Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked

[Michael Allen]

I think the videos showing parabolic trajectory of the dust in the vacuum over the lunar rover as it is driving seals it...this is absolute "positive" evidence that rules out any earthbound hoax.

 

[Anaximander]

I think the videos showing parabolic trajectory of the dust in the vacuum over the lunar rover as it is driving seals it...this is absolute "positive" evidence that rules out any earthbound hoax.

So you don't think that the United States - the country who landed men on the moon - could fake such a shot?

I'm sure if we could land a man of the moon, we could recreate such shots.

False regolith could have been manufactured to convince people like yourself.

 

[Michael Allen]

Nice...I'll have to remember that one.

 

[Slim Shady]

I recalled this piece from last year when listening to the last show. As they've done with countless cultural memes; The Onion deconstructs the irrationality of the moon hoax conspiracy through satire.

Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Funniest article i have read all month xD onion rules

 

[justcurious]

I think the videos showing parabolic trajectory of the dust in the vacuum over the lunar rover as it is driving seals it...this is absolute "positive" evidence that rules out any earthbound hoax.

You can't call that absolute positive evidence, it could be simulated.
I can think of one way to create "parabolic trajectory of the dust" without vacuum. I'll let you think about it...

Wires, on the other hand, are proof positive that at least SOME sequences are shot on Earth.



Honestly, what are those wires connected too ? The orbiting module ? Nah... Did they take a crane to the moon ? Nah...

 

[ArchieBedford]

Archie,

My personal view is that there may be something to the claims about the moon photos, and perhaps even the lunar landing itself, being hoaxed. There are some very logical questions which are readily addressed which I have not seen NASA answer.

There were others who were onto the whole "aliens on Mars" argument before Hoaxland, including Tom van Flandren. I think Hoaxland found something plausible and interesting to talk about on C2C, and more effectively publicized the idea than others.

I am reading Ingo Swann's Penetration now. Do you have a view on Ingo?

Tom From Hong Kong

Not yet, Tom. On the reading list. Currently not up-to-speed, therefore will reserve judgment.

 

[Michael Allen]

I watched the full video, those "wires" appear for an instant. If you watch the video at normal speed, you'll see line artifacts appear several times (at different times between the two astronauts). I wouldn't bet on "wires" -- more likely cause is either tampering or film scratches. I'd place my bets on film scratches due to the fleeting nature of the artifacts. Basically, you can go to any movie theater and see these (take a camera, record them and play back at 1/4th speed and you'll see that it's just a dumb trick).

Apparently these scratches are so numerous some have devoted a considerable amount of time researching methods and algorithms to remove them

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.32.9695%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=t85HTLOmEsL78Abw34DXBA&usg=AFQjCNFVmENBEgdfpiiJvMskUS5NFee8-A

Obviously its a big problem.

 

[ArchieBedford]

You can't call that absolute positive evidence, it could be simulated.
I can think of one way to create "parabolic trajectory of the dust" without vacuum. I'll let you think about it...

Wires, on the other hand, are proof positive that at least SOME sequences are shot on Earth.



Honestly, what are those wires connected too ? The orbiting module ? Nah... Did they take a crane to the moon ? Nah...

I can't believe after all these years there is still a debate about whether the Moon landings were hoaxed.


For me, it comes down to:

1. Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 & 17 definitely landed on the Moon from July 69 thru to December 1972. The evidence is overwhelming. Talk to the astronauts. Prove conclusively that every one of them has been lying for 40 years, plus the thousands of others involved in the program. One example of many: a beacon was set up on the south-east rim of Mare Serenitatis by Cernan and Schmitt during the Apollo 17 mission transmitting FSK telemetry on 2276.0 MHz which has been detected and identified by thousands of amateur listening stations worldwide in the ensuing decades, so if you maintain the Apollo missions didn't even land on the Moon, you have to demonstrate convincingly how that beacon got there

2. Some of NASA's publicly released images supposedly taken by the 12 astronauts who landed on the Moon seem to exhibit "anomalies"

3. There also seem to be some non-Apollo related artificial structures on the Moon, especially on the far side - though the evidence for this is controversial it's still consistent and compelling

4. No mission has ever returned to the Moon in the ensuing 38 years, despite the availability of technology to do so - at least not publicly acknowledged


Given point 1, and then considering points 2 and 3 (leave out 4 if you like) explore, discuss or explain the paradox.

