Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

Originally posted by Pinke
The issue with your case, Sayonara, is that the vast majority of observations you make could occur if the Moon Landing was faked or not. I'm yet to see the smoking gun or billowing cannon observation that makes me double take and completely change my mind on this issue.

Is it really so hard to believe that Richard Nixon and Howard Hughes faked the lunar landings?? I know you want to see the smoking gun but that is not at all how these conspiracy theories work.

For me, the Apollo Myth carries the same weight as the Warren Commission Report. We all know that the Warren Report was a load of rubbish. Ipso facto, Apollo can also be a load of rubbish.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Warren Commission was false =/= Moon landing history is false.

Can't use one conspiracy to validate another. They're worlds apart.

Howard Hughes was already considerably nutty/drugged up by the first moon landing and had involvement and financial contributions to both Democrats and Republicans. Hughes being connected to Nixon is interesting but certainly not surprising nor statistically unlikely.

Kubrick, Hughes, Nixon timeline:

- 1964 Kubrick meets Arthur C. Clarke in New York; jointly producing script and novel for 2001
- They talk to Carl Sagan for advice
- Still debating script 1965 ... Clarke mentions that he needed to lie down after a session with Kubrick
- 1965 filming 2001 in England begins
- 1966 - 68 Kubrick works with Douglas Trumbull and multiple effects technicians to finish the film ... the final cut is done days before the premiere.
- 1966 Hughes begins living in hotels and becomes a recluse
- 1967 they move to MGM British Studios, the atmosphere is described as frenetic
- 1968 Nixon is running for election
- 1968 Hughes is in constant pain ... allegedly only has hair and nails cut once a year, has stopped brushing teeth
- 1969 Nixon elected

At what point did these three people meet and communicate to film a moon landing?

Douglas Trumbull would have had to help. His techs would have had to help. Arthur C. Clarke would have to be lying to some degree. Nixon would have had to be certain of presidency. Hughes would have to have been perfectly lucid. That's an awful lot of dominoes falling in a line!

Seems just as unlikely as landing on the moon at least.

reply to post by Pinke


Pinke, you described precisely my main angle of attack. And here's some news to you... there are many subtle factors to Apollo skepticism, generally. But the main feature of any Apollo skepticism is the angle of attack and you have lined it up very well. Thanks for that.

Here are some other important timeline events that should be seriously considered:

The Nixon/Hughes "sensitive" financial relationships actually dates back to 1952. When HH loanded RN's brother, Donald, the sum of $205,000 dollars which was never paid back.

Hughes was an acclaimed film maker in-his-own-right, a fervent anti-communist, tax dodging billionaire.
Nixon loved movies. (He watched over 500 feature films during his presidential office. All documented in the Secret Service Daily Presidential Diary).
Hughes, in the early 1960's, built Syncom satellites for communications which means that Hughes and Nixon could be using satellite phones, they never need to meet each other in person.

Nixon could be floating on a yacht in Key Biscayne and talking to HH in Nevada using these satellite phones.

Hughes is a CIA front, everybody in the world is aware of this. Jim Irwin held a part time job working for Hughes.
Jim Irwin was in a plane crash, broke both his legs, but he was miraculously cured and chosen to walk on the moon.

Plus, Jim Irwin is a Mormon. Other sources confirm that HH was surrounded by Mormon security people during his self-exile in Las Vegas. This is the city he bought most of the casinos and most of the land in Nevada. HH was the #1 employer in Nevada for a time.

But Kubrick was used, in my humble opinion. He was asked (speculation), by Slayton, Mueller (under orders from Nixon) and NASA to deliver sample films of moon approaches and moon landings, using footage received from Howard Hughes Surveyor series spacecrafts... and my belief is that all Kubrick had to do.

It is my belief that Kubrick's involvement was limited to delivering some "credible looking" stock footage to NASA, for use in the simulators, and that Kubrick's footage was appropriated by Hughes and Nixon, in order to fake 6 Apollo lunar landings, which all took place during Nixon's presidency.

reply to post by Pinke

- 1968 Hughes is in constant pain ... allegedly only has hair and nails cut once a year, has stopped brushing teeth

We really do not know this. This could be a Hughes Decoy Operation that was deployed by the Mormons.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Pinke

 

The Nixon/Hughes "sensitive" financial relationships actually dates back to 1952. When HH loanded RN's brother, Donald, the sum of $205,000 dollars which was never paid back.

