• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Moon Landing is a Fake

  • Thread starter Thread starter stitcherman
  • Start date Start date

Free episodes:

musictomyears said:
If I remember correctly, the moment when the coin finally dropped was when I looked at this image: Buzz Aldrin standing in a spotlight.

That's a nice image - but I was curious as to whether that really is Buzz Aldrin in that suit, so I decided to apply some 'special' photoshop filters to see if I could reduce the reflection in the visor...


...and what I found will turn your world upside-down!!! :eek:


(Filtered image attached)
 

Attachments

  • not_aldrin_on_the_moon.jpg
    not_aldrin_on_the_moon.jpg
    442.3 KB · Views: 1
Rick Deckard said:
musictomyears said:
If I remember correctly, the moment when the coin finally dropped was when I looked at this image: Buzz Aldrin standing in a spotlight.

That's a nice image - but I was curious as to whether that really is Buzz Aldrin in that suit, so I decided to apply some 'special' photoshop filters to see if I could reduce the reflection in the visor...


...and what I found will turn your world upside-down!!! :eek:


(Filtered image attached)

This, of course, explains everything. I am shocked.
 
musictomyears that is not a spot light that the asstronot is bathing in. it is the reflective properties of the Magic Moon Dust. dB and Gene have assured us that this amazing dust can illuminate a whole lander including all the nooks and crannies AND create a specular highlight on an astronots boot. all without illuminating the dust itself. it is truly amazing stuff.
 
musictomyears said:
Rick Deckard said:
...and where are the Mars rovers? $20 says they're in a desert - on Earth.

Absolutely.

Well, as soon as you find them on Google Earth, you let me know.

Might have better luck with Google Mars, tho:

Spacecraft: MER Spirit Rover (USA)
Location: 14.57S, 175.47E
Launched: 2003
Results: Landed successfully in January of 2004, and still running.
 
Well, if the rover really is on Mars, why did NASA see fit to manipulate the images? Some time ago - it might have been on this thread, I can't remember - we discussed anomalies in the Mars images, in particular concerning the background and sky. Very similar to the Moon images, the Mars shots feature very unnatural, monochrome backgrounds, as if created with a computer using the simplest of colour schemes.
 
pixelsmith said:
musictomyears that is not a spot light that the asstronot is bathing in. it is the reflective properties of the Magic Moon Dust. dB and Gene have assured us that this amazing dust can illuminate a whole lander including all the nooks and crannies AND create a specular highlight on an astronots boot. all without illuminating the dust itself. it is truly amazing stuff.

Even more amazing, when you consider Moon's albedo, or reflectivity. It is roughly 7%, compared to Earth's average 30%. Moon's surface is about as black as coal or asphalt:

"The original definition of albedo, proposed by Bond, is the ratio of total solar radiation scattered from a body to the radiation incident upon it. The Bond albedo of the moon is 11%. But limiting this figure to V-band radiation produces quite a different value. The average visual Bond albedo of the earth-facing side of the moon is 7.2%.

This is what has led to the often repeated statement that the moon is blacker than even very black terrestrial materials."

http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm

Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
gilbavel said:
Okay, okay... now we're getting uncomfortably close to personal. The "host" is doing a great job. Not only is he your host, too (and mine), he doesn't even like talking about this subject, and it's out of some bizarre form of generosity that he's even left this thread open. Let's not prove his better judgement right.

Yes I agree the hosts are doing a great job, which is why this is my favorite paranormal show. But no one here said they weren't doing a great job, so that really has nothing to do with the point I was making. Disagreement does not equal personal attack, I'm simply quoting someone. The hosts have praised the grandiosity of our space achievements on paracast episodes, so I'm not making this up.

Intelligent people respect this show because the hosts pull no punches and don't beat around the bush. My behavior in this instance isn't any different, because I'm not insulting anyone or saying they're stupid. Just calling it as I see it, with the ever-present clause that I reserve the right to be wrong in my opinions.

It's just a simple fact that a man with no emotional ties to a subject can look at that subject more objectively than a man with emotional ties. Whether the man in question has emotional ties in this case is a matter of debate, and I don't care either way. It was simply an interesting observation to point out and anyone can take it or leave it.

As for your statement about the generosity of keeping this subject open and "let's not prove him right", I think that's a little ridiculous. The discussion in this subject is just as civil as the discussion in any of the other subjects. Disagreement with the hosts is not disorderly conduct.
 