What the f*** has been going on?

 

[Anaximander]

I can't believe after all these years there is still a debate about whether the Moon landings were hoaxed.

One example of many: a beacon was set up on the south-east rim of Mare Serenitatis by Cernan and Schmitt during the Apollo 17 mission transmitting FSK telemetry on 2276.0 MHz which has been detected and identified by thousands of amateur listening stations worldwide in the ensuing decades, so if you maintain the Apollo missions didn't even land on the Moon, you have to demonstrate convincingly how that beacon got there

The beacons and laser targets aren't such good examples. They could have been deployed via unmanned probe, which is how the Soviets did things.

 

[ArchieBedford]

The beacons and laser targets aren't such good examples. They could have been deployed via unmanned probe, which is how the Soviets did things.

Anaximander

"Could have been" is not evidence, is it? Who manufactured this wondrous artifact in 1972, which required no manual intervention to set it up, activate and align it? Launched by whom, where, when? How was it landed right on the rim of a crater without manual guidance? Evidence please.


Do you believe the Apollo landings were "hoaxed"? Does the notion that the 80 or so astronauts in the program, all their families, thousands of NASA employees and thousands involved in developing and manufacturing the Saturn 5, the lunar and command modules and all the equipment participate in some huge conspiracy of silence, universally observed for 40 years - and no-one breaks the silence? The real world doesn't work that way. Does this not at least offend your sense of plausibility?

Have you even met any of the Apollo astronauts? If so, who? And how did he/they react when you put to them the ridiculous notion that the Moon landings were a hoax? Like Buzz Aldrin in the clip?

 

[Anaximander]

Geez.

All I did was point out that the beacons and laser targets aren't such good examples, as they can be deployed via unmanned probe. Which is true.

 

[justcurious]

Entertainment for some, legitimate questions for others... Have fun:

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Tom,

People say the Soviets would have blown the whistle, but the Soviets allegedly don't have any pictures of the landing sites and have never provided the world with any (and I'm referring to images wherein artifacts of the landings can be seen - the Russ' haven't provided any).

Any and all pictures which 'prove' we went are provided by NASA - the prime suspect.

What do you make of that?

Anaximander,

If I understand your question correctly, I doubt the Russians would provide photographic evidence supporting the fact that the U.S. beat them to the Moon -- better just to have everyone speculate the whole thing is a hoax. If you are saying the Russians haven't produced any photos which demonstrate that their spacecraft have landed, I don't know if that is true. If it is, that seems very odd. I think both side certainly have mapped out the lunar surface with low and high resolution cameras, with only the low resolution photos seeming to be released much of the time (similar to the case with Mars).

In Penetration, Ingo Swann maintains that many mainstream academicians pre-1969 long held that the "dead moon" point of view was in fact false. Between the fogs, mists and the scintillation of star light as the Moon passed in front -- combined with the numerous odd lights and discs captured by the more powerful telescopes on Earth -- many believed the Moon was quite active. Swann and others claim that this is exactly why the Apollo missions landed around the relatively inert lunar equator rather than in one of the more active craters. If the U.S. was aware of this activity, the Soviets surely were also.

If there are aliens and artifacts on the Moon, I could see where the Soviets and the U.S. would cooperate in order not to alarm their respective populations. There were a number areas of cooperation between the U.S. and Soviets despite the tensions of the time, and I can see this being one area where it would be mandated.

