Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: choos

Ahh. I should have specified "manned" travel. I can see why you were confused. Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Ahh. I should have specified "manned" travel. I can see why you were confused. Thanks for the clarification.

manned or unmanned doesnt matter..

satellites and probes are affected by temperature, vacuum of space and ionising radiation as well.. thats why i asked why they operate as long as they do if all the science is severely understated..

Here's the thing that bugs me, we have a several posts from new contributors to the thread and the bulk of their view on the subject is "it just doesn't look right".

So, what should it look like?

What should the lunar module look like - a vehicle that has no need to be aerodynamic and is pretty much the definition of functional. If you are happy that the 16mm footage of it working just fine in the zero G zero atmosphere environment of LEO, why not in lunar orbit, or on the lunar surface?

What should the surface of the moon look like? Why is your view of what you should see different to what is there in photographs, 16mm, and live TV (yes, it was live TV).

What should the Earth look like from space, other than exactly how it was photographed and filmed and broadcast on TV?

If you think it was faked somehow, how did they do it? Where? With how many people?

Throughout these 'discussions' (and I use the word advisedly), factual information is demanded (and I do mean demanded) of people who support the Apollo missions. When those facts are produced they are usually ignored and all we get in return is "I don't believe it, it looks funny, NASA tell lies".

People will claim not to know much but they still intuitively feel it was faked, and that somehow this overrides the accumulated knowledge and information of the thousands of people who do actually know a lot about it (not just the ones on internet fora).
So tell us: what should a moon mission actually have looked like?

a reply to: AgentSmith

No, turtles can withstand much more radiation exposure than humans. You know that.

As to the rest of your post, I don't think I have the knowledge to call anyone here a liar. In fact, I've seen your side of the debate (not you in particular) throw the "liar" word around much more than anyone else. Kaysing, Rene, White, Sibrel, Percy, etc have all been called "liars". Are they lying? How can one guage whether they actually believe what they claim? That's insane if you think about it.

Here's what I understand: There's a bias - one that if you don't believe in Apollo that you're somehow incapable of understanding science. I don't subscribe to this one bit. I think it's a fallacy and has been overused. None of us have put our eyes on the Apollo landing sites to indeed say that they're there. How one can be so conclusive really perplexes me. But, you have your country on your side and it's perfectly okay to ridicule the hoax side. In fact, I'd almost say it's condoned.

Cool article though on the Indian moon probe. Thanks for posting.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Here's the thing that bugs me, we have a several posts from new contributors to the thread and the bulk of their view on the subject is "it just doesn't look right".

So, what should it look like?

Not like it was done in a studio.

What should the lunar module look like - a vehicle that has no need to be aerodynamic and is pretty much the definition of functional. If you are happy that the 16mm footage of it working just fine in the zero G zero atmosphere environment of LEO, why not in lunar orbit, or on the lunar surface?

Thin walls, scotch tape, etc - it looks like it were made to fool those that were watching it in the horrible resolution of 1970s televsion. It doesn't hold up in modern high resolution photos IMO. It looks like a cheaply made piece of the set in a B-movie.

What should the surface of the moon look like? Why is your view of what you should see different to what is there in photographs, 16mm, and live TV (yes, it was live TV).

Nothing looks like anything that couldn't be performed here on Earth. The only time the astronauts hop higher than 1ft is an absurd video where the moonrover is blocking their lower portions. Everything I've seen looks like slowed footage combined with wire supports and special effects for the background - undecided on heavy editing or just back drops - but I know it can be reporoduced.

What should the Earth look like from space, other than exactly how it was photographed and filmed and broadcast on TV?

Any satellite that can take a photo of the earth in its entireity could be used as a duplicate. I know these satellites existed at the time and were under the control of the same entities behind Apollo. So, if you don't know how they could have superimposed an earth with accurate weather patterns, I don't know what to tell you.

If you think it was faked somehow, how did they do it? Where? With how many people?

