Moon Landing is a Fake

[musictomyears]

No, no, Graham Birdsall died in 2003 of a brain haemorrhage (only weeks after he decided to publish details about black, unmarked fighter jets that are stationed in the UK, and the location of the air base).

F r e e U K - FreeUK Broadband -

I cannot remember the name of the Stubbs associate I was referring to, if you can dig up some old copies of UFO Magazine, you will find it there.

 

[Eric]

Hey Moshi .... I'd love to see you take these guys on ..
They are rabid debunkers of everything from ufo's, 911 conspiracies ... and especially any moon hoax theories ..

You'd have your hands full ... but you sound like someone who could give them a run for their money for a change ...

http://www.bautforum.com/

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Hey Moshi .... I'd love to see you take these guys on ..
They are rabid debunkers of everything from ufo's, 911 conspiracies ... and especially any moon hoax theories ..

You'd have your hands full ... but you sound like someone who could give them a run for their money for a change ...

http://www.bautforum.com/

Moshi doesn't come around anymore.

If I remember correctly, Moshi's arguments, or the ones he used that he heard from others, aren't anything hard to refute or show flawed. That is, unless you try and show someone who refuses to look at it. If you haven't already, visit some of the links I provided for rebuttals of many of the no landing arguments.

 

[cottonzway]

I just don't understand for the life of me why this debate still goes on. Do people realize we have at least been there at least? Ugh.....

 

[BrandonD]

I just don't understand for the life of me why this debate still goes on. Do people realize we have at least been there at least? Ugh.....

I've listened to the people who argue that the moon landings were faked. They seem to have a solid argument for motivation and execution. It seems reasonable to imagine that if US leaders discovered they could not feasibly land on the moon, then they would not be above staging this landing for political purposes.

This doesn't mean that I believe the moon landings were faked. I'm assuming here that you guys recognize the distinction between me acknowledging what I perceive to be a solid argument and being a "believer".

I'm inquiring into this subject because Gene and David seem to really deride the people who believe the moon landings were faked, and act as if the very idea is ridiculous. They actually behave exactly as "normal people" in the media behave when they talk about ufos.

The "faked moon landing" idea doesn't seem weak and ridiculous to me, so if I'm in the wrong then I'd like someone to set me right. Please explain to me the strongest arguments that we did land on the moon. Hopefully with a good cross-section of the pros and cons I can be better educated on this subject.

And please stick to facts, no arguments such as "no one can keep a secret this long" or "there would be too many people involved in the conspiracy". These arguments have no value because they are not fact-based, they are speculative and assumption-based. Thanks to anyone who'd like to help.

 

[musictomyears]

BrandonD, you took the words right out of my mouth (or from my keyboard, that is). I was going to post something similar on another thread.

I think we are facing a dilemma: Is it legitimate to question absolutely everything governments do, or claim to have done? Or are there areas that are off limits - like the Moon landings, because "everybody knows they happened"? The reality is: We don't know squat. All we think we know is precisely what NASA and other space agencies have told us. All such agencies are governmental institutions. And governments never lie, do they? They never gang up, across the globe, and fabricate evidence to further their agenda? Stockpiles of WMDs, Yellow Cake, Bin Laden in bed with Saddam - anybody?

Governments lie when they think they can get away with it. When we, the people, don't check up on them, strange and terrible things happen. They always have done, throughout history, and modern times are no different.

About the Moon landings: I don't know if they happened. They may have. However, the Apollo film footage and still images do not appear to be a true record of such an event. Inconsistencies have been pointed out by a number of researchers. There are certain photos and film sequences that in no way could have been shot on the Moon. Even contemporary shuttle images feature unrealistic, deep black backgrounds, where there should be a myriad of stars. We discussed examples on this forum which clearly show evidence of photoshopping, and backgrounds were manipulated.

So, how pervasive are the problems with NASA images? Are they all fake, or only some of them? What are the percentages? 80% true, but 20% fake? Or 20% true, but 80% fake?

If it can be shown that a single Apollo photo, or a single film sequence, has been doctored or was produced here on Earth, to my mind, it throws into question everything we have been told about Apollo.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Good posts BrandonD and musictomyears.

If it can be shown that a single Apollo photo, or a single film sequence, has been doctored or was produced here on Earth, to my mind, it throws into question everything we have been told about Apollo.

I think it has been shown that some images have been doctored. I've seen several documentaries over the years that do seem to show quite blatant manipulation of some images. The explanation could be for 'presentational' purposes or it could be something else. Then you have witnesses in the Disclosure Project claiming to have seen bases on the far-side of the moon, astronauts saying they saw UFOs on the moon and in Earth orbit.

My own view is that either they did go to the Moon and found something that they want to keep to themselves or they realized they couldn't achieve it, never went and faked it to 'save face' - either way, I suspect NASA aren't giving the public the whole truth about the moon missions.

The Mars rover project throws up questions about the motives of NASA too - they seem to have adopted a very strange stance in relation to the 'search for life' on other planets. Like Mac Tonies was saying on the last show, they seem to be wholly interested in geology rather than biology. They also processed the colour images from Mars in a very peculiar way, artificially estimating the 'red' signal rather than capturing it 'live'. This lead to accusations of deliberately adding an 'orange/pink' hue to the images of the Mars environment, when the real colours are claimed to be a lot 'bluer' and more 'Earth-like'.

I'm also very suspicious about the failure of non-NASA probes that have been sent to Mars in the last decade or so - especially since the intention of some of those probes was to look for life on Mars...

