New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

You are really, really wrong - even in simple statements.

..

– Fact: Did you know that since the Apollo Moon Missions in 1969-72, which sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, NO ONE has ever gone 400 miles above the Earth? Even the Space Shuttle missions have gone below that and remained well under 400 miles.

Today, NASA does not have the technology to go higher than 400 miles above Earth, and has indirectly admitted it in a number of ways, by their actions and words. In a press release, NASA stated that the Van Allen Radiation Belts that surround the Earth are too dangerous to send humans through and is trying to figure out how to solve this problem. See here: www.reuters.com...

This doesn’t make any sense given that none of the astronauts on the six Apollo missions allegedly passed the radiation belts with no problem and no sickness! What this means is that incredibly, NASA was able to send men 600 times farther in 1969 than it can today! How inexplicable is that? Have you ever heard of technology going backward by such an extreme magnitude?! It’s totally illogical and nonsensical.

Whatfore should they go deeper into space? What is in 36.000 km which couldn't be done in 200 km height? The Van-Allen-Belt is a very dangerous region, that is right. And the NASA does not have a rocket able to bring astronauts to more than 290 km into space, that is right, too.

Because there is no actual need.

Do you remember the problems the USA had with the Soviet Union back then? The cold war? It was essential to prove that the US were more technological advanced than the Soviet Union - it was a matter of pride, of status in the world and of course of humiliation. The soviets with bringing Sputnik into space before the US could even reach the end of the atmosphere with simple rockets.. There were NO limits to what the US government was willing to do to prove its superiority. Even if that was done on highest risks to some astronauts.

– Fact: Did you know that so far, 14 astronauts have died in Space Shuttle missions that were 200 miles above the Earth, yet during the Apollo program NASA allegedly sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, with no loss of life? In other words: 200 miles = 14 casualties, 240,000 miles = 0 casualties. Do you buy that? Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch that is?

To give you an idea of the proportions we are talking about, picture this: The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is 240,000 miles away. That means that you’d have to line up 30 Earth globes to equal the distance to the moon (since 8,000 x 30 = 240,000). What this means is that in 1969, NASA could send men the distance of 30 Earth globes, but today, it can only send humans barely above the Earth. If you have a model globe in your home, 400 miles would be about an inch above it.

Travelling to outer space seems dangerous to you? Yes, there was a good movie with Tom Hanks, regarding the events of Apollo 13. Nevertheless, the most, really absolutely most dangerous part of any spacetravel with our modern technology is the departure and re-entry through our atmosphere.

It is of no concern, how many miles you afterwards travel through vast, empty space. There is no additional threat. The real problem ist the extreme heat and turbulence encountered on the ride through the atmosphere!

Well if "NASA" did fake the Moon landings it's too late for them to own up now. They might as well dig a deep hole, and pull it behind them. IMHO.

Even if the US government fooled the sheeple by faking the Apollo moon landings (and that's a huge if) what did they have to gain? Some might respond with the weaponisation of space during the cold war era but let's not forget about Yuri and also Sputnik which renders the point moot.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


I think you just helped his argument.

Not sure where you were going with that........

reply to post by anonodox


The United states has 4 times the amount of satellites in space vs Russia.

UCS Satellite Database

Even tho in this day Russia seems to be a conquered nation, they are not. China doesn't even have more space precedence than Russia.

The space race was won by The United States of America. If you think it wasn't, you are a fool.

It is not a hoax my friend. I was a child and it was a big deal at the time. It is one of the handful of memories that I retained from the age of 6. We only had a handful of television stations at that time and not everyone had a tv or at least a decent one, so everyone got together with friends who had the best house with the biggest television and room for a few guests and watched the only thing that was on the tv.

My dad was a Navy pilot and we watched at another pilots house because the astronauts were mostly naval aviators - and they were excited about it. I cannot remember the exact times and sequences, but I remember waiting forever to watch the landing then went to sleep and was woke up again to watch them get out. Again it was a big deal and the entire world was involved that had access to television or press at the time. We watched it live and every step in the process was tedious and took hours to do.

If you watched it you were exhausted, because there was hours between each sequence where the screen would never change and they would tell the same background stories over and over. To this day there's never been a longer show I can think of that has ever been broadcast with so little, yet so highly exciting. Each little problem would be relayed back and forth from camera adjustments, glitches and everything else. It was not a packaged program it was live complete with all the mistakes and miscues.

We also watched the recovery with the whole chute sequences and splash down just like on the movie Apollo 13. The first time the astronauts were isolated much longer because they didn't know if they'd catch an diseases up there.

I have been out to the cape and climbed around a launch pad, seen all the old and new equipment and watched a couple launches including New Horizons that is still on its way to Pluto. It is all real.

All newspapers, magazines & television stations altered photos & videos to make it more presentable back then, so of course there are going to be flaws the further away you get from original - unlike digital of today. Lighting on the moon was back-lit because of the moon surfaces brightness.

Next you youngsters will claim we never had nuclear weapons either. Well just asks the Japanese people about that.

I'm all game to see a hoax, but I continue to see nothing of value that is even close to a hoax once examined.

reply to post by WWu777


From your source.

Given today's knowledge and today's understanding of radiation protection, to put someone out in that type of environment would violate the current requirements that NASA has

They are saying requirements are higher than they used to be. So the level of protection they used is not sufficient to meet todays standards. This is standard and should be obvious.

Originally posted by mcx1942
Is this it? I can not tell for sure what it is but it does kind of look like a cloth.
Not sure if this is what the OP is refering to.