All it has to be is faked. The other questions will lead someone down a trail of differing opinions as none of us (I hope) have ever been in control of a possible hoax of this magnitude. Compartmentalization has been used efficiently from corporations to military to keep knowledge separate between tiered factions.

Throughout these 'discussions' (and I use the word advisedly), factual information is demanded (and I do mean demanded) of people who support the Apollo missions. When those facts are produced they are usually ignored and all we get in return is "I don't believe it, it looks funny, NASA tell lies".

So tell us: what should a moon mission actually have looked like?

Maybe just how it did. Maybe completely separate. I don't know. I'm in the opinion it will look completely different than what I'm to believe is accurate record but I could be wrong.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

No, turtles can withstand much more radiation exposure than humans. You know that.

Yes I believe you're right (it was a long time ago I looked in any detail), but as I said there were also the dosimeters providing data. It also shows there are not the incredibly high dosages some people try and claim which would kill even the turtles.

As to the rest of your post, I don't think I have the knowledge to call anyone here a liar. In fact, I've seen your side of the debate (not you in particular) throw the "liar" word around much more than anyone else. Kaysing, Rene, White, Sibrel, Percy, etc have all been called "liars". Are they lying? How can one guage whether they actually believe what they claim? That's insane if you think about it.

Fair point, though when you know they have deliberately misquoted, taken something out of context or edited footage then it implies it is done consciously.

Here's what I understand: There's a bias - one that if you don't believe in Apollo that you're somehow incapable of understanding science. I don't subscribe to this one bit. I think it's a fallacy and has been overused.

I only say it because the arguments often used demonstrate a lack of knowledge in the field. Once you understand them and eliminate the arguments you aren't left with anything proving that a series of well documented historical events occurred - therefore I logically come to that conclusion. It starts to go into some ridiculous 'what if', 'but' philosophical territory which even starts to involve a modern conspiracy where multiple space agencies around the world are all in it together forever falsifying data and photographs to maintain a pointless illusion.
It makes no sense, if the conspiracy is to keep other countries governments believing in it then it makes no sense they would be helping maintain the illusion.
If it's to keep normal people convinced - who cares! It's pretty obvious that no matter how many people believe or don't believe something TPTB do what they want anyway and people just wring their hands and tweet about it.

None have us have put our eyes on the Apollo landing sites to indeed say that they're there.

True.. sadly. Hopefully space tourism will change that one day though I doubt in my lifetime (and hopefully not because I die early).

How one can be so conclusive really perplexes me.

I kind of know what you mean, but I just look at what information is available and analyse it logically. The evidence is all on one side.

But, you have your country on your side and it's perfectly okay to ridicule the hoax side. In fact, I'd almost say it's condoned.

Do I? Maybe..? I'm not American, don't live there and never have. Too many adverts, guns, wars, shootings, hysteria, etc, etc.

Cool article though on the Indian moon probe. Thanks for posting.

No worries.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Have another star and thanks for giving me some viewpoints to take into consideration. Question: The link you provided for the Indian Space Probe (I don't dare to try and spell it) - it never once recognizes the manned travel of the Apollo missions nor does it reference it - why not in your opinion? Seems unmanned travel in a similar trajectory (I realize they're different but in the grand scheme - similar) would at least acknowledge the manned aspect of lunar orbit/landing.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

Have another star and thanks for giving me some viewpoints to take into consideration. Question: The link you provided for the Indian Space Probe (I don't dare to try and spell it) - it never once recognizes the manned travel of the Apollo missions nor does it reference it - why not in your opinion? Seems unmanned travel in a similar trajectory (I realize they're different but in the grand scheme - similar) would at least acknowledge the manned aspect of lunar orbit/landing.

No worries

I wouldn't expect them to, the paper is about their own specific experiment and there is no reason to detract from it. They only mention the ISS in context of making a comparison to the type of dosimeters used on the ISS and for calibration purposes.

originally posted by: bobbypurify

Not like it was done in a studio.