Rick Deckard said:
gilbavel said:
Well, as soon as you find them on Google Earth, you let me know.

A vast amount of the Earth's surface is not covered by Google Earth down to the detail that you require to spot a 'rover'.

For faking Mars images, NASA could have used the same technique as for the Moon shots: Build a large hall, cover the floor with dust and rocks, and place models on top of it. Having said that, the Mars images look more "real" to me, in terms of distribution of light and shadow. My $20 are also on a remote desert location here on Earth. NASA simply cut out the skies in Photoshop, and crudely replaced them with reddish colour gradients.
 
Moshi Dayan said:
Why does the moon reverberate when we manage to hit it with a missile? Because it is NOT a natural formation. The moon was not always in orbit around the earth.

talk about having your cake and eating it too, how would we know it reberberates unless we placed seismic sensors there to measure this.

yes it does ring like a bell, its prob hollow

why did we stop going, because we found out it was a mother ship not a moon.

a quick search of "china moon landing" comes up with articles suggesting 2017 2024 and not going at all

my money is on the last one, i think china will be brought into the fold and given the greater reality
 
I anyone thinks the moon is an alien base/mothership... they should take a trip to the doctor. You need help and should seek it ASAP.
 
pixelsmith said:
musictomyears that is not a spot light that the asstronot is bathing in. it is the reflective properties of the Magic Moon Dust. dB and Gene have assured us that this amazing dust can illuminate a whole lander including all the nooks and crannies AND create a specular highlight on an astronots boot. all without illuminating the dust itself. it is truly amazing stuff.

Don't put words in my mouth, I really don't appreciate it.

dB
 
kova said:
I anyone thinks the moon is an alien base/mothership... they should take a trip to the doctor. You need help and should seek it ASAP.

Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon

the books make a good case for the possibility, but for most its a long leap to take i enjoyed the books and they are still available via amazon

and this from another site
In 1979 Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications
Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two
UFOs on the rim of a crater. "The encounter was common knowledge
in NASA," he revealed, "but nobody has talked about it until
now."

Soviet scientists were allegedly the first to confirm the
incident. "According to our information, the encounter was
reported immediately after the landing of the module," said Dr.
Vladimir Azhazha, a physicist and Professor of Mathematics at
Moscow University. "Neil Armstrong relayed the message to Mission
Control that two large, mysterious objects were watching them
after having landed near the moon module. But his message was
never heard by the public - because NASA censored it. "According
to another Soviet scientist, Dr. Aleksandr Kazantsev, Buss Aldrin
took color movie film of the UFOs from inside the module, and
continued filming them after he and Armstrong went outside. Dr.
Azhazha claims that the UFOs departed minutes after the
astronauts came out on to the lunar surface.

Maurice Chatelain also confirmed that Apollo 11's radio
transmissions were interrupted on several occasions in order to
hide the news from the public. Before dismissing Chatelain's
sensational claims, it is worth noting his impressive background
in the aerospace industry and space program. His first job after
moving from France was as an electronics engineer with Convair,
specializing in telecommunications, telemetry and radar. In 1959
he was in charge of an electromagnetic research group, developing
new radar and telecommunications systems for Ryan. One of his
eleven patents was an automatic radar landing system that ignited
retro rockets at a given altitude, used in the Ranger and
Surveyor flights to the Moon. Later, at North American Aviation,
Chatelain was offered the job of designing and building the
Apollo communications and data-processing systems.

Chatelain claims that "all Apollo and Gemini flights were
followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by
space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - flying saucers, or
UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it
occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then
ordered absolute silence." He goes on to say:

"I think that Walter Schirra aboard Mercury 8 was the first
of the astronauts to use the code name 'Santa Claus' to
indicate the presence of flying saucers next to space
capsules. However, his announcements were barely noticed by
the general public. It was a little different when James
Lovell on board the Apollo 8 command module came out from
behind the moon and said for everybody to hear: 'PLEASE BE
INFORMED THAT THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS.' Even though this
happened on Christmas Day 1968, many people sensed a hidden
meaning in those words."

If and i say if this is the reality then to me it makes all the parts of the puzzle fit
most people are here looking for some "proof" aliens are here on earth, but some cant swallow the idea we found them on the moon as well ?

to me it seems logical that if they are here, they would also be there
 
kova said:
I anyone thinks the moon is an alien base/mothership... they should take a trip to the doctor. You need help and should seek it ASAP.

