Lunar Landings are fake

reply to post by zorgon


One more to the collection:

ATS

This provocative and insightful film is the first in a series of documentaries that will reveal the secret knowledge embedded in the work of the greatest filmmaker of all time: Stanley Kubrick. This famed movie director who made films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, placed symbols and hidden anecdotes into his films that tell a far different story than the films appeared to be saying.

In Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick's film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Called by Wired Magazine an "erudite conspiracy hunter", Jay Weidner is a renowned author and filmmaker. He is the producer of the documentary films, 2012 The Odyssey, its sequel Timewave 2013, and director of the feature documentary, Infinity: The Ultimate Trip. Jay has been featured in the History Channel's documentaries, The Lost Book of Nostradamus, and Nostradamus 2012, for which he was associate producer. He was also featured in Trutv's, Conspiracy Theory, hosted by Jesse Ventura. .

"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers."

–Neil Armstrong, "First Man on the Moon"

July 20th, 1994

I "love that fake backgrounds

This is a really good read:

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings

Originally posted by Illustronic
People should read more real science than simple fact altering conspiracy sites

Why do debunkers always seem to think that quoting main stream science will carry weight on a conspiracy site?

If one believes that main stream sources are lying or covering up the truth, why would anyone think using them to back an argument would work?

Joe: NASA lies

Charlie: No NASA tells the truth... see here... they say so...

Jim O: Yeah NASA is not hiding anything.. I know I work for them

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Illustronic
People should read more real science than simple fact altering conspiracy sites

Why do debunkers always seem to think that quoting main stream science will carry weight on a conspiracy site?

If one believes that main stream sources are lying or covering up the truth, why would anyone think using them to back an argument would work?

Joe: NASA lies

Charlie: No NASA tells the truth... see here... they say so...

Jim O: Yeah NASA is not hiding anything.. I know I work for them

edit on 25-6-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

This is because they think if they cite mainstream science quotes, this will give some credibility to what they say

reply to post by zorgon

Sunset and sunrise rays, or Crepuscular rays, are seen on Earth because of dust in the atmosphere. They have also been seen on the Moon since Surveyor and even from Apollonots from orbit..

The distinguishing characteristic of Transient Lunar Phenomena is that they are transient. "Lunar fountains" occur along the terminator and then settle down. You wouldn't expect to see a raging dust-storm at a landing sight chosen to be at local mid-morning, would you? And you yourself are aware that the astronauts observed some from lunar orbit. Now here';s an interesting detail that Moon Hoax believers overlook or misinterpret: lunar dust covers the astronauts' space-suits. That can be accounted for by simple mechanical means, ie; jagged dust particles physically "hooking on" to nylon fibers. But what about the dust that can sometimes be seen clinging to the smooth glass camera lenses? I'm sure you're familiar with this infamous photo:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/28fa836bf218.jpg[/atsimg]
AS12-46-6818

Doesn't that blue blossoming suggest dust clinging electrostatically to the lens? Do you have an alternatice explanation?

Originally posted by DJW001 Do you have an alternatice explanation?

Oh yeah that glowing astronaut... yeah I have an alternative explanation... somewhere. It was on NASA's journal but I will have to go back and dig it up. As I recall NASA had difficulty explaining that glow that showed up in several pictures then disappeared

I will find it later

Pete took this partial pan from the southeast rim of Middle Crescent just before he and Al headed back for the LM. The frames are AS12-46- 6836 to 6844. Note the strong colors at the center of the righthand frames. Examination of successive frames indicate that this related to the camera lens, very likely a dust smudge. Kipp Teague notes "The lens aberration begins at as12-46-6813. It's a blue glow around the astronaut in 6818, again in 6826, a discoloration in other frames, affecting clarity in most, and it's not gone again until 6853 (back in the LM). Whatever the phenomenon is, it has a varying impact on color based on the brightness of the central object in the image. On bright subjects, the aberration adds a blue cast, and on darker subjects, the aberration adds a reddish cast." I note that it also seems to vary with sun angle. Assembly by Dave Byrne.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

So NASA is not sure what is causing it... and Kip only assumes dust... but the 'dust' seems to come and go in different frames

Discussed way back on John Lear's Moon thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The OP's video focuses on the astronauts reaction when confronted by an interviewer to the fact the moon landings were fake.

