Moon Landing is a Fake

[Gil Bavel]

And a pretty convincing video:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="

"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[Gil Bavel]

out of interest, did any of the australian scientists working on the comunications link via the radio telescope at parkes ever come forward and say the signals were coming from anywhere other than where they should be ?

Mike, you'll be particularly interested in this one:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="

"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[pixelsmith]

i think it is quite obvious NASA is full of crap. they sure have a lot of people fooled.

 

[BrandonD]

I don't have to use Photoshop skills here - the actual facts will suffice.

The "cardboard construction" is not the actual internal structure of the LM. What you're seeing are thermal panels, designed to insulate the LM. They did indeed get bashed a bit by spaceflight, but they're not the "inner skin" of the ship, and their crumpling did not compromise structural integrity. Here's the original image on NASA's site:

Photo-as16-122-19533

If you look to the right of the upper area of the LM in the hi-res image, you'll see the reflection of the antenna in the window of the command module, where the picture was shot from.

That lunar surface, the lighting, scale, everything in that picture is exactly what you'd expect to see in a real photo of a LM above our moon. No question in my mind. Believe what you want.

dB

Your vehemence against this subject speaks volumes.

I can't help but notice that you've never bothered to comment on the photos which I've brought up multiple times and even requested your analysis (and which are more questionable in my opinion). Yet you analyze these other photos right away? Just an odd observation.

I'm not a believer in the "moon hoax" and I'm not a believer in the apollo story as it is told to us. I simply can't ignore the clear indication that something is wrong with the official story. What can be concluded from that is still up in the air, as far as I'm concerned.

In all honesty, I could really give a flip about the apollo program. I'm not a space buff at all. But I'm very interested in psychology, and I've grown more interested in this subject over time because it's been selected by the intellectuals of the ufo community as the conspiracy theory to publicly ridicule if you wish to be seen as credible. It's a social phenomenon that's very strange and interesting.

Despite what you may think, not only idiots take this subject seriously. An intelligent person can take this subject seriously. But an intelligent person can also be mistaken. So once again, I'm asking you to please educate me on my error in interpreting the photos in this video as faked:

I'm more interested in learning than in being correct in this case. Perhaps you can help in that respect, because I can't see how my conclusion is wrong.

 

[pixelsmith]

this video is a little corny but shows many clips of OBVIOUS wire suspension and unknown light sources.

dB check out 1:50, 3:00, 4:15, 4:50 and 5:35 for some of the more obvious BS. you simply cannot explain away all the BS in this video.

 

[pixelsmith]

this series proves the hoax.

 

[mike]

i accept that nasa hid certain facets of the mission,
if you watch the documentary below

Mr Aldrin talks about the UFO that tailed them, and says "of course we wernt allowed to talk about it at the time."

the australian scientists ive met take themselfs very seriously, the ones at parkes would not have been easy to hoax, and as for being in on it, it doesnt fit my experience of australian scientists that they would knowingly take part in such a hoax.

Mr Aldrins quote says it all for me, they did have a UFO issue and they were not allowed to talk about it

ron wilsons book secrets of our spaceship moon makes a case for the moon being an artificial object put in place by aliens to act as a "blind" to observe us as we would use a blind to observe animals in the wild.
he mentions in the book the fact that astronoughts saw ufo tech both in transit and on the moon.

this to me is a more plausible explianation, for the odditys surrounding the mission than launching six saturn Vs into orbit

one would have been suffiecient, reminds me of a court case

"so your telling the court you didnt stab the victim, that he fell on the knife ?"
"yes sir"
"he fell on the knife ? 6 times ?"

even 3 missions would have acheived the same result, for HALF the price

Moon rock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cmon, you want me to accept that the scientists that have studied these rocks dont know they are fake ?
and the russians have also brought back moon rocks

the proof is in the pudding, in this case rock cake

 

[David Biedny]

Folks,

I do The Paracast out of an interest in topics that I feel strongly about - and which, in many cases, reflect the questions brought up by my own personal experiences. I pick my fights, and I understand that I can only take on so much - this show is not my job, no one pays me or Gene to do this full time. I have to work, in order to pay my rent, expenses and so forth. There are so many hours in the day, and I'm someone who has a boatload of hobbies, friends, a wonderful honey, a full and rather dynamic life.

I appreciate that there are some of you who have become fascinated by the idea that moon missions were faked, and you are certainly within your rights to pick this topic. By the same token, I have decided that this is a fight I have little to no interest in, and while I know that there are those of you who want me to comment extensively on it, I don't feel it's worth my time. As far as conspiracies, I'm much more interested in the current American political situation, and the terrible crimes I feel are being perpetrated right now, the ones that affect me today. If you want to take your energy and put it towards investigating the moon missions, have fun. I chose to devote my energy to other things. it's really that simple. No attitude, I'm just being honest.

dB

 

[mike]

Folks,

I do The Paracast out of an interest in topics that I feel strongly about
dB

and a damn fine job you do too

 

[David Biedny]

this series proves the hoax.

