Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: Rob48
How does this fit into the hoax theory?

the prevailing hoax theory states that the manned portion of the landings did not happen ,,, or that the landings did happen but not in the way that it was represented & covered up for various reasons.

I didn't ask what the prevailing theory is. Remember the complaints that I was lumping all hoax believers into one and not tackling specific theories? So:

What is YOUR theory? When were these photos taken, and where, and what data did they use to place all of the rocks? How about the TV footage? Was that taken at the same time? What about the descent footage? Was that faked or was that real footage from an unmanned craft?

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: Rob48
How does this fit into the hoax theory?

the prevailing hoax theory states that the manned portion of the landings did not happen ,,, or that the landings did happen but not in the way that it was represented & covered up for various reasons.

propaganda again i see, however that wasnt even close to what he asked..

try again.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
...Now here is a question for you. If the photos were taken on a studio set, what in your opinion was NASA's plan when the landing site was revisited and the photos turned out not to match?

Remember, back in 1969 nobody knew when the sites would be revisited. Heck, plenty of people thought there would be moon bases by the year 2000, with Tranquillity Base being a tourist attraction.

Also remember, the landing site is still up there. One day it will be revisited. If the photos were done in a studio, how can they match the real site down to the last pebble and footprint? They need to.

Well things are not going as planed, no moon bases by the year 2001, so the Apollo landing sites are today keep-out zones www.space.com...

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
...Now here is a question for you. If the photos were taken on a studio set, what in your opinion was NASA's plan when the landing site was revisited and the photos turned out not to match?

Remember, back in 1969 nobody knew when the sites would be revisited. Heck, plenty of people thought there would be moon bases by the year 2000, with Tranquillity Base being a tourist attraction.

Also remember, the landing site is still up there. One day it will be revisited. If the photos were done in a studio, how can they match the real site down to the last pebble and footprint? They need to.

Well things are not going as planed, no moon bases by the year 2001, so the Apollo landing sites are today keep-out zones www.space.com...

it was also believed that the Soviets might have landed men on the moon before NASA also.. which means NASA had to have setup the landing sites at and not before and not even after they claimed they were there for each respective mission..

a reply to: Rob48

what are the plans when the landing site was revisited and the photos turned out not to match

the plan is too not have those sites revisited and there will be no definitive photos of the sites that dont entail your preconceptions to decipher

plenty of people thought there would be moon bases by the year 2000

alot them worked for NASA too, boy were they suckered

Also remember, the landing site is still up there. One day it will be revisited.

maybe a couple 100 years from now, by that time it will be myth & legend & it wont matter that much anymore,if we even make it that long

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

Armstrong is wrong about both the cabel and the hills

the question is why ?

Armstrong is not wrong about the hill. You can see it in the decent video, right where he says it is, in the centre of West Crater.

No cabel ? and "hill" instead of of "hills" ?

...The cable issue? Yes, Armstrong was mistaken if he thought it was a full 100ft. But the reasons are obvious: the cable wasn't straight.

Don't you think if they had faked every detail then they would have briefed him to get it right? He's human. Human memory isn't perfect.

So what's the problem in admitting that he was mistaken in the hills issue to ? I don't get it, you've already said he said "hills" instead of "hill" why not dismiss the whole hills issue as a mistake to ? I do understand the consequences, but that's just the way it is.

originally posted by: Misinformation
the plan is too not have those sites revisited and there will be no definitive photos of the sites that dont entail your preconceptions to decipher

how would they have controlled this?? how did NASA predict who would be the next nation to land men on the moon and when?? oh i see.. they had a time-machine.. how silly of me.........

maybe a couple 100 years from now, by that time it will be myth & legend & it wont matter that much anymore,if we even make it that long

again.. how would NASA have known?? the soviets were believed to have been very close or in front of NASA to landing men on the moon at one point.. how would NASA have known that India or China would have had the tech to do in 5/10 years after the apollo missions?? did they have a time machine??

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

Armstrong is wrong about both the cabel and the hills

the question is why ?

Armstrong is not wrong about the hill. You can see it in the decent video, right where he says it is, in the centre of West Crater.

No cabel ? and "hill" instead of of "hills" ?

...The cable issue? Yes, Armstrong was mistaken if he thought it was a full 100ft. But the reasons are obvious: the cable wasn't straight.

Don't you think if they had faked every detail then they would have briefed him to get it right? He's human. Human memory isn't perfect.

So what's the problem in admitting that he was mistaken in the hills issue to ? I don't get it, you've already said he said "hills" instead of "hill" why not dismiss the whole hills issue as a mistake to ? I do understand the consequences, but that's just the way it is.

and what makes you believe that he meant to say hill not hills??

if you note armstrongs last comment

A 100-foot-high hill from 1100-1200 feet away, so...

note he say "A" not several
note he says hill without an "s"

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
...Now here is a question for you. If the photos were taken on a studio set, what in your opinion was NASA's plan when the landing site was revisited and the photos turned out not to match?

Remember, back in 1969 nobody knew when the sites would be revisited. Heck, plenty of people thought there would be moon bases by the year 2000, with Tranquillity Base being a tourist attraction.

Also remember, the landing site is still up there. One day it will be revisited. If the photos were done in a studio, how can they match the real site down to the last pebble and footprint? They need to.

Well things are not going as planed, no moon bases by the year 2001, so the Apollo landing sites are today keep-out zones www.space.com...

Keep-out zones most of which are a whopping ONE METRE. Are you telling me you can hide massive inconsistencies in the terrain that way? Even the largest of the zones would not prevent detailed photography of the sites.