I keep telling you people over and over again that the moon is a gigantic meat processing plant, but you just won't listen. Where the hell do you think kielbasa comes from? Huh?
Also the sauerkraut and stewed apples that go with it.
Work that out, ye gullible heathens.
 
heres a good list of UFO / space program storys

Apollo Moon Conversations...

According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:

'Buzz' Aldrin who was also with Armstrong on the Apollo 11 mission, was said to have taken color film footage of alien craft, Armstrong later confirmed that this footage had indeed been shot by Aldrin, only to be confiscated by the CIA on their return to Earth. Fearing for his wellbeing, Armstrong refused to go in further details, except to confirm that the CIA were behind an extensive cover-up campaign regarding the US space program and consequent encounters with UFOs. In 1979, former chief of NASA Communications, Maurice Chatelain, confirmed that Armstrong and Aldrin had encountered UFOs on the Moon. To this day Chatelain vehemently protests the truth of their accounts.

In December 1965, Gemini astronauts James Lovell and Frank Borman also saw a UFO during their second orbit of their record-breaking 14 day flight. Borman reported that he saw an unidentified spacecraft some distance from their capsule. Gemini Control, at Cape Kennedy told him that he was seeing the final stage of their own Titan booster rocket. Borman confirmed that he could see the booster rocket all right, but that he could also see something completely different.
During James Lovell's flight on Gemini 7

Lovell: BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH. Cad

Capcom: This is Houston. Say again 7.

Lovell: SAID WE HAVE A BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH.

Capcom: Gemini 7, is that the booster or is that an actual sighting?

Lovell: WE HAVE SEVERAL.... ACTUAL SIGHTINGS.

Capcom: ...Estimated distance or size?

Lovell: WE ALSO HAVE THE BOOSTER IN SIGHT.
 
You can never trust any of those transcripts... Hell, Buzz himself said on CNN he never saw any UFO, but just debris.

I even challenge the challenger transcript... I do believe that they survived the initial explosion... Because they did find water in the lungs of the crew when they recovered the remains... But I don't think they could withstand the g-forces the capsule was probably pulling as it spun and fell back down to the water.
 
musictomyears said:
For faking Mars images, NASA could have used the same technique as for the Moon shots: Build a large hall, cover the floor with dust and rocks, and place models on top of it. Having said that, the Mars images look more "real" to me, in terms of distribution of light and shadow. My $20 are also on a remote desert location here on Earth. NASA simply cut out the skies in Photoshop, and crudely replaced them with reddish colour gradients.

Well, NASA were caught out faking the red colour - they always used a combination of 'green', 'blue' and 'infrared' cameras for any shots that included the sky. They do have a 'red' camera, but they insisted that using the infrared camera would show up more detail. Unfortunately, this meant that pictures coming back to Earth were missing a 'red' signal - so NASA estimated the amount of 'red' in each image based on 'infrared' signal and added it in 'manually'.

When you compare the 'corrected' images against the one's from the landers in 1970's, you see that they have a lot more 'red' in them. Anyway, there's been massive discussions about it - I've no idea what the current situation is. Obviously NASA have persuaded those that matter 'cos we haven't heard any more controversy.

When an organisation has a monopoly on information, I'm always suspicious of it's authenticity until it can be independently verified...
 
Rick Deckard said:
When an organisation has a monopoly on information, I'm always suspicious of it's authenticity until it can be independently verified...

Those same organisations also rely on one factor: Most people, by a very large margin, don't question authority. One example: As part of my studies, I attended lectures on microbiology at a renowned teaching hospital. One particular lecture was on HIV/AIDS. I asked the head virologist how it was possible for HIV to cause AIDS, if the T helper cells survive the budding of the viruses - in other words, HIV is not lytic, it doesn't destroy the host cells. I guess I expected a reply along the lines of "This is an interesting question, we don't know the answer yet", or something like that. Far from it: He actually got a little angry with me, and asked: "Why do you want to know"? Without waiting for a reply, he scrambled his papers, and walked off. That's academia for you: Strictly hierarchical and territorial. New information gets handed down only from the top, but isn't permitted to move up from the bottom. Astronomy won't be any different.
 
Why the Apollo moon hoax makes no sense video...follow the rest via youtube

<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>
 
Back
Top