Moon Landing is a Fake

[mike]

to my mind tha fact that someone here in australia defied the official policy sorta puts the lid on the whole american master power aspect of the case.
while i doubt anyone in the australian govt gave the nod to to swapping plug A with plug B,i reckon some card at the Aust broadcasting corp (govt tv channel) with typical aussie cheek, defied the policy (made a mistake with plug A whoopsie) and changed history, making australians the first people on the planet to see man walk on the moon.
to me thats where the hoax theory falls down

yes it was an american space centre, and an american rocket, american pilots and american scientists who made it possible for Mr Armstrong to walk on our moon, but it was australian scientists and australian technology and australian facilitys that made it possible for the world to see it. and we defied policy and robbed you of being the first to see it.

the whole premise of the hoax falls down within that reality

yes it was an american space centre, and an american rocket, american pilots and american scientists who made it possible for Mr Armstrong to walk on our moon, and if you want to throw in an american hoax to ice the cake.......... well thats fine i guess.
but once you include australian scientists in the equation it all goes pear shaped

the hoax theory only works if you are thinking "inside" the american box. a world view is clearer

and thats really the only value my posts have, 6 degrees of seperation and a different angle on the reality

 

[Astroboy]

the hoax theory only works if you are thinking "inside" the american box. a world view is clearer

Well said Mike. On that note does anyone bother to check independent sources? Apparently not.

Nasa lies. Fine.
Wikipedia is faulty, part of the "mainstream". Fine.
Everything involving the American government is a lie. Whatever.

Let's try the Russians. Here are links to their lunar programs with photos on the moon.

Soviet Moon Images

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_2.jpg
C_Zond07_2.jpg (JPEG Image, 900x593 pixels)

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Luna13_3.jpg
C_Luna13_3.jpg (JPEG Image, 5620x540 pixels)

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Zond08_10.jpg
C_Zond08_10.jpg (JPEG Image, 1680x900 pixels) - Scaled (59%)
Soviet Moon Images

Hmm, guess what? No stars. Not crap Youtube compressed videos but high res photos. If you ever bothered to look at any Space Shuttle or International Space Station photos or of the Russian Mir you will not see a single star in any photo with space in the background. Do your homework for goodness sake. Do some independent research outside American sources. Don't look at debunking sites or hoax sites. Site me some other source of evidence or do some experiments that prove something.

I know, I know the Russians are in on it too. The Cold War never happened. It was a friendly competition. People who say this show a profound ignorance of history. It was Cold only in name. Wars were fought by proxy in Asia (Korea, Vietnam), the Middle East(Afganistan), and Latin America(Cuba, Nicaragua). Hundreds of thousands died as a result.

BTW, NASA is building the Orion, the next generation of manned space vehicles for the purpose of exploring space, including the moon. China is also planning a manned mission to the moon. I'm waiting for the China is in on it too response.

It may take 10 years to get back there so I guess we'll have to have another round of "It's fake" in 10 years.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Hmm, guess what? No stars.

Actually, I can quite clearly see stars in all three of those photos, but I'm not the one pushing the 'stars' angle, so don't give any grief for pointing that out...

BTW, NASA is building the Orion, the next generation of manned space vehicles for the purpose of exploring space, including the moon. China is also planning a manned mission to the moon.

Yeah, we know - it's been mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere.

It may take 10 years to get back there so I guess we'll have to have another round of "It's fake" in 10 years.

Hey, if they faked it first time and got away with it, why not do it again

 

[Astroboy]

Hmm, guess what? No stars.

Actually, I can quite clearly see stars in all three of those photos, but I'm not the one pushing the 'stars' angle, so don't give any grief for pointing that out...

You can clearly see stars or maybe just dust on old photos or that pesky magic moon dust again. I suppose we can argue forever about this except...

Take a look at some modern photos taken in space with modern cameras:

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia...g Atlantis' stay. Click to enlarge this image.
Image Display

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia...oard the station. Click to enlarge this image.
Image Display

Webshots - Astoria, Oregon
International Space Station pictures from space photos on webshots

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/astrolab/s121e05272.jpg
s121e05272.jpg (JPEG Image, 3032x2064 pixels) - Scaled (31%)

International Space Station
International Space Station | News | guardian.co.uk

Webshots - Astoria, Oregon
Mir in Orbit pictures from space photos on webshots

Still no stars. These photos are much clearer. No guess work regarding anomolies that may or may not be stars.

I guess if you want to believe then those airbrushing fools at Nasa and those collaborators on the International Space Station from Russia, Italy, Ukraine, Japan, etc are busy erasing stars.

Just focusing on the photographic evidence angle. Not trying to give you or anyone in particular grief...yet.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Still no stars. These photos are much clearer. No guess work regarding anomolies that may or may not be stars.