Did you miss the part where there Google is offering a $4m reward for taking photos of Apollo hardware?

An additional $4 million has been offered for any team that snaps pictures of artifacts near or at the Apollo landing sites.

You can bet somebody is going to try and claim that money.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

Armstrong is wrong about both the cabel and the hills

the question is why ?

Armstrong is not wrong about the hill. It is right where he says it is, in the centre of West Crater.

You are wrong about:

LM-13 being a mock-up...

I almost gave up the last time you said that.

Didn't you notice the Apollo 11 Hasselblad 500EL 70mm camera magazine in the picture ? This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon. What is it doing in a studio on earth ? Together with a lunar module (LM) ?

www.hasselbladusa.com...

a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
he never said the tv cable was 100feet out

it was Nixon that never said that...

Armstrong
we knew we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100 foot cable

Armstrong is wrong about both the cabel and the hills

the question is why ?

Armstrong is not wrong about the hill. You can see it in the decent video, right where he says it is, in the centre of West Crater.

No cabel ? and "hill" instead of of "hills" ?

...The cable issue? Yes, Armstrong was mistaken if he thought it was a full 100ft. But the reasons are obvious: the cable wasn't straight.

Don't you think if they had faked every detail then they would have briefed him to get it right? He's human. Human memory isn't perfect.

So what's the problem in admitting that he was mistaken in the hills issue to ? I don't get it, you've already said he said "hills" instead of "hill" why not dismiss the whole hills issue as a mistake to ? I do understand the consequences, but that's just the way it is.

and what makes you believe that he meant to say hill not hills??

if you note armstrongs last comment

A 100-foot-high hill from 1100-1200 feet away, so...

note he say "A" not several
note he says hill without an "s"

listen to him again ! at 0:20

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

it even looks exactly as the Apollo 11 magazine



www.ehartwell.com...

originally posted by: Ove38
So what's the problem in admitting that he was mistaken in the hills issue to ? I don't get it, you've already said he said "hills" instead of "hill" why not dismiss the whole hills issue as a mistake to ? I do understand the consequences, but that's just the way it is.

Elvis sang about it on his record "That's the way it is" 1970. en.wikipedia.org...:_That's_the_Way_It_Is

Elvis: That's the Way It Is is a 1970 American documentary film directed by Denis Sanders. The film documents American singer Elvis Presley's Summer Festival in Las Vegas during August 1970.

Denis Sanders made an anti-Communist film for the USIA during Nixon's presidency. See "Czechoslovakia 1968" (1969) en.wikipedia.org...

Richard Nixon used the USIA to bombast the world with Apollo radio/film & TV propaganda during his first term in office which by coincidence covered all the lunar landings from A11-A17. United States Information Agency en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Ove38
listen to him again ! at 0:20

you sir, are a liar.. from your own post earlier

originally posted by: Ove38
You can't see the real horizon, you're seeing hills that are somewhat closer to you. There was a large crater which we overflew during our final approach which was... had hills of the order of 100 feet in height, and we were only 11-1200 feet west of that hill and we couldn't see it. A 100-foot-high hill from from 1100-1200 feet away, so...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and again

originally posted by: Ove38
There was a large crater which we overflew during our final approach which was... had hills of the order of 100 feet in height, and we were only 11-1200 feet west of that hill and we couldn't see it. A 100-foot-high hill from from 1100-1200 feet away, so...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and the unclipped answer that you posted earlier


p.s. he also says "that hill" not "those hills"

originally posted by: Ove38
I almost gave up the last time you said that.

Didn't you notice the Apollo 11 Hasselblad 500EL 70mm camera magazine in the picture ? This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon. What is it doing in a studio on earth ? Together with a lunar module (LM) ?

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Lol. Good catch. Those Hasselblad guys don't even know how many of their own cameras went to the "moon" or how many came back. I'm pretty sure it was discussed at some length here on ATS. It was also discovered that some of the Apollo astronauts were smuggling cameras back from the "moon". But that's just the way it is

a reply to: choos

Sir Bernard is not the expert you think he is.. He was brain washed by the Soviets during one of his many trips to Russia.

It really really isn't difficult.

They were not used exclusively on Apollo 11.

All magazines bar one discarded by mistake were brought back, otherwise you would not have photos to deliberately misinterpret

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Ove38
I almost gave up the last time you said that.

Didn't you notice the Apollo 11 Hasselblad 500EL 70mm camera magazine in the picture ? This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon. What is it doing in a studio on earth ? Together with a lunar module (LM) ?

www.hasselbladusa.com...

Lol. Good catch. Those Hasselblad guys don't even know how many of their own cameras went to the "moon" or how many came back. I'm pretty sure it was discussed at some length here on ATS. It was also discovered that some of the Apollo astronauts were smuggling cameras back from the "moon". But that's just the way it is

if I had been a Apollo beliver I would have claimed that they reused the Apollo 11 magazine to take some pictures of another LM on Earth

but the question is why ?

sounds like when they said they reused the original Apollo 11 video tapes, to make some other recordings on them ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

They were not exclusive to Apollo 11.

It's not difficult.

They were also meant to be used in a studio on Earth ? Can't you figure out a better explanation than that ?

it even looks exactly as the Apollo 11 magazine

www.ehartwell.com...

EXCEPT IT DOESN'T

Hasselblad Magazine

The magazines had exposure setting on them!

Oh and the magazine letter for identity .

Hasselblad Mag Identity Marking