There is absolutely nothing to support the idea that it was done in a studio. It would have to be a very very large vacuum with 1/6 g capable of shooting hours of continuous live broadcast footage. If you can find such a place it'd be great to see it. Most claims about this use some sort of reference to front projection and 2001, not actually realising how very very eay it is to see the join.

Thin walls, scotch tape, etc - it looks like it were made to fool those that were watching it in the horrible resolution of 1970s televsion. It doesn't hold up in modern high resolution photos IMO. It looks like a cheaply made piece of the set in a B-movie.

You have only offered an opinion without actually offering anything that states why it wouldn't work. There is plenty of footage of it working on the moon, in LEO and in Lunar orbit. Feel free to demonstrate how it wouldn't be capable of doing what it is doing.

Nothing looks like anything that couldn't be performed here on Earth. The only time the astronauts hop higher than 1ft is an absurd video where the moonrover is blocking their lower portions.

This is totally untrue. There is plenty of footage and recording from live TV that shows them jumping as high as they ought to be able to in a high mass suit, unobstructed by anything. Google 'jump salute'.

Everything I've seen looks like slowed footage combined with wire supports and special effects for the background - undecided on heavy editing or just back drops - but I know it can be reporoduced.

There's that 'looks like' again. The footage is not slowed down, it is a common mistake made by people who haven't studied it in depth. They are moving carefully, they are not moving slowly. There are no wires or harnesses at all, and if there were there are many shots (for example the jump salute I referred to above) where astronauts cross each other without ever getting tangled. There are hours of footage from the TV broadcasts that are unedited.

Any satellite that can take a photo of the earth in its entireity could be used as a duplicate. I know these satellites existed at the time and were under the control of the same entities behind Apollo. So, if you don't know how they could have superimposed an earth with accurate weather patterns, I don't know what to tell you.

So you don't know then? There were no colour satellites in orbit that could produce a view of the entire Earth. There were onlt two geostationary satellites in use at all by the US, and they did not provide the coverage shown in the images. They were certainly not capable of producing a sequence of images to show a time lapse of the Earth rotating. The clue is in the word 'geostationary'.

We have TV, 16mm and photographs taken before the satellite views were taken. Those same views made it on to newspapers the next day. If you are going to claim that somehow they took blacl and white weather satellite data, faked a colour Earth image out of it, turned it into a TV broadcast and also took photographs and 16mm of them, then you need to explain they did it. I am telling you now as a fact: they did not have the technology to fake those weather patterns.

All it has to be is faked. The other questions will lead someone down a trail of differing opinions as none of us (I hope) have ever been in control of a possible hoax of this magnitude. Compartmentalization has been used efficiently from corporations to military to keep knowledge separate between tiered factions.

The compartmentalisation argument is always conveniently trotted out and it's a good excuse for not having to do any legwork in proving your point. Did they blindfold the camera men and harness operators? The satellite image fakers and set builders? Are you really telling me that these people are all so dumb they didn't realise that the movie set they just built and fimed astronaut on was a bit odd?

The argument is a lazy cop-out I'm afraid.

Maybe just how it did. Maybe completely separate. I don't know. I'm in the opinion it will look completely different than what I'm to believe is accurate record but I could be wrong.

Your opinion, because it is not actually based on any facts, is wrong, and irrelevant. What you think doesn't matter,
it's what you can prove that matters and I have proved to my own satisfaction that we went to the moon.

How can I be so confident?

Because I have actually spent the time to look at the facts, to read the scientific articles, to meet astronauts and listen to them, to spend hours looking at satellite images and match them with Apollo images, to spend hours looking at rocks and craters in images taken by lunar probes (of many countries) and matching them with Apollo images, matching the progression of the lunar terminator in Apollo images with the Apollo photographs, finding the location of Apollo photographs taken from orbit when even NASA didn't know where they were taken, finding stars and planets in Apollo images. I've been prepared to do that so that I can understand what I'm talking about and back up my arguments with facts. Not just NASA's facts, but India's and China's and Japan's and even my own facts.