If the intent was to prove the astronauts lies, it fails with me. Each have different reactions depending on their personality but each have credible reactions, credible arguments, credible (and I think legitimate) critics on the way the interviewer is conducting his work.
The interviewer invariably looks like an ass with each astronaut.

It's so bad and awkward the paranoid side of me thinks it's a perfect vid to discredit the 'Lunar landings are fake' side.

Originally posted by Manouche
It's so bad and awkward the paranoid side of me thinks it's a perfect vid to discredit the 'Lunar landings are fake' side.

Oh wow... what a thought... you just might be right

this is funny to say the least

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Illustronic
People should read more real science than simple fact altering conspiracy sites

Why do debunkers always seem to think that quoting main stream science will carry weight on a conspiracy site?

If one believes that main stream sources are lying or covering up the truth, why would anyone think using them to back an argument would work?

Joe: NASA lies

Charlie: No NASA tells the truth... see here... they say so...

Jim O: Yeah NASA is not hiding anything.. I know I work for them

edit on 25-6-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

To answer your question, because reasonable persons use reason.

Scholars use sources, not their opinion, and they quickly learn which sources are worthy of trust based upon experience, then allow their opinions to be shaped by the research of the sources they trust-- often requiring them to give up their dear personal opinion in whole or in part in light of evidence which they trust.

So our government either hired the best rocket scientists, engineers, technicians and pilots or they hired henchman. Since the persons are not unknowns, we have, in that alone, a huge problem that must be confronted by conspiracy theorists. We have scholars and professionals, known and trusted by others scholars. On the other hand we have the extra-terrestrial cover-up enthusiasts, filled with passion and who are pointing to un-sourced blogs whose authors are rarely even known.

So, that is why these "debunkers" point to scientists.

The conspiracy theorist, having none to point to, and no real world experience relevant to the issue (as in, don't know any NASA scientists, have no familiarity with contractors who were part of it, never met an astronaut, never sought technical information only to learn that it not only existed, but was available-, never attended a lecture by NASA scientists, has never been so much as to a museum, and so on) from which to gauge reality in a sophisticated way, resorts to demonizing anyone who DOES have that incalculably vast support or evidence and reason.

All this discussion, and all the bickering-- because someone sees a pinpoint of light on a NASA film-- not a flying saucer, with little green men waving out the window-- but pinpoints of light-- and IT MUST BE EXTRATERRESTRIALS and therefore (ergo, it follows, thus, logically produces...) that everyone who doesn't see it that way is a part of the cover-up and so worthy of wrath? Really?

So, would it not have been easier to say that we knew that no biological contaminate was on the moon rather than put our astronauts in that confinement vehicle for so long after their return, if all they had returned from was a studio on earth? The answer is in the mountain of details.

Buzz Aldrin takes communion (consecrated Bread and Wine) with him to the moon. NASA, in trouble because of the Apollo VIII reading from Genesis on Christmas Eve, has radio silence so as not to offend anyone while Buzz is in prayer.. That is a very sophisticated detail for a cover story. From the point of view of the astronaut as well as many like me-- that is an incredibly profound detail for our government to have dreamed up.

The computer memory overload; the extra fuel consumed looking for a landing site, when the original was found to have had boulders-- those well known details do not suggest a work of fiction-- they complicate-- and one risks inadvertent inconsistencies showing up by any scripted deviation from the expected-- why risk that?

The Apollo XIII mission-- to what end do we fake a failure to land on the moon if the landing was faked anyway?

Again, it is the available details which suggest the truth of the landings, not blogs written by anonymous enthusiasts.