...for whatever reason, I don't think NASA is actively looking for signs of life. I find that odd.

 

[musictomyears]

My own view is that either they did go to the Moon and found something that they want to keep to themselves or they realized they couldn't achieve it, never went and faked it to 'save face' - either way, I suspect NASA aren't giving the public the whole truth about the moon missions.

The problem with the theory that NASA did go to the Moon, but discovered something they didn't want to show us, is the multitude of supposedly live broadcasts from the missions. These broadcasts included footage which, to my mind, cannot possibly be authentic. If only one sequence from that footage can be shown to be fake, it throws into question the validity and credibility of the entire material. If one sequence was per-prepared, it follows logically that the entire footage was pre-prepared, for reasons of consistency. It would have been impossible to prep-shoot certain sequences, and blend them in with genuine live footage, since NASA had no way of knowing what exactly the lunar environment looks like. Either all Apollo images are real, or none of them. There is no middle ground.

If NASA did send people to the Moon in the 60s, we have yet to see a single authentic photo of that event.

The notion that some astronauts might have observed UFOs on the Moon, seems little more than a bit of disinformation, thrown in for good measure, to confuse and mislead UFO buffs. It gives people like us yet another subject to talk about, that can't be proved or disproved.

 

[ondafritz]

The moon landings were not real? Uhhh yeah... sure and barometers in Boston not registering the Saturn V launches did not happen either.

 

[Rick Deckard]

The moon landings were not real? Uhhh yeah... sure and barometers in Boston not registering the Saturn V launches did not happen either.

I don't think the 'non-believers' are saying that they never launched the rockets - they are questioning whether the missions actually left Earth orbit...


...BTW, barometers measure atmospheric pressure. Did you mean seismograph?

 

[bakunin]

"All we think we know is precisely what NASA and other space agencies have told us. All such agencies are governmental institutions. And governments never lie, do they? "

I agree compeletly with that statement. Goverments do decieve the public and have been involved in some of the most atrocious lies over the centuries.

I do think their was political incentive to decieve the public at that point in history. The Russians were well ahead of the U.S. in the Space Race with the success of Sputnik and the 1st man in space.

Risking the lives of astronauts versus making the public believe they went may not be such a far fetched idea.

 

[David Biedny]

There were no moon landings.

Outer space is an illusion.

There are no satellites in orbit around the Earth - if you claim to see one, you're obviously drunk or high.

Water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen - it's made from water.

Oxygen is a solid.

The sun is made of Pepsi Cola.

Neil Armstrong is a woman.

Buzz Aldrin is a boat.

Our government is made of American cheese, that's why they're American.

Discuss.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

There were no moon landings.

Outer space is an illusion.

There are no satellites in orbit around the Earth - if you claim to see one, you're obviously drunk or high.

Water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen - it's made from water.

Oxygen is a solid.

The sun is made of Pepsi Cola.

Neil Armstrong is a woman.

Buzz Aldrin is a boat.

Our government is made of American cheese, that's why they're American.

Discuss.

And, of course, there's lots of chocolate in space.

 

[David Biedny]

And, of course, there's lots of chocolate in space.

Well of course, "God is Chocolateâ„¢, and Sheâ„¢ is Everywhere.

 

[pixelsmith]

if we only had the original moon landing tapes...

 

[David Biedny]

I personally own the original moon landing tapes, and I've exchanged them for magic beans. Got 'em from a midget who loves Radiohead.

Those original tapes have nothing on them, just reruns of the Red Skelton show.

The moon landings were obviously faked.

So was the shooting of JFK. He's still alive.

As is Nixon. And Stalin.

Anyone who disagrees is just DUM DUM DUM.

 

[pixelsmith]

yes, i am dumb. i actually believed NASA at one time.

 

[David Biedny]

yes, i am dumb. i actually believed NASA at one time.

I wrote DUM, not dumb.

Look, the point is that there are lots of things that the US government lies about, every day. There are compartmentalized portions of said government, who are good are keeping secrets.

Do you really, truly think that EVERYONE who worked for NASA who had access to the engineering, logistics and contracting of the moon missions has kept the lid on the claimed moon-landing "hoaxes" for all these years?

In my opinion, this is nothing short of silly. I'm truly interested in getting to the bottom of a number of paranormal situations, but the notion that the moon landings - any or all of them - were somehow hoaxed, shows great ignorance of the special effects photography abilities of the times. The footage of those landers going down to the moon, of landing on it's surface, man, if you or anyone else thinks that the technology existed at that time to create these types of shots, you're painfully, totally and completely wrong. Period.

And that's it for my contributions to this thread. As I've said on the show, time and time again, anyone can believe in anything. You don't think we got to the moon? Fine. For my money, this is right up there with the flat Earth madness - patently absurd.

dB

 

[Rick Deckard]

Do you really, truly think that EVERYONE who worked for NASA who had access to the engineering, logistics and contracting of the moon missions has kept the lid on the claimed moon-landing "hoaxes" for all these years?

No, I don't - do you think that everyone who worked on the atom bomb knew they were working on an atom bomb?

The footage of those landers going down to the moon, of landing on it's surface, man, if you or anyone else thinks that the technology existed at that time to create these types of shots, you're painfully, totally and completely wrong. Period.

In your opinion, is it *possible* that they sent *un-manned* landers - which then put the 'reflective' targets there?

 

[pixelsmith]

yes i know. and i wrote dumb. many years ago believed BM was on to something. i was dumb. i also thought george bush and son were the best politicians ever. i was dumb. i thought steven greer was legit. i was dumb. most things are not as they seem.