Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Rob48

Russia couldn't manage to put a tiny metal sphere in orbit in the 1950s without the world noticing. You really think the USA could launch a whole weather satellite at the height of the moon race without anyone noticing?

That's because it was a huge technological acheivement. Worth bragging about and using as propaganda to fuel the "space race"

In July 1969 there were, I believe, only two geosynchronous weather satellites in operation: ATS-1 and ATS-3. (ATS-2, in case you were wondering, failed to reach its orbit.) Neither of them was in the right place to take the images shown in the Apollo 11 broadcast. The nearest one to having the correct orientation was ATS-3, which was centred over South America.

Boy, that picture looks a lot like something that could be faked as "live" coverage of the Earth from 130k out (with some zoom alterations done). Are you here to go on the record that no country has a secret satellite up there? None - no military satellite up there that the public doesn't know about. In the 1960s this would be relatively easy and you know it. But, it puts your "little gem" in jeopardy so you better just deny it.

Yes, I realize that is a different position than the NASA Apollo footage (ATS photo). But, it's kind of funny, the little cut scenes right before they look out the window EVERY SINGLE TIME. I can figure out how to fake it, numerous ways - somehow you brilliant SOBs can't. Mysterious...

a reply to: cestrup
Cut scenes, really? What about Sibrel's "smoking gun" then? It is one shot going from the earth out of the window then pulling back inside the cabin to reveal the floodlight on the interior wall, and then it remains one shot as the camera f-stop is altered and the cabin interior becomes visible. No cut: one continuous shot from 30:17 in that video right through to a close-up of Collins in the cabin and continuing for a long period after.

Why do you believe all Apollo evidence could be fakes, even though you have no evidence for it, but it doesn't bother you that all the hoax merchants' evidence is fake and/or based on simple errors?

What is it about landing on the moon that so offends you that you have to go to such extraordinary lengths to deny it?

a reply to: Rob48



Smoke and mirrors, Robbie! How many times did it go black during that scene??? You know how easy it is to go black, for even half a second and then cut with no spatial differences noticed? I explained this earlier, big guy.

Also, I'm basing this off of the video Mr. Monkey posted. I agree with you that Sibrel was exaggerating his claims. Of which, I wouldn't have known without your assistence.

a reply to: Rob48

What is it about landing on the moon that so offends you that you have to go to such extraordinary lengths to deny it?

This is an interesting question. Nothing offends me really. I just don't believe we went to the moon due to these factors:

Nobody has been into VAB since
I don't believe the technoolgy was there
The footage is just slowed down
1/6 gravity was not properly portrayed by the astronauts
Photo anamolies
Nobody else has been to the moon or even close
How easy it is to fake
Footprints
No tracks with Rover pics
No good pictures of landing site
How silly the LEM looked
The fact they can't land a rocket-propelled craft today with much better tech
Lost tapes
How hard it would be to get back to earth can connect with orbiter
The lengths people go to defend this topic on every site
Natzis
Motivation to fake
That rover was what? $80M - wtf??
The beautiful blue hue that pours into the windows (smoking gun, boy!!!!!) when they're 130k out
oh, and so much more

See, I don't just base this on nothing. I'm literally not offended at all. If I'm wrong, sweet - we went to the moon! I have my reasons and I think NASA is using "science" which they control the parameters for, to dupe really smart people because the fact remains - NOBODY HAS BEEN CLOSE SINCE

originally posted by: cestrup

Boy, that picture looks a lot like something that could be faked as "live" coverage of the Earth from 130k out (with some zoom alterations done). Are you here to go on the record that no country has a secret satellite up there? None - no military satellite up there that the public doesn't know about. In the 1960s this would be relatively easy and you know it. But, it puts your "little gem" in jeopardy so you better just deny it.