You won't find anyone defending Apollo here or on any other forum who ever says "well I just have this gut feeling that they went", because no-one would let them get away with it. The same standard applies to anyone who is just going to use phrases like "it looks like", "in my opinion", "it seems" and so on as their primary defence.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Thin walls, scotch tape, etc - it looks like it were made to fool those that were watching it in the horrible resolution of 1970s televsion. It doesn't hold up in modern high resolution photos IMO. It looks like a cheaply made piece of the set in a B-movie.

It's a pretty basic spacecraft, really.

In concept, it consists of two basic parts: (1) a metal pressurized crew cabin (as seen below):


And (2) a platform base with legs:


Put it all together, and take away the foil insulation, and you get something like this, which, as I said, is a pretty basic thing -- i.e. a metal pressurized crew cabin on a four-legged platform..

Everything I've seen looks like slowed footage combined with wire supports and special effects for the background - undecided on heavy editing or just back drops - but I know it can be reporoduced.

I'm not sure which wires yo are referring to, but most people who say that wires are visible are usually talking about the antenna on the back of the PLSS backpack. It looks like a wire, as many antennas do.



Here is a still image from a video in which hoax-promoter David Percy has pointed out what he says is a wire and a lens flare being caused by the wire. Not surprisingly, the thing he refers to a wire coming out of the astronaut's backpack is in the exact same location as the antenna -- which leads me to believe it really was his antenna. The lens flare above the astronaut is simply a common everyday lens flare caused by the sun glinting off of the antenna below, and is an artifact of the camera optics.

originally posted by: bobbypurify

Any satellite that can take a photo of the earth in its entireity could be used as a duplicate. I know these satellites existed at the time and were under the control of the same entities behind Apollo. So, if you don't know how they could have superimposed an earth with accurate weather patterns, I don't know what to tell you.

If you are that certain what was it and what camera system did it use considering the Astronauts took images with Hasselblad FILM cameras which have way more resolution than ANTYTHING in orbit during that time so prove me wrong.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

There is absolutely nothing to support the idea that it was done in a studio. It would have to be a very very large vacuum with 1/6 g capable of shooting hours of continuous live broadcast footage. If you can find such a place it'd be great to see it. Most claims about this use some sort of reference to front projection and 2001, not actually realising how very very eay it is to see the join.

No vacuum needed. And, other than the shots of them traversing on the rover, it could all be done in a studio. Sure, maybe some was done outside. Nothing suggests they were in a vacuum. I just see slowed footage and the astronauts supported by some wire device.

You have only offered an opinion without actually offering anything that states why it wouldn't work. There is plenty of footage of it working on the moon, in LEO and in Lunar orbit. Feel free to demonstrate how it wouldn't be capable of doing what it is doing.


I freely admitted it was my opinion that it looks like a joke, numerous times. I don't see how scotch tape would be used to piece together an instrument that cost the tax payers billions. I find that hilarious and extremely insulting at the same time.

This is totally untrue. There is plenty of footage and recording from live TV that shows them jumping as high as they ought to be able to in a high mass suit, unobstructed by anything. Google 'jump salute'.

The jump salute where he gets barely over a foot off the ground? Doesn't the astronaut weigh about 60lbs with equipment included in 1/6 gravity? 1 foot is pretty sad. They jumped much higher than that in the 1/6 sims even with equipment on. Poor reference. Plus, there's the whole "flap up" argument that is shown in photo record and mysteriously absent in the video.

There's that 'looks like' again. The footage is not slowed down, it is a common mistake made by people who haven't studied it in depth. They are moving carefully, they are not moving slowly. There are no wires or harnesses at all, and if there were there are many shots (for example the jump salute I referred to above) where astronauts cross each other without ever getting tangled. There are hours of footage from the TV broadcasts that are unedited.


