the alleged film of lunar landing, and take off, whereby the flag is blown over.

According to Bobby Braun and other NASA officials the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled LM. However NO ROCKET POWERED LM WAS EVER SUSPENDED FROM THIS CRANE. In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine. If the PAN's disagree, then perhaps they could direct me to a video or film showing how the feat was, or could be accomplished. The landings were controlled purely by traverse and lowering of the LM in the same way as a conventional crane.

Below are more pictures showing mock LM suspended from this crane. In the center (left) picture note the circular objects on the ground floor. The vast expanse of ground area beneath this crane was ideal for creating mock lunar landscapes. In reality the area was covered with gray ash, (possibly from some coal fired power station or boiler house), or plain cement. The circular objects were then raised by crane to create authentic looking Moon craters, as shown later.
www.thelivingmoon.com...

PART TWO
The Studio Moon Set

Still not convinced? Then maybe this NASA archive, dated 26 August 1969, and copied word for word, will change your mind. It relates to Donald Hewes, who oversaw operations/filming with the fake landing and take off. Read it, then think hard about it. Why were NASA phaffing around with fake lunar landscapes, one month AFTER Armstrong supposedly pulled it off for real? Answer, to make the fake film look ever more realistic, when future, higher quality images were broadcast to an already gullible audience.
www.thelivingmoon.com...

[ Now all I know is I don`t believe they landed on the moon and I don`t really care if anyone calls me a nut, this is info for you to decide. These story`s and pics have been out there for years. You decide what is right for you and we all can get something done bye maybe finding the truth in what our hearts might feel. This is a place to discuss our differences, not a place to trash someones opinion. debate is good, but to totally call someone stupid or mindless is not only wrong but it is destructive to all that practice it. we all are wrong sometimes like me and most of the time none of us know what the hell were talking about. I don`t to know everything but I take in all I can so in the end I can make a decision based on my thought, and you all give me info that is good weather it is wrong or wright. hope my info helped someone out there. Peace.]


www.thelivingmoon.com...

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability

Never claimed to be intelligent, unlike you, I have the ability to keep an open mind. Remember some people thought the earth was flat, maybe some day we will find out something everyone seams to think is the truth, and it will a lie.
Peace

reply to post by Griffo


oh ok.. then one of those fine establishments should have the original tapes of the most amazing achievement of mankind ..

ya know.. what we saw on TV?

At a press conference yesterday the space agency admitted that it misplaced/erased/"degaussed"/destroyed in a ritualistic bonfire the most high-quality footage of the moon landing. To make up for that the tragic loss they've assembled a fancy, expensive ($230,000) reconstruction of the event using all the other footage of the event left in their archives.

and still after all these years can not go back to the moon?

are there not any brave men & women willing to take a ride in a tin can to the moon?

I know I would..

Hey Aug 26, my Birthday .
Ok, I believe the Moon Landings were real...But with a difference.
I vividly remember the late 1969 magazines and glossy library books published, showing exquisite perfectly clear images of astronauts and surrounds, the gold lined LM etc, all taken with a wobbly Hasselbad, stuck on the chests of a thick spacesuit, used by bulky gloved hands.....even as a 10 year old i was perplexed.
Clearly , to me for a long time now, Is that those "Special" photographs were made in an artificial Posed environment, eg a studio. Clearly for the 2 hours or whatever they had on the surface, they didnt have time to setup a perfect image, which may have taken 15 minutes and 30 shots to get right. Tho It may have been a fluke.
Also, were are told the Saturn 5 rocket had to achieve a speed of 30 or 40 thousand mph to escape Earth's gravity, Yet we know the Modules only travelled at 2000mph or so, Could someone please explain why they slowed the module down, by up to 38 thousand mph, to achieve the snails pace to the moon? Did they use that big rocket attatched to the command module, to slow right down? Why not slow down as they got close to the moon?
Also re: the above "Actual" film of the "first step" in the first post, did anyone else notice the Bag? or something floating behind the LM at 18-21 seconds??, was Buzz lowering something out the window at the back? Anyone know?.
I recently watch a TV program called "Selling the Moon" or something. About mining the moon for Helium 3 etc.
They showed other moon walks from Later Apollos, with buggies etc. One shot was interesting. They showed astronauts tipping soil into bags with claw things. In one scene, It was Unmistakable and remarkable!!.....As a astronaut was filling a bag, you could clearly...I mean CLEARLY see his face behind the visor of the helmet, as if the visor was clear!!!???
For years and years, havent we been told how the Sun is SO bright and Hot on the Moon, that we would burn up if exposed, and the astros had to use gold reflective Polaroid lenses or they would be blinded by the light etc etc etc. The Film clearly debunks that idea. His face was as plain as day, behind the visor, and he wasnt in the shadow, but fully in the open.
OR perhaps...The Moon is really not as Hostile as we are led to believe?

reply to post by knowneedtoknow


Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage

NASA Administrator James Webb speaking with JFK on November of 1962:

Webb told Kennedy that NASA scientists still had grave doubts about the survivability of a moon landing. "We don't know anything about the surface of the moon," he states, going on to suggest that only through a careful, comprehensive and scientific approach to manned exploration could the U.S. gain "pre-eminence in space."

usgovinfo.about.com...

Strangely enough, Webb was replaced as NASA Administrator nine months prior to the Apollo 11 mission in 1969. This is rather odd because Webb was pretty much responsible for overseeing and securing funding for the Apollo program from the start. In essence, the moon landing program was his baby.