Yes, I realize that is a different position than the NASA Apollo footage (ATS photo). But, it's kind of funny, the little cut scenes right before they look out the window EVERY SINGLE TIME. I can figure out how to fake it, numerous ways - somehow you brilliant SOBs can't. Mysterious...

you are being dishonest again..

already told you the footage had a dynamic coloured earth..

that satellite image is a still, black and white image..

a still image cannot produce a gif with changing terminator and changing clouds patterns..

originally posted by: cestrup
1/6 gravity was not properly portrayed by the astronauts
Natzis

im going to focus on these two because you are obviously just parroting other posters..

how can you possibly say 1/6g was not properly portrayed by the astronauts after saying this:

See, a bunch of smart minds get together to try and deceive many. So it ABSOLUTELY HAS to look authentic or it's a giant fail.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

lunar gravity is about 1.62m/s^2, so mathematically if an object fall from a height of 43.7cm it will take about 0.734seconds to hit the ground on the lunar surface..

0.437 = 0.5 x 1.62 x t^2
t^2 = (0.437 x 2) / 1.62
t = 0.54^0.5
t = 0.734 seconds

so which is it?? did the astronaut portray lunar gravity accurately or not?

and secondly nazis?? what does being a nazi have to do with not being able to reach the moon?? are you also trying to suggest nazi's or germans in general have extremely poor engineering skills that by just mentioning the term is evidence of a hoax??

originally posted by: cestrup

Nobody has been into VAB since

Nobody has been beyond them. This does not mean it is impossible.

I don't believe the technoolgy was there

And? Disbelief is not proof. At a basic level the technology is still in use today. How do you think lunar, or martian or any other probe gets there? The Russians were on Venus in 1970.

The footage is just slowed down

No it isn't. The astronauts do not move in slow motion. Prove otherwise.

1/6 gravity was not properly portrayed by the astronauts

Yes it was. Prove otherwsie.

Photo anamolies

These anomalies are only ever pointed out by people who don 't understand photography, or the lunar environment, or both.
Calling something an anomaly usually means "I don't understand it", not "there is something wrong here". Calling something an anomaly does not mean there is one there.

Nobody else has been to the moon or even close

This does not mean it is impossible.

How easy it is to fake

It would actually be more difficult to fake. Even with 21st century CGI it is very difficult to get gravity and the motion of objects correct. It would not have been possible to produce hours of continuous footage simulating lunar gravity then. Particularly when they end up showing features that no-one knew about.

Footprints

Wtf is that supposed to mean? Be specific.

No tracks with Rover pics

Not true.

No good pictures of landing site

There are plenty. If they don't meet your exacting standards go complain to someone. The best pictures of the landing sites ere taken on the lunar surface by astronauts.

How silly the LEM looked

Oh well that just clinches it. It was functional, not beautiful. It didn't need to be aerodynamic.

The fact they can't land a rocket-propelled craft today with much better tech

Tell that to the Chinese.

Lost tapes

Some tapes were lost. Plenty of others exist. The entire landing programme is documented and available. There is nothing missing.

How hard it would be to get back to earth can connect with orbiter

It's rocket science using 400 year old equations, exactly the same process that allows soyuz zupply vessels to dock with the ISS. Buzz Aldrin has a PhD in it. Your inability to grasp it does not make it impossible.

The lengths people go to defend this topic on every site

An yet here you are defending your version of it. I don't need anyone's permission to post, nor do I need to justify it. Lies and misrepresentation of facts offend me. I refuse to let them go unchallenged. Your suspicion of people's motives is not proof of anything.

Natzis

It's the educational standard of conspiracy theorists that exposes them. The word is 'Nazis'. They are very good at firing rockets. Ask any pensioner in London.

Motivation to fake

And a much stronger motivation to actually do the job.

That rover was what? $80M - wtf??

And?

The beautiful blue hue that pours into the windows (smoking gun, boy!!!!!) when they're 130k out

From a beautiful bright blue Earth and the way that cameras work. They are not, by the way, always 130km out. The first broadcast featuring Hurricane Bernice was more like 70000 km.

oh, and so much more

Nope, much much less that is debunkable with s few seconds' research. Your theories are based on ignorance, prejudice, and a willingness to believe anyone apart from people who actually understand the subject.

See, I don't just base this on nothing.

Except you are doing. the hoax argument has absolutely no substance. It is there to take your money from you.

I'm literally not offended at all. If I'm wrong, sweet - we went to the moon!

You are wrong, and we did.