I guess if you want to believe then those airbrushing fools at Nasa and those collaborators on the International Space Station from Russia, Italy, Ukraine, Japan, etc are busy erasing stars.

Just focusing on the photographic evidence angle. Not trying to give you or anyone in particular grief...yet.

Well, with respect, I've never had a problem with the 'stars' thing - how would I know whether you can see stars in space or not? That's never been the issue for me, but if it was, I can't see how any of those pics would 'debunk' the 'no stars' problem...and BTW, you CAN see stars on SOME of the Apollo pics, so I've never really taken much notice of claim about a lack of stars...

I have seen video footage of the MIR space station that quite clearly show thousands of stars, so that makes the whole thing even less relevant in my eyes

 

[Astroboy]

Here is a HD movie taken from a recent Japanese lunar probe fly over. Crystal clear and fascinating. Hey just trying to provide independent information outside of NASA and American sources. Believe whatever you like but at least try show some independent source evidence to support your argument.

Here is the article:
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2007/11/07/japans-lunar-probe-hd-moon-movies/
LiveScience.com Blogs » Blog Archive » Japan’s Lunar Probe: HD Moon Movies!

And the movie itself:
JAXA | Moving image of the Moon shot by the HDTV camera of the KAGUYA (SELENE)
JAXA | Moving image of the Moon shot by the HDTV camera of the KAGUYA (SELENE)

My point is not that it is impossible to see stars on the Moon but that Hoax claimers that the Astronauts are lying about not being able to see stars or that because there are no stars in the Apollo lunar photos prove that those pictures were faked is flat out wrong.

Under low ambient light conditions and long camera exposures I'm sure you can see stars.

 

[mike]

Its sorta understandable when you think about it
NASA and the conspiricy.......the cover up......

all that money and american know how....and those damned oss-cees steal the first view. despite the best laid plans, and official policy the australian people get to see the moon first, with america getting the second hand images.

have NASA conspired to cover this up ?... it looks like it

but its worse much much worse than that. we get xmas one day earlier as well.

 

[Astroboy]

Oss-cee! Oss-cee! Oss-cee! Oy! Oy! Oy!

Sorry that is all I've learned about Australia the last few years. It's from the guy who won the World Series of Poker couple years ago. First you steal our moon transmissions before we can doctor them and now your taking our beloved poker too? Must we invade you too? Once we're done with Canada and make Paul Kimball our puppet dictator your next!

For your enjoyment whether you believe one way or another here is a direct link to the Japanese Moon probe Kaguya site. Just click on the "KAGUYA Image Gallery" link under Featured stories to the Flash page and click on the HDTV button on the upper right for some more fantastic high res pics using the latest technology.

KAGUYA (SELENE) - TOP
KAGUYA (SELENE) - TOP

Some choice direct link to some photos:
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hdtv/001/hdtv_001_4/hdtv_001_4_l.jpg
hdtv_001_4_l.jpg (JPEG Image, 1200x675 pixels) - Scaled (82%)

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hdtv/000/hdtv_000_6_l.jpg
hdtv_000_6_l.jpg (JPEG Image, 1920x1080 pixels) - Scaled (51%)

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hdtv/003/hdtv_003_6/hdtv_003_6_l.jpg
hdtv_003_6_l.jpg (JPEG Image, 1200x675 pixels) - Scaled (82%)

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hdtv/002/hdtv_002_6/hdtv_002_6_l.jpg
hdtv_002_6_l.jpg (JPEG Image, 1200x675 pixels) - Scaled (82%)

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hdtv/001/hdtv_001_3/hdtv_001_3_l.jpg
hdtv_001_3_l.jpg (JPEG Image, 1920x1080 pixels) - Scaled (51%)

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hdtv/003/hdtv_003_2/hdtv_003_2_l.jpg
hdtv_003_2_l.jpg (JPEG Image, 1200x675 pixels) - Scaled (82%)

Psst. No stars.

 

[mike]

lol as i said the worst part is Santa visits us here first, its no wonder you get the crappy lead contaminated toys from china for xmas.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Psst. No stars.

Psst. No Apollo landing sites either.

BTW, those pictures HAVE been doctored - the black is completely uniform with no variation. At all. Stars or no stars, you wouldn't expect a sky with absolutely NO VARIATION of intensity. Even the NASA pics have variations in the 'blackness'.

I take it back - some do have a slight variation. The first two don't, but the third and fourth do. I didn't bother checking the others...still looked 'tweaked' though.

 

[Astroboy]

lol as i said the worst part is Santa visits us here first, its no wonder you get the crappy lead contaminated toys from china for xmas.

Walmart told me Santa was made in China too. Here is the proof.

 

[Rick Deckard]

BTW, those pictures HAVE been doctored - the black is completely uniform with no variation. At all. Stars or no stars, you wouldn't expect a sky with absolutely NO VARIATION of intensity. Even the NASA pics have variations in the 'blackness'.