No, they're in a calculated slow motion IMO. And you must know what wire devices they've used to insinuate that "crossing each other" would get them tangled. Can you give an example of this?? I've yet to come across this in my studies. Thanks!

So you don't know then? There were no colour satellites in orbit that could produce a view of the entire Earth. There were onlt two geostationary satellites in use at all by the US, and they did not provide the coverage shown in the images. They were certainly not capable of producing a sequence of images to show a time lapse of the Earth rotating. The clue is in the word 'geostationary'.


Oh, okay. Well, I'll accept mistake of what's public record. But, it's entirely within the realm of logic to believe that a top secret satellite could have provided the images. You know, one that's not on the record. You'll ask me for proof and I have none, other than offer that it would be silly to think we know of every satellite up there.

The compartmentalisation argument is always conveniently trotted out and it's a good excuse for not having to do any legwork in proving your point. Did they blindfold the camera men and harness operators? The satellite image fakers and set builders? Are you really telling me that these people are all so dumb they didn't realise that the movie set they just built and fimed astronaut on was a bit odd?

So camera men and haress operators + satellite image fakers = how many people in your mind? Doesn't sound like too many to me. I don't know how "dumb" they were and I think you just built a strawman with this point. I won't stoop to answering it in fear of where it will lead.

Your opinion, because it is not actually based on any facts, is wrong, and irrelevant. What you think doesn't matter,

Haha. You're something else. If Apollo gets proven to be a grand scaled hoax boy will you have some crow to munch. The fact of the matter is neither you nor myself can be so sure. When you controll the constraints of an experiment, 2+2= pink dolphins! It doesn't matter! But you'll act as if you know exactly what it's like on the moon. I know you're argument is phooyey and for that matter, so could mine. The difference between us is that I'll admit it and due to your dissonant bias, you'll never do it.

But, thanks for your response. It took some time and made me consider some things. Star for you, young man!

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Interesting. You use a picture of a replica that's on Earth. Yours, even without the foil wrapping, looks nothing like this:

www.nasamoonhoax.com...

i.imgur.com...

I can't believe how hokey that looks. Admit it, it does!

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I don't claim to notice the wires and I'd hope, that if they were in use, they'd be heavlily edited out of film and photographic record, for NASA's sake. I have seen some of Percy's claims about the "pings" and I'm not entirely sold on them. Well, not as much as I'm sold on the movements of the astros. At times, it's as if the weight is taken off of them completely.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Interesting. You use a picture of a replica that's on Earth. Yours, even without the foil wrapping, looks nothing like this:

www.nasamoonhoax.com...

i.imgur.com...

I can't believe how hokey that looks. Admit it, it does!

It looked like this underneath:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

It was then covered with kapton film and insulation.

That's what spacecraft look like. There is no atmosphere to cause drag in space so the frail looking appearance of the external film layers are of no consequence.

www.newswise.com...

static.dnaindia.com...

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

www.docsciences.fr...

www.satnews.com...

landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov...

You can also download the various Lunar Module operation manuals and schematics here by the way:

Apollo Lunar Module Documentation

which is a page from the Apollo Lunar surface journal

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Interesting. You use a picture of a replica that's on Earth. Yours, even without the foil wrapping, looks nothing like this:

www.nasamoonhoax.com...

i.imgur.com...

I can't believe how hokey that looks. Admit it, it does!

That one on display is an unused LM, meant to be used for for Apollo 18 or 19, which never flew. And it looks pretty much like the one with insulation -- but sans insulation.

a reply to: AgentSmith

I think the frail features are of consequence with something that is supposed to absorb the shock of landing on the moon or even docking/separating from the CM. Thanks for the links. Interestingly enough, I google imaged "satellites in space" and 99% of the results were composites. I clicked on each one of your pictures and it was hard to tell if the instruments they were working on were a finished product. I wanted to see them in action. Not much. Just a picture of Hubble.