I have my reasons and I think NASA is using "science" which they control the parameters for, to dupe really smart people because the fact remains - NOBODY HAS BEEN CLOSE SINCE

NASA does not control the parameters of science. Science is a process that produces verifiable results whoever and wherever it is done. Only dumb people are duped by the hoax arguments. The smart people are busy doing science. Nobody has been to the moon out of choice, not impossibility.

If you are really committed to finding out the truth of this matter you would invest as much time exploring the side of the argument you disagree with as you have the side that you do. I've read countless hoax proponent pages and watched the videos, just as people like you have insisted that I do, so now you need to read websites like mine. If you don't, you're proving to me that you do not have the slightest interesting in finding out the truth.

a reply to: cestrup

See, I don't just base this on nothing. I'm literally not offended at all. If I'm wrong, sweet - we went to the moon! I have my reasons and I think NASA is using "science" which they control the parameters for, to dupe really smart people because the fact remains - NOBODY HAS BEEN CLOSE SINCE

NASA has dominated the Apollo narrative and controlled the source material, Apollo astronauts go berzerk when they go off script... Keep Out Zones on the moon... the missing tapes... the medical miracles... the Apollo Defenders can't even say for sure who took the pictures on Apollo 12... it is a matter of faith for them. It could still be a Mobot arm mounted with cameras inside an unmanned command module boilerplate special edition...

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

it is a matter of faith for them.

It could still be a Mobot arm mounted with cameras inside an unmanned command module boilerplate special edition...

oh the irony..

a reply to: choos

Poor guy - your imagination just isn't up to par. Have you ever considered they used a unique satellite for their fakery? One that's not on the record? No, I don't have proof but judging by your posts, they certainly wouldn't have hired you to pull of this production. No offense.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

NASA has dominated the Apollo narrative and controlled the source material,

The only reason they dominate it is because they did it. The source material is all out there and always has been. I'm sure they dseeply regret it not being on the internet before there was an internet, or coming round to your house to let you see moon rocks in person.

Apollo astronauts go berzerk when they go off script

Only when confronted my morons. There is no script. Only people you've never met that you feel you're allowed to pass judgement on.

... Keep Out Zones on the moon...

Still misrepresenting that idea I see..

the missing tapes...

What, specifically, is unavailable as a result?

the medical miracles...

Patient gets cured of illness by doctor - shock news...

the Apollo Defenders can't even say for sure who took the pictures on Apollo 12...

Irrelevant strawman - it's one of three people. This narrows down to 2 when the are on the lunar surface.

it is a matter of faith for them.

Nope, it's a matter of education and research, something sadly lacking in the people with whom they have to discuss this. The source material matches the historical narrative whichever direction you approacj it from. Unlike the total fabrications of the liars in the hoax movement.

It could still be a Mobot arm mounted with cameras inside an unmanned command module boilerplate special edition...

Still persisting with that totally unsupported imaginary nonsense? Was it unmanned when they broadcast TV images from lunar orbit? Is the 16mm footage taken in zero G taken in an unmanned command module? Your diversions are transparent - you instantly transfer things away from something that proves you wrong in favour of a meaningless strawman.

Never a straight answer from SJ.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos
No, I don't have proof

No, you don't, you're just appealing to magic. I have proof of arguments - read them yet?

You're just dressing up abuse in nice words and making stuff up to cover your unwillingness to actually read things that are going to prove you wrong.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wait, you think the hoax movement is about money? They are all poor and drive taxis and live in trailers. Man, rolling in the dough! Good call, genius.

FYI - the movement is about exposing the truths and bucking the narrative. I think they are on to something because it really bothers people like you and others. Agenda speaks louder than anything.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos
No, I don't have proof

No, you don't, you're just appealing to magic. I have proof of arguments - read them yet?

You're just dressing up abuse in nice words and making stuff up to cover your unwillingness to actually read things that are going to prove you wrong.

Getting angry? Lol - I just said I don't have proof. So why reiterate? You aren't going to act like an "astronaut" are you?

I am glad I'm not restrained to not being able to look outside of an official narrative like you. Authority is your God. NASA has never lied and every history book tells the truth. Go read Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". You might just learn something.

a reply to: cestrup

Authority is your God. NASA has never lied and every history book tells the truth.

As I have repeatedly said, I don't have blind faith in NASA or take everything they say at face value. And I certainly don't trust the US government not to lie.