Originally posted by zorgon

Why do debunkers always seem to think that quoting main stream science will carry weight on a conspiracy site?

It is also a good way to bulk up one's posts and make one look more clever than one actually is.

The people see a series of chubby posts and they think 'that guy is smart and stuff. Look at his research, he is an internet god.'

And since most people don't follow links or know about post-bulking, this can be used to great effect.

*Anyhow,

I'll just slip this in here....

...People say the soviets would have blow the whistle if it was hoaxed. This is not true. How could they? All they would be able to offer the world is words, no video or images.

The soviets didn't have any of their own images of the lunar lander hardware on the surface. There aren't any such images. This means that the soviets weren't even in a position to offer photographic proof that we DID go, let alone blow the whistle and claim we didn't.

The only source for images of the lunar landing hardware comes from the prime suspect in the hoax theory: NASA.

Let's just say some Communist did end up on Cronkite and did claim that we didn't go, but all he has to offer is the sheet of numbers which you cannot read and which could be easily be made up. He'd make his country look like a bunch of sore losers while Cronkite laughed at him and the producers cut his mike.

And even if the Soviets did produce an image of the empty landing sites, good patriotic Americans like me would have said that they "obviously took it before the landing... "

reply to post by Exuberant1

People say the soviets would have blow the whistle if it was hoaxed. This is not true. How could they? All they would be able to offer the world is words, no video or images.

If the lunar landing was a hoax, all of the film, video and photographs would need to be staged. This would involve a large facility and produce a great number of "out-takes." The KGB was able to infiltrate the Manhattan Project. Scientists provided the Soviet Union with intelligence out of purely ideological motivations. Think how easy it would have been for the KGB simply to purchase back-stage photos, out-takes and other physical evidence of NASA's duplicity. No such evidence has ever surfaced. The Soviets didn't blow the whistle because there was no whistle to blow.

Originally posted by DJW001
The Soviets didn't blow the whistle because there was no whistle to blow

There are no Soviet images of the landers or empty landing sites.

They couldn't even offer their own photos proving we went, let alone we didn't.

The Soviets were not in a position to blow the whistle - not without image data to back up their far-fetched and highly disbelievable communist claim.

reply to post by solid007


Different perspective.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Ummmm Pretty sure That has already been debunked here:

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Just skim through the thread. You'll find it.


Seriously, have a look at the thread: Almost everything to do with the moon hoax is in there somewhere.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Ummmm Pretty sure That has already been debunked here:

And the debunking was thoroughly debunked.

reply to post by DJW001


And there is a video debunking the debunking of the debunking.

So be sure to mention that.

reply to post by Exuberant1

And there is a video debunking the debunking of the debunking.

So be sure to mention that.

Only if you mention the debunking of the debunking of the debunking of the debunking of the debunking....

I still think the up/down motions of the rover seam suspicious.

I wonder how they adjusted the front wheel suspension to make the front wheel bounce up and down so fast.

And the moon dust that the rover spins up does not have a perfect ballistic trajectory in a vacuum with 1,662g.

Originally posted by Manouche
The OP's video focuses on the astronauts reaction when confronted by an interviewer to the fact the moon landings were fake.

If the intent was to prove the astronauts lies, it fails with me. Each have different reactions depending on their personality but each have credible reactions, credible arguments, credible (and I think legitimate) critics on the way the interviewer is conducting his work.
The interviewer invariably looks like an ass with each astronaut.

It's so bad and awkward the paranoid side of me thinks it's a perfect vid to discredit the 'Lunar landings are fake' side.

Personally i think the person being interviewed in the OP's video had big problems explaining a lot of the questions being asked.
You could also see on his facial expression that he was having a hard time coping with some of the questions.

reply to post by spy66

And the moon dust that the rover spins up does not have a perfect ballistic trajectory in a vacuum with 1,662g.

Could you please illustrate this word salad for us? A diagram, anything?