Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

I would say the first moon landing was faked later ones were real. My reasons no dust no lunar lander clean as a whistle although we know the astronauts complained the dust stuck to everything.

I read a post on here once by someone who was just talking about how they saw the Moon landing on TV as a kid and that somehow fit into their argument on how it was real. It just reinforced my belief that people believe in the Moon landings out of emotional attachment to the event itself. Even further reinforced when one of ATS resident defenders of the authenticity of Apollo missions called themselves (and others who believe in the Moon landings) "space enthusiasts". Or they're just patriotic sheep who think we're all anti-American or something.

Forgive me for not wanting to watch a 13 minute video but I doubt it contains any worthwhile information anyway. Did the technology not really exist? I have never been impressed with the Apollo photos or video, so I can definitely believe that people in 1969 could pull it off.

Originally posted by Mercurio

Forgive me for not wanting to watch a 13 minute video but I doubt it contains any worthwhile information anyway. Did the technology not really exist? I have never been impressed with the Apollo photos or video, so I can definitely believe that people in 1969 could pull it off.

If you haven't watched it,how can you be sure just because you "doubt it contains any worthwhile information"? Is 13 minutes in a lifetime that lasts on average 80 years really too long to pay any attention to?

Originally posted by Mercurio
I read a post on here once by someone who was just talking about how they saw the Moon landing on TV as a kid and that somehow fit into their argument on how it was real. It just reinforced my belief that people believe in the Moon landings out of emotional attachment to the event itself. Even further reinforced when one of ATS resident defenders of the authenticity of Apollo missions called themselves (and others who believe in the Moon landings) "space enthusiasts". Or they're just patriotic sheep who think we're all anti-American or something.

I find it the other way round: most people believe that the moon landings were real simply because there is plenty of evidence that they happened, and because there is no real reason to believe otherwise. I am one such person; and I have absolutely no emotional attachement to those events (apart from thinking how freaking awesome they were). On the other hand, moon hoax believers have an emotional investment in maintaining that it's a hoax, no matter how many times their claims are debunked. There's definitely some political motivation there, although interestingly it mostly comes from Americans themselves. Kinda anti-American Americans. I haven't seen many non-Americans believing that the landings were not real.

Originally posted by Mercurio

Forgive me for not wanting to watch a 13 minute video but I doubt it contains any worthwhile information anyway. Did the technology not really exist? I have never been impressed with the Apollo photos or video, so I can definitely believe that people in 1969 could pull it off.

edit on 27-1-2013 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)

You should have watched that 13 minute video then, because of the rest of your statement.

The video is mainly about the video footage itself and what technology was there at the time. Which was: technology to get us to the moon, was there. Technology in video to fake the moon landing, not there.

As he stated in the video in today's world, faking a moon landing (at least in so far as making very long, life footage for people to see) is very possible using modern technology, video techniques and CGI. However, none of that existed back then.

Originally posted by Mercurio
I read a post on here once by someone who was just talking about how they saw the Moon landing on TV as a kid and that somehow fit into their argument on how it was real. It just reinforced my belief that people believe in the Moon landings out of emotional attachment to the event itself. Even further reinforced when one of ATS resident defenders of the authenticity of Apollo missions called themselves (and others who believe in the Moon landings) "space enthusiasts". Or they're just patriotic sheep who think we're all anti-American or something.

Forgive me for not wanting to watch a 13 minute video but I doubt it contains any worthwhile information anyway. Did the technology not really exist? I have never been impressed with the Apollo photos or video, so I can definitely believe that people in 1969 could pull it off.

edit on 27-1-2013 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)

This entire thread is (supposedly) in response to the video. If you don't believe in the moon landings, that's fine. Everyone has a right to believe what they want. However, you can't refer to people believing in the moon landings authenticity as "sheep" and then refuse to look at actual evidence that your point of view may not be correct. At least look at the evidence and make an informed decision. Seems that you have an "emotional attachment" to your beliefs also. Which basically makes yours one of the most hypocritical responses I remember reading in quite some time.

At least watch the video.

Originally posted by Tachyeon
I would say the first moon landing was faked later ones were real. My reasons no dust no lunar lander clean as a whistle although we know the astronauts complained the dust stuck to everything.

Why would Apollo 11 be fake and the rest real? What changed in the 4 months between Apollo's 11 and 12? The LM's on the other missions were no more dusty than the Apollo 11 LM. However they didn't interact with the Lunar dust all that much, just during landing. But the astronauts were the ones mucking about on the surface, kicking up dust with their feet. It makes sense that they'd be getting dust stuck to them. Why should the LM's be significantly dirty as well?

reply to post by Imagewerx


I'm sure I was partly behind your reason for posting this and I'd like to make it clear I have no problem with people questioning the world around them and not taking something at face value, in fact I encourage it. The reason I've been somewhat curt is because of the type of people these moon threads tend to attract. You'll occasionally get someone who is genuinely curious and comes here to ask questions and pays attention to the replies and makes a conclusion based on the evidence. When you watched the brightly polished turds put forth by people like Sibrel and White you start to question things because if you don't know any better, they play to that and their reasoning can make sense to someone who has no experience with photography or physics. What I do have a problem with are the type of people who tend to take over the apollo threads. The kind of people who come to a site whose motto is "deny ignorance" and not only do they not deny it, they perpetuate it. They perpetuate it with such a passion that they come of as being incredibly proud of being an ignorant idiot, they don't wish to learn, they don't wish to grow, they just want to show the world how little they know. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets really annoyed by that.