I take it back - some do have a slight variation. The first two don't, but the third and fourth do. I didn't bother checking the others...still looked 'tweaked' though.

Actually, after further thought, I take it all back. I've no point of reference to know what outer space looks like. The variations in the NASA photos could be the result of any number of factors.

I'm still waiting for the pictures of the Apollo landing sites though...

 

[Astroboy]

BTW, those pictures HAVE been doctored - the black is completely uniform with no variation. At all. Stars or no stars, you wouldn't expect a sky with absolutely NO VARIATION of intensity. Even the NASA pics have variations in the 'blackness'.

I take it back - some do have a slight variation. The first two don't, but the third and fourth do. I didn't bother checking the others...still looked 'tweaked' though.

Actually, after further thought, I take it all back. I've no point of reference to know what outer space looks like. The variations in the NASA photos could be the result of any number of factors.

I'm still waiting for the pictures of the Apollo landing sites though...

Wow, for a second there you actually showed a balanced approach.

C'mon just say it. You know you want to.

Say the words "The Japanese....are.....part....of.....the....consp..."

Oh, forget it. I confess. I'm a member of the secret cabal that controls everything in the world and am in league with the Greys to keep key technologies away from humanity so I can get richer through the promotion of war and the use of oil. Whew! I feel a lot better.

I got go take tinkle now...

 

[Rick Deckard]

Wow, for a second there you actually showed a balanced approach.

I suspect that your definition of 'balanced approach', is 'the world according to Astroboy'...

Say the words "The Japanese....are.....part....of.....the....consp..."

The Trilateral Commission

 

[Astroboy]

I will be posting future pics from the Chinese lunar probes and manned missions also.

But fortunately since they too are part of the world conspiracy to fake all Moon landing I got them to delete all the stars from every photo they take since I am a member of the secret world government.

It only cost me a dozen pair of Levi jeans. The fools! They we're made in China! I got the Ruskies to blot out the stars for a stupid Billy Joel concert. The Chinese really aren't as smart as I thought they'd be.

 

[BrandonD]

MUSICTOMYEARS:

Clavius: Photo Analysis - man on the moon

Does that explain it?

Ok I could speak about this website specifically, but instead I'll give a free lesson that can be applied to all future 'debunking' and 'conspiracy' sites alike:

Surprising as it may sound, you yourself have a decent intuitive knowledge of physics, whether you know it or not. This includes optical physics.

Why is this? Because of the simple fact that you have lived your entire life within the physical world.

Say that you're watching a videotape of a man throwing an alleged lead ball, but the ball is actually made of styrofoam. If you're at least slightly paying attention, you can easily recognize by the trajectory of the ball and the way it falls that it's not made of lead.

Why would you recognize this? Is it because you calculated the inverse proportional friction ratios of the air vs the gravitational constant and carried the zero?

Actually, it's because you have an intuitive knowledge of physics.

People should trust their own eyes more often. But people are so suggestible that they will actually throw out their own intuitive recognition for completely baseless and untestable mathematical jargon, only because it was presented by an authority figure.

Here is a rule in the ufo community, which is so obvious that it almost doesn't need mentioning:

If a photo looks fake, chances are it IS fake.

Now isn't it amazing how people in the ufo community apply this simple logic to ufo photos, but subjects with an emotional investment are magically an exception...

It's a simple observation that many of the apollo photos LOOK FAKE. And they look that way because of our intuitive knowledge of how light works in the environment.

There are photographic experts who've explained with complex mathematical jargon how the photos are fake, and there are photographic experts who've explained with complex mathematical jargon how they are real. I've seen examples of both. If you believe based on jargon from either side, you are either suggestible or just believing what you want to believe.

The photos may be real, but they look fake.

 

[Astroboy]

Ok I could speak about this website specifically, but instead I'll give a free lesson that can be applied to all future 'debunking' and 'conspiracy' sites alike:

Surprising as it may sound, you yourself have a decent intuitive knowledge of physics, whether you know it or not. This includes optical physics.

Why is this? Because of the simple fact that you have lived your entire life within the physical world.

Say that you're watching a videotape of a man throwing an alleged lead ball, but the ball is actually made of styrofoam. If you're at least slightly paying attention, you can easily recognize by the trajectory of the ball and the way it falls that it's not made of lead.

Why would you recognize this? Is it because you calculated the inverse proportional friction ratios of the air vs the gravitational constant and carried the zero?

Actually, it's because you have an intuitive knowledge of physics.

People should trust their own eyes more often. But people are so suggestible that they will actually throw out their own intuitive recognition for completely baseless and untestable mathematical jargon, only because it was presented by an authority figure.

Here is a rule in the ufo community, which is so obvious that it almost doesn't need mentioning:

If a photo looks fake, chances are it IS fake.