I used to have an interest in all sorts of things when I was younger. Crop circles, UFOs, Bermuda Triangle, conspiracy theories, you name it, I've read it.

So yeah, I had quite an interest in the hoax theory when I came across it. And, having an interest in science too, I've tested all sorts of things, not just the photos and the videos but the maths and the physics. So as well as the obvious questions — Was the Earth in the right position and orientation in all the pictures? Does the landscape match up? — I've crunched the numbers. Were the rockets capable of going to the moon? Was the shielding thick enough? Could the LM have landed and taken off again? Were the claimed orbits plausible? Could the life support system have worked as claimed?

In every case, it all checks out. The technology WAS CAPABLE of going to the moon.

So, they had the technology to go to the moon and come back, so why would they have needed to fake it? That's argument 1.

Then there is all the corroborating evidence, thousands of photos and many hours of film and video, all of which is also 100% consistent, not only with itself and with the expected views, but also with the mission communications, much of which discusses things they were observing at the time. That's argument 2.

As far as I can see, you haven't done any calculations or analysis beyond "this photo/video could have been faked".

If you doubt something so much, why not put it to the test? You accuse us of being too trusting, but you are the one who is taking things on faith. We have tested it independently. NASA doesn't own the laws of science.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wait, you think the hoax movement is about money? They are all poor and drive taxis and live in trailers. Man, rolling in the dough! Good call, genius.

FYI - the movement is about exposing the truths and bucking the narrative. I think they are on to something because it really bothers people like you and others. Agenda speaks louder than anything.

Hmm... Bart Sibrel's "video production" company apparently has revenues of $190,000 a year. Not about the money, you say?

a reply to: Rob48

Wish I could test more than photos, bud. But that's really all we have. That and trust. I appreciate your demeanor, though. You're obviously an intelligent fellow, much more than myself - but so are the guys who put this production on. And they knew all the buttons that would be pushed by critics, so they covered their tracks well.

a reply to: cestrup

But that's the thing. If they were intelligent enough to design and build the equipment that every calculation shows could actually have gone to the moon, why wouldn't they just fly it to the moon instead of undertaking an almost infinitely elaborate hoax? That's the part I just cannot understand.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: cestrup

Authority is your God. NASA has never lied and every history book tells the truth.

As I have repeatedly said, I don't have blind faith in NASA or take everything they say at face value. And I certainly don't trust the US government not to lie.

I used to have an interest in all sorts of things when I was younger. Crop circles, UFOs, Bermuda Triangle, conspiracy theories, you name it, I've read it.

So yeah, I had quite an interest in the hoax theory when I came across it. And, having an interest in science too, I've tested all sorts of things, not just the photos and the videos but the maths and the physics. So as well as the obvious questions — Was the Earth in the right position and orientation in all the pictures? Does the landscape match up? — I've crunched the numbers. Were the rockets capable of going to the moon? Was the shielding thick enough? Could the LM have landed and taken off again? Were the claimed orbits plausible? Could the life support system have worked as claimed?

In every case, it all checks out. The technology WAS CAPABLE of going to the moon.

So, they had the technology to go to the moon and come back, so why would they have needed to fake it? That's argument 1.

Then there is all the corroborating evidence, thousands of photos and many hours of film and video, all of which is also 100% consistent, not only with itself and with the expected views, but also with the mission communications, much of which discusses things they were observing at the time. That's argument 2.

As far as I can see, you haven't done any calculations or analysis beyond "this photo/video could have been faked".

If you doubt something so much, why not put it to the test? You accuse us of being too trusting, but you are the one who is taking things on faith. We have tested it independently. NASA doesn't own the laws of science.

Well if they understood science they wouldnt believe in a moon hoax. This only works when people dont understand the science involved than they believe the stories of NASA faking the landings. The Flat Earth Society was one of the first organizations to take up the cause and accuse NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood with Walt Disney sponsorship, based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke and directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Id say source says alot a group who is trying to prove the earth is flat didnt think we went to the moon because it disproves there theory.

a reply to: Rob48

There's a difference between faking it and doing it. You know this and I shouldn't have to explain it. They control how you believe the moon's physics operate - so - ????