Zoomed in a bit more.

edit on 11/27/2012 by mcx1942 because: added zoomed in

edit on 11/27/2012 by mcx1942 because: my thoughts

Yup that is without a doubt a cloth!

MMMMHHHHMMM,,,

definitely! by the resolution I would say that it is a pillow cover for the actors to use to sleep on the set.



For real, though this is retarded.

reply to post by trig_grl


I don't think it was a hoax, but a good reason would be to lower Russian moral while raising the American pride and setting the US as the world leader for at least half of the globe during the cold war. If you were born during the cold war years you would know that this sort of thing was crucial by many aspects. Aspects ranging from a technology stand point to a geo political one. No mystery regarding the reasons to either go to the moon of fake it at all.

As for the OP I must say I see nothing there. Just a piece of bright material that could be anything and come from anywhere. It could very well just be a piece of the module or something that they put or dropped there for some reason.

Never heard of him before... Very interesting... Apparently he had this to say (for those like me that had never heard of him)

Listen to the Ben.

The Ben knew what he spoke of.

I can't imagine not knowing who Ben Rich was. How are you on Kelly Johnson?

Reasons to go to the Moon:
Use your "borrrwoed" European technology to brand your nation as the best on the planet and instill a pride in innovation and millitary organisation that exists 40 years afterwards.

Reasons not to at least try going to the Moon:
Some millitary guys might die ( not an issue) may cost alot of money ( just print some more) might be difficult ( oh well.....nothing better to do between Wars.)

Reasons not to fake it:
If you are found out you risk a destabalising effect which would result in possible anarchy as the people see a broad deception that arguably dwarfes all other decpetions originating from Government.


Would faking all this be actually worth it when you have a free Rocket/Physics A Team from across Europe (Operation Paperclip) and 2 things a-plenty; young men willing to risk their lives and cash.
( Also you have 20,000 none millitary people who are as bright as the people attempting to perpetrate the hoax involved...seems a bit risky....more risky than sending men in suits through radiation belts...)

reply to post by litterbaux


I can see tracks on both sides in that one.

I guess you see what you want to see. I can't see anything out of place.

I guess the Lunar Orbiter images are fakes too. And when the Chinese get to the moon, what they show will be fake, the american evidence they see will be faked, and hey.. what do you know,, the moon itself is a fake!!!

This one is a current favourite of mine... it just doesn't make sense lighting, and mind you, I'm a full time photographer and film maker. I spend my every day for the last 9 years making professional photography and manipulating light using cameras with digi backs ranging in the 30.000 dollar class.

Now to the footage.

Like mentioned on the website where the photo link is pulled from, it makes no sense that the area around Buzz is vignetting. Just like on Earth, the sun is so far away, that when you have a pretty much even surface, the entire area in that shot would be evenly lit.... WITHOUT QUESTION!

The only reason the light could fall off like this is if was a focused source close to Buzz (and by close I mean relatively close since they must have had a huge set...).

This photo alone proves beyond a shred of doubt that the televised landing was fake and they instead filmed the whole deal on a set with controlled lighting.

reply to post by WWu777
Thank you. Its been a while. Look forward to absorbing everything you have offered. When in doubt, jab out.
This site needs more people like you. Stay strong.

Originally posted by flice



This one is a current favourite of mine... it just doesn't make sense lighting, and mind you, I'm a full time photographer and film maker. I spend my every day for the last 9 years making professional photography and manipulating light using cameras with digi backs ranging in the 30.000 dollar class.

Now to the footage.

Like mentioned on the website where the photo link is pulled from, it makes no sense that the area around Buzz is vignetting. Just like on Earth, the sun is so far away, that when you have a pretty much even surface, the entire area in that shot would be evenly lit.... WITHOUT QUESTION!

The only reason the light could fall off like this is if was a focused source close to Buzz (and by close I mean relatively close since they must have had a huge set...).

This photo alone proves beyond a shred of doubt that the televised landing was fake and they instead filmed the whole deal on a set with controlled lighting.

Or it means that to make him stand out more they altered the lighting of the picture to create a "spotlight" effect that would instill a deeper emotional response.

You ever think that all this amateur debunking and nit picking just helps whomever is hoaxing to make sure they cover their tracks more carefully, it highlights the things they missed before and ensures they know what to keep an eye out to do better in the future

I personally believe there may be a door number 3 here, that gets lost in the hoax/reality debates. With the domestic and geopolitical pressure to get boots on the ground up there, I think there was a fallback plan, complete with pictures and video of a more terrestrial origin.

Along the same train of thought, why would we give the Soviets access to any information that could be used to determine the performance of the spacecraft, or any data gathered on the moon. Sorry, but "for the good of mankind" doesn't fly. As several posters have pointed out, it was a different time, and the cold war was in full swing. All of the data that has been observed by us has been sterilized, possibly faked, and ultimately lost or taped over.

We have been to the moon, probably many more times than the 6 officially reported, but I'm sure there were plans b c d and e in effect as well ... just in case something went wrong, or something other than rocks and dust were found.

Originally posted by DEV1L79
...
Also you ignored when I asked how they cannot take pictures of the place the moon landing were done, when they can take photos of the mirrors and they can take very good photos of surface of the moon with a high powered telescope.

You asked this on page 5, yet on page 2 there was a post that gave this information...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

also a simple google search turned up the same set.


here's one to start you off. It's Apollo 14 though, does that count?