Now isn't it amazing how people in the ufo community apply this simple logic to ufo photos, but subjects with an emotional investment are magically an exception...

It's a simple observation that many of the apollo photos LOOK FAKE. And they look that way because of our intuitive knowledge of how light works in the environment.

There are photographic experts who've explained with complex mathematical jargon how the photos are fake, and there are photographic experts who've explained with complex mathematical jargon how they are real. I've seen examples of both. If you believe based on jargon from either side, you are either suggestible or just believing what you want to believe.

The photos may be real, but they look fake.

Thanks for the free lesson.

Fortunately the world and science doesn't depend on intuition any more. Otherwise we'd still be living on a flat world with the Sun revolving around the Earth. And we'd still be painting in orthogonal views. Believe it or not we only "discovered" perspective after the 1400s. Here is a link on that Geometry in Art & Architecture Unit 11 For a long time in Western civilization we thought light came out of our eyes to illuminate the world and that is how we saw things.

These are all nearly unbelievable but true examples of how even people's personal experience of the world utterly fails them when it comes to understanding or describing the phenomenon they see.

Intuition or common sense is often uncommon. I can't tell you how many artists and photographers I've trained who have a poor understanding of lighting and cannot replicate in a realistic fashion on the computer either in 2D or 3D proper lighting conditions to save their lives. Sometimes concepts such as shadow vs shade and bounce light vs direct light eludes people who experience these phenomenon every day.

With that in mind can you expect your average person to accurately analyze something beyond their normal experience such as an alien world with low gravity and no atmosphere? I highly doubt it and certainly wouldn't bet my life on it.

There have been at least 200 people freed from prisons in America. These are people who were convicted, 16 of which were sentenced to death, based largely on faulty eyewitnesses and intuition. Fortunately DNA analysis came along to provide definitive proof of their innocence. It's called the Innocence Project. Think of all the people who were innocent who have been put to death prior to DNA testing. If my life were on the line I'll take scientific proof vs intuition thank you very much.

I have yet to meet anyone that has had their minds changed because of a mathematical formula. They usually make up their minds because of intuition or a heavily edited piece of propaganda on Youtube and then use the science, good or bad, to back up their views.

"It looks Fake so it probably is" is not analysis. It is not proof. It is not scientific. It is intuition that is often faulty. Relying only on intuition leads to bad analysis.

What I really have a problem is that there is often no discernible methodology to proving extraordinary claims other than "it looks fake." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

At least some of the skeptical sites actually attempt to replicate the conditions to prove their point. Most of these do not require any understanding of math. Scientific methods require re-examination or altering ones hypothesis if experiments disprove one's original assumptions. I don't see any credible attempts at experiments on conspiracy sites including those promoting the Moon Hoax theory.

What I do see is a lot of very bad analysis. What I also see is an complete absence of independent sourcing or basic investigation outside the same sources that already agree with ones views.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I will be posting future pics from the Chinese lunar probes and manned missions also.

I can't wait. Remind me again, what has this got to do with the notion that NASA may have faked some of the Apollo landings photographic record?

 

[BrandonD]

What I do see is a lot of very bad analysis. What I also see is an complete absence of independent sourcing or basic investigation outside the same sources that already agree with ones views.

I agree with much of what you're saying, I agree with the bad analysis and the lack of independent sourcing. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Regarding what I was saying, you're completely twisting my terminology to portray it in a new-agey sort of way. Your use of the term "intuition" is completely unrelated to what I was describing, but since you use the same term, un-discerning people will assume they are the same thing.

I'll ask again: Why would I recognize that the supposed lead ball is not lead? Is it because of some fuzzy new-age "intuition"? Am I pulling it out of the ether? Is Metatron channeling it to me?

Maybe... it is because human beings possess an *inherent* understanding of physics. Call it intuition, call it whatever you like. We possess a built in understanding of physics, without which we would not be able to function in the physical world.

What I'm talking about is completely unrelated to people going to prison based on faulty testimony, people being unable to draw perspective accurately, people thinking light flows out of their eyes, or any of that other business you were describing. It is related to *observation*.

No one has ever actually observed light flowing out of anyone's eyes. So if that was actually believed at one time in history, it was because of people like those on the websites who make elaborate authoritative theories which over-ride people's own observations.

One more free lesson: You have seen objects fall in our environment the same way for your entire life. If an object fell differently all of a sudden, chances are you would notice it. That is what I'm referring to when I reference an 'intuitive' knowledge of physics.

The above example also relates to the fact that I freely acknowledge that the photos may be real. The photos are supposedly taken within a completely different environment after all, and so certain properties of physics may be different.

But those same photos on earth would be considered photos taken in a studio under spotlights.

 

[mike]

just on the point of physics and space.................

NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes

'Humble and perplexed'
is a good quote from this article