Apparently, Webb left NASA because he was made the scapegoat for the Apollo 1 fire on January 1967, where three astronauts perished. What is interesting is that Webb was replaced as NASA administrator 19 months after the accident, which is quite a long time to wait to scapegoat someone. Another reason given was new President Richard Nixon wanted him replaced when he was elected and entered office in 1968.

Was Webb replaced because he would not go along with the NASA moon landing hoax? Was he one of the few people at NASA with a conscience? Was the idea to fake the moon landings initially brought forth by the Richard "I Am Not A Crook" Nixon administration? Since ALL the alleged moon landings occurred under the Nixon administration, this is not a far fetched idea.

As you may recall, Nixon intensified the war effort in Vietnam and there were major war protests happening at home. He obviously needed a big time distraction and a patriotic moment so he could continue bombing the hell out of Southeast Asia. What better distraction than a moon landing to get people's minds off the war and remind them what a great country America was.

In summary, was faking the moon landings against the values of a president who was involved in a tremendous amount of criminal activity and was the only American President who was forced to step down from office? Once you put everything into historic perspective, things start to become a little clearer.

Oh and one more thing: remember JFK's brother Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick? The date of his "accident" was July 18, 1969. The date of the Apollo 11 launch was July 16, 1969 with the astronauts reaching the moon on July 20th. Of course, these coinciding dates may be nothing more than one of the many darn "coincidences" which American politics has been filled with over the years.

reply to post by nwdogg1982


Wow, that simple heh??!!! Lets all build one and go.

reply to post by nwdogg1982


I've never heard or seen him say about actually walking on the moon. He always avoids that statement and seems to refer to 'going to the moon' Equally, he never sounds amazed and excited, always a bit guarded.

Ever wondered what threat he was under to keep his mouth shut... If your family is under threat, you ain't exactly gonna blab about it being fake, aside of the big pay cheque. Why has he been a recluse for so long?

reply to post by awcgs

I honestly do not know if you are being serious or not, so I will continue this comment under the impression that you are being serious. I did not read hardly any of your comment, and do not need to, because I know what 'The Onion' is.

Do you know what 'The Onion' is? The Onion is for entertainment purposes, and not for purposes of facts. They do not care if it is a fact or if it is complete nonsense. All they care about is, 'is it entertaining?' It is a news satire. A spoof. i.e. it is not real.

As a simple comparison-
The Onion compares to real news, in the same way that a 'Mockumentary' movie compares to a real Documentary.

the fact we don't have some sort of colony there right now makes me wonder. and don't say it's a money problem because if they wanted to we could go beyond.

reply to post by Argyll


Where's your evidence they tracked it etc?

They flew in orbit of the moon, but never landed!

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability


Oh dear, you are so off the mark here, and you have the intelligence to suggest faking it would be harder than actually going and landing on the moon! I have to question that intelligence my friend.

Don't forget 9/11 - We ALL know it was an inside job, but it still gets ignored by the MSM, and thats with all the technology we have today, and all the mobile phone cameras and witnesses.

Who witnessed the moon landing? Faking would have been pretty easy in my book.

Originally posted by ckitch
They flew in orbit of the moon, but never landed!

Wait, so why didn't they land again? If it wasn't the Van Allen belts, the technology or the solar radiation, why the heck wouldn't they land?

Sounds like you've painted yourself into a corner.

Also many congratulations to the poster above who quoted the onion as an official source. A nice example of how little research some posters do as they assume they are correct.

reply to post by awcgs


Awesome post!! Brilliant! - Suck on that all you believers, for I find you will have nowhere to go now.

(-:

reply to post by awcgs

The 1930's film "King Kong" showed a huge gorilla scaling up the Empire State building. If it's on film are we led to believe it's real? No of course not, but that is exactly what PAN's, (Pro Apollo Nutters) are claiming. Their ridiculous debunking claim is that digital manipulation of photographs and film was not available back in the 1960's, but they did not have digital artifacts back in 1930 when the film "King Kong" was made.

What you're saying is that you find this completely realistic:

Langley is NASA's space research facility, and staff are sworn to secrecy. All files pertaining to the Apollo (fake Moon missions) are stored there and not due for declassification until 2026.

NASA has dozens of research facilities besides Langley. The rest of this statement you obviously just made up.

First piece of evidence is the large 250 foot traverse crane shown below. Notice fake Moon crater surface created beneath the crane.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fed86a9d1087.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02aeb3e346b0.jpg[/atsimg]

Yes, that is about as convincing as the giant gorilla. The source you cite ends with this disclaimer:

This work was created by an unknown Author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Pegasus R.C or its members.

The Living Moon

The original website is here:
Apollo Reality

This site is hilarious. It consists of photographs of various training simulators, claiming these as proof that the missions were "faked."

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by awcgs

 

Awesome post!! Brilliant! - Suck on that all you believers, for I find you will have nowhere to go now.

You realise that he's quoting a parody news source? It's extremely explicitly supposed to be stupid and silly and unbelievable by anyone. They're talking about convincing neil armstrong he did not land on the moon and you are going ahead and believing it?

Really, did you even bother to read the whole post? Are you going to read it now?

reply to post by ckitch

Awesome post!! Brilliant! - Suck on that all you believers, for I find you will have nowhere to go now.

First, check out the source of the article: The Onion. Then, go sit in the corner and think about what you did.