Was 1956 wasn't it?

It was brought up by Nixon's opponents, and lost him his first election. Hughes offering money to politicians was nothing new. He kept doing it with varying levels of success until his death. Nixon, at times, rejected that money.

They had exchanges documented by employees of Hughes, including attempted birbes that failed. Nixon was also paranoid after the 1956 incident. Hughes was constantly trying to give politicians money on all sides of the fence.

Hughes is a CIA front, everybody in the world is aware of this.

The CIA used his name once as a front. He was not used as a front.

Jim Irwin held a part time job working for Hughes.

I thought that was Al Bishop? What job was it?

Jim Irwin is a Mormon. Other sources confirm that HH was surrounded by Mormon security people during his self-exile in Las Vegas.

Several of his major aides were Mormon, but this is similar to Nixon liking movies and therefore faking a moon landing with Hughes. It is neither here or there.

It is my belief that Kubrick's involvement was limited to delivering some "credible looking" stock footage to NASA, for use in the simulators, and that Kubrick's footage was appropriated by Hughes and Nixon, in order to fake 6 Apollo lunar landings, which all took place during Nixon's presidency.

Why would Kubrick bother to keep such a task secret? Why would he then work with a skeleton crew as asserted at other times? There would be absolutely no reason to. Kubrick was a perfectionist and highly social professional, he wouldn't have agreed to such conditions.

'Some' credible footage is a bit of an understatement no? There were hours and hours and hours and hours of it. Again the time line issue:

- 1969 January Nixon is sworn in
- 1969 July moon landing happens
- All this time it's well documented Kubrick is in England growing a large beard and desperately trying to finish 2001
- Hughes is in Las Vegas with well known and documented mental problems

If all of this was true, at the very least Nixon would have had to have known he was being elected in 1969. Kubrick, Nixon, and Hughes would have had to meet mid 60's at the latest and that is pushing it. Hughes would have to be faking mental problems for decades. Finally, perfectionist Kubrick would had to be lying for 20 odd years about his special and visual effects capabilities and pretending to be stressed out by his ambitions.

I know you've proposed this for a while, but I think you need to look at tightening it up or perhaps even remove Nixon from the equation. His election date is a massive weak link.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Pinke

 

- 1968 Hughes is in constant pain ... allegedly only has hair and nails cut once a year, has stopped brushing teeth

We really do not know this. This could be a Hughes Decoy Operation that was deployed by the Mormons.

You're on a roll. Where does Mitt Romney fit in?

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
There is one undeniable fact and proof about the Lunar Landings. All Spacecraft were tracked and their positions triangulated by thousands of HAM operators all over the Planet.

Add to this the Soviet Union tracking the U.S. Spacecraft in order to discover any possibility of hoax. The Soviets would have been First to cry Rat if they thought the Lunar Landings were a hoax...they did not and it is LUNACY to think they would not.

Split Infinity

Not exactly. Yes, there were a whole lot of folks, including the Russians, eagerly triangulating the transmissions...BUT...

All transmissions from the Moon's surface had to be relayed up to the command module to be relayed to Earth and the command module wasn't on the surface, it was in orbit around the Moon. The best anyone on Earth would have been able to triangulate is the approximate location of the CM, not the LEM itself. Transmissions between the LEM and CM were short range VHF. Transmissions to Earth from the CM were done with a large high gain S Band band system (bigger than could fit on the LEM).

The only thing the Russians or anyone else knew for sure was that the CM was in orbit around the Moon.

reply to post by Flyingclaydisk


This is true.

It really makes me wonder what people are thinking when they call it a hoax as it would be harder to fake the Lunar Landings then actually land! LOL!

Plus here we have the largest and most powerful Rockets ever built being launched and I still hear some say from time to time that those rockets being launched were Mini-Models! LOL!