reply to post by captainpudding

No it wasn't aimed at you,I'm on your side.It was aimed at those you were trying unsuccessfully to provide us with scientific evidence when all they could do is prove they've been on a college course on how to use really big words without actually saying anything.

reply to post by Imagewerx


Well it does go with both ways. They like to attack the messenger because the facts scare them too much so it's their only option. While those of us on the side of reality tend to go after the messenger because they haven't presented a fact in 40 years . . . slippery slope

reply to post by ckno1

Meh. Na. That video looks like every other video trying to debunk it. I have seen hundreds. Really... What this guy does is the same thing which everyone else does who tries to debunk it... He debunks the easy stuff, but ignores the difficult stuff. Let's stick to just 1 point. There are many others which are outstanding, but... Let's just stick to 1. www.youtube.com... at 11 mins in. I have not seen this debunked. There is other stuff like it... How about the hasselblad cameras? They had the cross hairs fixed inside the camera. Only camera used on the moon.. Every picture taken on them MUST show the cross hairs over the top of the background. There are some pictures where the cross hairs are behind the features in the background. To me, this clear and obvious prove that there is some kinda trickery/doctoring going on. I'm not saying they did not go to the moon... I'm saying that I don't trust what they told us about it...

So... Debunk that, or admit you can't.,..

reply to post by MrN9k

Let's just stick to 1. www.youtube.com... at 11 mins in. I have not seen this debunked.

What is the claim made on this video you have not seen debunked? ATS Terms & Conditions state that you must describe the content of the video for the benefit of those who cannot view it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MrN9k

 

Let's just stick to 1. www.youtube.com... at 11 mins in. I have not seen this debunked.

What is the claim made on this video you have not seen debunked? ATS Terms & Conditions state that you must describe the content of the video for the benefit of those who cannot view it.

In case he's signed-off (and God pretend to help us if he comes back), its something about [EDIT: I got the names wrong, thinking it was Apollo 11 when it was Apollo 16] Neil Armstrong taking a picture of Buzz Aldrin where a flap on his backpack is in an upright position while another camera angle taken at the same time shows the flap tucked into the backpack. So the claim was that the two pictures of the same event show different things.


Here is the vid MrN9k is talking about, at 11 minutes in. I think it would be a "welcome new member" gift if someone can debunk it within the time it takes to wipe a speck of moondust off of Buzz Aldrin's spacesuit.

reply to post by DJW001


Sorry, my bad. I'm new here. At 11 mins in there is a video clip showing a man jumping in on the moon. There is also a still photograph taken of the same incident at the same time. There is a "flap" at the back of the space suit. In one the flap is up, in the other the flap is down. Because of this I can not see how I can trust anything else NASA have told me about the moon landings. Also the hasselblad cameras cross hair should NEVER be behind images in the foreground. In some pictures they are. I have seen no explanation for how this is possible if NASA are being honest. Is there an explanation?

reply to post by MrN9k

Sorry, my bad. I'm new here. At 11 mins in there is a video clip showing a man jumping in on the moon. There is also a still photograph taken of the same incident at the same time. There is a "flap" at the back of the space suit. In one the flap is up, in the other the flap is down. Because of this I can not see how I can trust anything else NASA have told me about the moon landings. Also the hasselblad cameras cross hair should NEVER be behind images in the foreground. In some pictures they are. I have seen no explanation for how this is possible if NASA are being honest. Is there an explanation?

He takes two jumps. They freeze on the one where the flap didn't go up. Extremely dishonest.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MrN9k

 

Sorry, my bad. I'm new here. At 11 mins in there is a video clip showing a man jumping in on the moon. There is also a still photograph taken of the same incident at the same time. There is a "flap" at the back of the space suit. In one the flap is up, in the other the flap is down. Because of this I can not see how I can trust anything else NASA have told me about the moon landings. Also the hasselblad cameras cross hair should NEVER be behind images in the foreground. In some pictures they are. I have seen no explanation for how this is possible if NASA are being honest. Is there an explanation?

He takes two jumps. They freeze on the one where the flap didn't go up. Extremely dishonest.

EDIT: Whoops, the flap incident is not from Apollo 11, but Apollo 16. So it wasn't Aldrin. My mistake, although if it was a fake shot, maybe it was Aldrin!

Bang, zing, a star for you. A child would have known that (which is why I missed it). If MrN weren't a bot, he would ask how did the flap go up, as it seems in the above photo that everything is tightly sealed into the backpack. Was the flap loose enough so that it flipped up in one jump? It's interesting Neil Armstrong took all the pictures, and Buzz Aldrin was dancing around and mugging for the camera. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when they argued about who would take the first leak on the moon, and other things. Remember that supposedly occult masonic prayer ceremony Aldrin performed on the moon?

reply to post by DJW001


The picture was taken with a still hasselblad camera. The video shows both jumps. I do not see the flap moving or going up in either jump. Do you mean the first or second jump is where the flap goes up? Also, the issue of the camera cross hairs showing up behind some of the backgrounds?

4.bp.blogspot.com...

This happens in several pictures. evidenceaone.blogspot.co.uk... Is one article about this.

reply to post by MrN9k

The picture was taken with a still hasselblad camera. The video shows both jumps. I do not see the flap moving or going up in either jump

Watch closely. You can clearly see the flap bouncing between jumps. Because of the angle, it is hard to see the flap at the top of the jump because it is obscured by the rest of the PLSS. The flap would be more clearly visible from the front, where the still was taken.