As a side note, if I was the Chief Administrator of NASA and I wanted to garnered public support and therefore funds for my agency, I would use high resolution cameras and photograph the hell out of the face on Mars, as well as many of the other lunar and martian anomalies (front page buzz is good for NASA funding). The principal exception to this is if in fact there is something to the claims that those anomalies are alien artifacts. The argument that the real scientists don't want to waste their time on such nonsense really doesn't hold much water in my opinion. The fact that we haven't seen clear pictures from Clementine and the Mars Explorers of areas which have raised questions strikes me as odd.

Tom

 

[justcurious]

I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation for this one too...



Any enlightening links to skeptoid.com anyone ? 8)

What about twin rocks ?







No wait, let me turn on my Debunkery Simulator v1.1, it'll save you an answer:

Twin rocks >>> generate explanation >>> working ... ... ... >>>

Answer: Statistical fluke!!! There are billions of rocks on the moon, therefore there's bound to be identical pairs somewhere!

Man this software is amazing !

 

[Anaximander]

No wait, let me turn on my Debunkery Simulator v1.1, it'll save you an answer:

Twin rocks >>> generate explanation >>> working ... ... ... >>>

Answer: Statistical fluke!!! There are billions of rocks on the moon, therefore there's bound to be identical pairs somewhere!

Man this software is amazing !

Those rocks are from panorama shots. Perhaps that is why there are duplicates.

The c-rock is still the subject of ongoing debate. One side thinks it might be evidence for the faking of that portion of the moonwalks whilst other believe that is just plain unacceptable and so the rock must have a more prosaic explanation. Luckily someone found the 'original' and it lacks a 'c'. And we can all trust NASA's image contractors right? Right?! Paragons of virtue, they are....

edit:

 

[Michael Allen]

Simple...use a cloning tool in photoshop

(1) Take some existing moon photos
(2) Clone your rocks
(3) Publish your photos as "real"

(ok--that's an obvious troll )

Another way is to pass off panorama stitched photos as evidence of fakery--well, yeah....you can duplicate this yourself--Go download the program "autostitch"

AutoStitch

Now if you can find these duplicate rocks in the actual source frames, then perhaps you have something

Apollo Surface Panoramas AS17-145-22159 – AS17-145-22176


I leave the creation of the mockup as an exercise

AS17-145-22159
AS17-145-22160
AS17-145-22161
AS17-145-22162
AS17-145-22163
AS17-145-22164
AS17-145-22165
AS17-145-22166
AS17-145-22167
AS17-145-22168
AS17-145-22169
AS17-145-22170
AS17-145-22171
AS17-145-22172
AS17-145-22173
AS17-145-22174
AS17-145-22175
AS17-145-22176

Just remember to look for the duplicate rocks in the source frames...if you can't find them, then I guess you can chalk it up to photo stitching.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Justcurious, I've given up on quoting skeptoid to you since you don't take too well to solutions that seem more plausible when faced with one that is based in fantasy. Even when provided with clear evidence you will go looking for something else that isn't there. I just find it funny that there's clearly nothing on the Moon that shows that's it is, or was once inhabited, yet you chose to believe it.
It just goes to show how different the mindset between two people can be.

 

[justcurious]

Just remember to look for the duplicate rocks in the source frames...if you can't find them, then I guess you can chalk it up to photo stitching.

Michael, you are right, it's stitching. Thanks a lot, sorry to have you spend time for nothing.



Ok so how a bunch of guys who can't stitch correctly managed to go to the moon ? Huh ?
Just kidding...8)

 

[justcurious]

Even when provided with clear evidence you will go looking for something else that isn't there. I just find it funny that there's clearly nothing on the Moon that shows that's it is, or was once inhabited, yet you chose to believe it.

Please find in this thread or anywhere else where I said that the moon is or was inhabited. If you don't I will gladly accept your apologies...

 

[Michael Allen]

Don't apologize...I love puzzles like these, Justcurious.