Although the Hubble Telescope can see the Lunar Landers very very soon there will be available the new Land Based Mega-Compound Mirror Telescopes in Hawaii and Chile that will allow land based Visual Sighting of the Apollo Landing Craft Undercarridges as well as Lunar Rovers.

Since there is a Laser Reflection Mirror that Astronauts left on the Lunar Surface that is constantly used by reflecting a Laser Beam off it the ability to measure exact Lunar Distance from Earth....some have put forth an idea that would use a Highly Visual Laser that once targeted the Lunar Mirror would cause the Reflection to be Highly Visable as the Laser Light would disperse brightly around the mirror in some special occilating effect.

This reflection of Bright Laser Light is said to be able to be seen by much smaller scopes as a Light Source upon the Moon. I think this would shut up the Hoaxers once and for all.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Although the Hubble Telescope can see the Lunar Landers

No, it can't.

new Land Based Mega-Compound Mirror Telescopes in Hawaii and Chile that will allow land based Visual Sighting of the Apollo Landing Craft Undercarridges as well as Lunar Rovers.

No, they won't.

In order to image the descent stages a mirror about 100 meters across would be necessary. There is nothing even close to that in existence or planned.

reply to post by Phage


From what I have been told the Hubble can visually see the Sun's reflection upon certain parts of both the left landing craft and rovers. It cannot see details but can see the reflection.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arcseconds. The descent stages would subtend to 0.002 arcseconds. This means the entire lander would occupy 1/25th of a pixel. Really doubtful that a reflection would should up either.

reply to post by Phage


Given our Stars Magnitude...an object with a reflective surface that could gnerate just 1% of the Sun's light per square Milimeter and having an area of 1 square meter would appear to have a reflective area of 189 times that of the actual area.

Split Infinity

I'm not sure either way. There is some reason for skepticism and some reason for hope.

I guess the thing that troubles me most is this: If indeed this did happen, that we achieved such a marvelous goal that bred so much marvelous technology and such hope and inspiration for a few generations (yes, I admit it...I'm in love with Neil deGrasse Tyson and agree with and believe in his message), why did it stop? Why has there been no forward progress since? Why are the shuttles and space stations that came after so relatively still primitive?

That's what nags at me most and what, consequently, steers me more toward the hoax possibility.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

having an area of 1 square meter would appear to have a reflective area of 189 times that of the actual area

What? Where do you get that from?
No matter how bright it is the reflecting area is the reflecting area.

reply to post by Phage


When an are say an inch square has Sunlight reflected from it...depending upon how reflective it is as well as how large and area...the Sunlight will always give a reflection that has a greater light magnitude than of the same area that is not reflecting light directly back to source and is calculated specifically.

Thus if I were to angle a Mirror and a Steel Sheet so as to reflect sunlight directly back and also have a one of each angled away from my direct veiw...the Mirror aimed directly back would appear as a much larger area...so would the steel sheet but not as large.

The other mirror would also be brighter and larger insupposed reflective area than the other steel sheet as long as they were angled the same way away from direct reflective return.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity

the Mirror aimed directly back would appear as a much larger area

You didn't explain that 189, but no it wouldn't. It would be bright but it would not appear larger. Unless you are talking about glare effects. The Sun has an angular size of about 0.5º. It can look a lot bigger than that because of the effects of glare but if you filter the glare you see a disk of 0.5º. The actual disk of the Sun, which is exactly the size it should be even though it is very bright.

The the Moon is far enough away so that even light being directly reflected from a small(ish) object is attenuated enough (inverse square rule) to get rid of glare. That object would not appear any larger than it is.

reply to post by Phage


I suppose you could say Glare effect. It is the same principal as when one sees a reflection upon a small object at distance that is reflecting the Sun. The effect will make the visual reflection look larger than the object reflecting it.

The relative visual appearance of this reflection or glare if you will is determined by multiple factors. First the magnitude of the light reflecting off the object as well as the Photon Density and Frequency. Two the reflective ability of the object as well as the geometry and area and angle of the object as to the angle of reflected light.
Three...the existance of any atmosphere...none on the Moon and Space...and the atmosphere on Earth...none for Hubble...as well as the ambient light during observation...like looking at the Moon either at night or day.