I just watched that, and for the life of me, I honestly can't understand what you're talking about. NONE of that looked suspicious to me, seriously. What do YOU think makes that footage questionable?

dB

 

[pixelsmith]

it is so laughable that anyone can believe the video and photos from the moon are real after that last video i posted. this video also shows tons of proof.

i love you guys but seriously.. we have high officials admitting to the faked stuff and even admitting that kubrick's crew was murdered.

of course at this point we will hear nothing more from Gene or dB on this matter. is it possible to eat crow and back peddle at the same time? lol.

 

[pixelsmith]

maybe an astronot being HOISTED to his feet?!?! maybe the glint of wires attached to his suit... maybe the photo of stanley kubrick laying on the moons surface or the studio lights in the background etc etc etc....

 

[pixelsmith]

it has been ADMITTED by many involved that have not been killed yet... the moon footage and photos are FAKE.

 

[David Biedny]

You're seeing the glint of wires in a highly-compressed video file? Are you kidding me? Please, take some stills and show me what the heck you're talking about.

1/6th gravity is not a TOTAL lack of gravity, stuff falls down. My oh my, I mean, WTF?!

Pixelsmith, you keep posting videos that show me NOTHING weird, sorry if I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

And Gene & I have left this alone because we know it's just south of ridiculous.

So yeah, I'm done with this thread. Have at it, believe what you will.

dB

 

[pixelsmith]

this one shows many shots of the sun... except one thing... the sun has a light bulb in it. lmao. i really want to believe what i saw as a kid..but it isnt easy.

fact - we know they had a hollywood set to practice on.
fact - we know a camera cannot function in the 100 degree above zero to 100 degree below zero climate on the moon.
fact - solar radiation would have clouded the film
fact - film will break at below zero temps
fact - we have high officials admitting the hoax
i could go on and on...

 

[pixelsmith]

sorry dB i was not aware that you are blind. my apologies.

fight or flight...

 

[David Biedny]

Whatever you say, you're right, OK?

 

[pixelsmith]

immediately after a hammer throwing experiment a NASA official says "nice throw." HOW WOULD HE KNOW?

this is an important point. how would he know?!?

 

[musictomyears]

That lunar surface, the lighting, scale, everything in that picture is exactly what you'd expect to see in a real photo of a LM above our moon.

How do you know that? Have you been there?

I suggest your mind has been programmed to accept that the Moon looks the way it does in the NASA images by repetitious exposure to those images. If the Moon would have been presented to you differently, with different features, your mind would identify those features with the real thing. How can I be sure? Because you have no way of verifying the authenticity of the images. Since you have already decided that the images must be authentic, your mind ignores all evidence to the contrary, and skips over any inconsistencies or logical impossibilities. In psychology, this process is know as confirmation bias: "In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs." Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a clip from the documentary "What Happened on the Moon?", which I posted before. I received no response from you or Gene concerning the evidence for wire rigs:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="

"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

In this sequence, filmed during the 1969 Apollo 11 press conference, the astronauts are asked if they could see stars from the Moon, and they replied "No". How extraordinarily improbable is that? How could that be? Even from Earth, through our atmosphere, we sometimes can make out the planet Venus during daytime. Yet we are led to believe that in a zero atmosphere environment, the astronauts could never see any stars? We should remember that stars are light-emitting suns.

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1754803469580790620&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

Here is a more complete clip containing the Q/A session:

<embed src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/player/media/swf/FLVVideoSolo.swf' flashvars='id=4304958&emailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Futil%2Fmail%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26vid%3D1207797&imUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252Fvideo%252Fplay%253Fei%253DUTF-8%2526vid%253D1207797&imTitle=The%2BApollo%2B11%2BPress%2BConference%2BOf%2B1969&searchUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/search/video...id=&creatorValue=aG5yeXNhbmNoZXo=&vid=1207797' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350'></embed>

When you scroll to about 3.30, you can hear Buzz Aldrin make the following statement: "We first set foot on the Moon in the deep shadow area." Here is where he gives the game away and makes it obvious that his and his fellow astronaut's statements are not truthful. If the astronauts were standing in "deep shadow", they would have been exposed to an extraordinary display of stars, planets and the Milky Way. Even if they would have tried, they would not have been able to ignore the stars, but they would have been able to take photos and record video images as well. You cannot have it both ways: Deep, black shadow areas on the lunar surface, and "glare" that makes it impossible to see the stars. This also renders all images that feature fill-in light impossible: Deep shadow means deep shadow. You cannot have it both ways:

 

[pixelsmith]

dB and Gene this is what you never got to see on TV.

more proof from the asstronots themselves.