Then there is a percentage calculation based upon how many candlelight the light is striking the object to the reflective area to the angle of the reflective material and the area of the material as well as to the percentage of the maximum reflective ability of the material.

ETC....Split Infinity

reply to post by Pinke

I know you've proposed this for a while, but I think you need to look at tightening it up or perhaps even remove Nixon from the equation. His election date is a massive weak link.

Yeah, I know it's pretty much a mess in the way I deliver it. But Mae Brussell backs me up on the early Nixon/Nazi Paperclip connections. The connections between Nixon & Hughes are not face to face - they always use messengers.... the Robert Maheu's and the Bebe Rebozo's.

I think Nixon's election date is perfect timing for Apollo. It comes shortly after "Webb Quits NASA". It's the opportunity to switch from the reality space program to the sci-fi, Hollywood enhanced, propaganda masterpiece, produced by Nixon & Hughes. Webb, the guy running the program since JFK, doesn't have confidence. He said there was "still a chance". Not a very optimistic view so late in the game (1968). Webb's not very confident about it and that's why he left.



I believe that the 'sick' Howard Hughes story is an intelligence bluff and cover story. Hughes simply went underground. He can't be physically or mentally unfit when in 1973, the CIA agreed to work with Hughes yet again, to build the Glomar Explorer. There is nothing but mystery for Howard Hughes during this time. We just don't know if he was sick or not. Do extremely ill reclusive billionaires get contracts for the CIA on special projects such as these?

And it's difficult to remove Nixon from the Apollo equation for two obvious reasons. 1. Nixon was involved with Operation Paperclip bringing Nazi scientists to America, to build the new NASA rockets. 2. Nixon was POTUS for every manned lunar landing 1969-1972.

Those are my two bookends that I use.

Jim Irwin held a part time job working for Hughes.

I thought that was Al Bishop? What job was it?

This came up in a different thread. I will do a search for it and try to find it.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Pinke

 

I think Nixon's election date is perfect timing for Apollo. It comes shortly after "Webb Quits NASA". It's the opportunity to switch from the reality space program to the sci-fi, Hollywood enhanced, propaganda masterpiece, produced by Nixon & Hughes.

This is my problem. Ben Hur started production in 1952, wrapped in 1959, and post production took 6 months. It introduced new approaches to effects. It had the tiniest fraction of effects compared to the moon landing.

Even assuming that planning and scripting were resolved in record time, you would require a legion of the leading artists of the time to complete this in under six months. These artists were used to working with film, not video. Two quite different mediums.

I believe that the 'sick' Howard Hughes story is an intelligence bluff and cover story. Hughes simply went underground. He can't be physically or mentally unfit when in 1973, the CIA agreed to work with Hughes yet again, to build the Glomar Explorer.

Hughes mental issues are well documented.

His obsessive compulsive episodes happened long before Apollo was even a question.

The Glomar Explorer wasn't owned by Hughes. It was maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and maintained by the U.S Government. Hughes was used by the CIA to create an elaborate cover story that didn't go un-noticed.

Several people of the time pointed out that Hughes cover story for the ship didn't fit the specifications. In this context, using the sick and flamboyant Hughes was perfect ... since the Russians were likely to write it off as the billionaire wasting money.

Hughes company names etc ... were used to hide the vessel's true purpose. Hughes himself had little other involvement from what I can see.

Originally posted by Pinke
This is my problem. Ben Hur started production in 1952, wrapped in 1959, and post production took 6 months. It introduced new approaches to effects. It had the tiniest fraction of effects compared to the moon landing.

Even assuming that planning and scripting were resolved in record time, you would require a legion of the leading artists of the time to complete this in under six months. These artists were used to working with film, not video. Two quite different mediums.

[

Apollo 8 was planned to be LEO mission. They revised it into a lunar orbit mission in Aug.1968. First time ever beyond LEO, much less all the way to the moon and back!

So how much time did it take them after the revision was approved?

Well...it launched, in Dec. 1968...

About 4 months later!!

It's 'Apollo movie-time', folks!