Moon Landing is a Fake

[pixelsmith]

i dont want them to go there JUST to prove they did before. i want them to go there because it is there. i mean it is so dang close you can see craters with the naked eye. WHY have we not gone back there?

 

[musictomyears]

The problem with this conspiracy and most others is the skewed evidence that people present with authority so the average reader looks at and says "hey this guy has a point, look at that" when they are generally just being disingenuous.

There is nothing "disingenuous" about wanting to get to the truth of the matter - this particular matter, or any other. Truth is of an importance that is absolute, it doesn't require additional justification. If you build on truth, you build on solid rock - if you build on lies, you build on quicksand.

Certain aspects of the official Apollo record scream "fake", and I am surprised this isn't obvious to everyone. We discussed earlier the mysterious remotely controlled camera, which was allegedly used for recording that dramatic scene, when the Lunar Module took off from Moon's surface. No documentation exists for this camera - or, if you know of any, I'd love to know about it. Who built it, and who tested it?

Here are some facts: The wrist watches worn by the "astronauts" were stock Omega models, the cameras stock Hasselblad without view finder, the film stock Kodak. But then they also had a remotely controlled camera, that was sufficiently agile to track a rocket propelled space craft, and respond to advance radio signals (2-4 seconds) from tens of thousands of miles away..? All that with 1960's analogue technology, and a total onboard computing power comparable to that of a modern washing machine?

In fact, I read at a Moon hoax *debunking* site that there is no original documentation available for the entire Lunar Lander. Not one sheet with specifications or technical drawings - nothing. And this considering the Apollo missions were supposed to be - as repeated ad nauseam - the greatest human achievement ever. NASA simply threw all relevant papers in the bin? And I am supposed to believe that?
Instead, how about preserving every scrap of paper for posterity, in a museum, showing off the technological prowess of NASA's engineers to the entire world? And how about the educational relevance to budding rocket designers?

If Apollo really went all the way to the Moon, then NASA's actions - or inaction - make no sense whatsoever.

At the risk of repeating myself (I genuinely would like to hear some answers, and I don't mind being proven wrong), may I come back to links to NASA images I posted earlier, that, to my mind, contain anomalies which require further analysis. There is also the point of inconsistencies with respect to official NASA images (no stars) and the "bootlegged" shuttle footage (a myriad of stars), as published by the UK UFO Magazine.

 

[Rick Deckard]

At the risk of repeating myself (I genuinely would like to hear some answers, and I don't mind being proven wrong), may I come back to links to NASA images I posted earlier, that, to my mind, contain anomalies which require further analysis.

I don't think you're gonna get any takers from those that are already convinced of the moon landings - I mean, look at it from their point of view; to them, it so obviously did happen, that giving up some of their freetime to respond to your queries is pointless.

I do find it odd how the concept of proof has switched around. In this case, they would argue that sufficient extraordinary proof has been provided to support the extraordinary claim and therefore the counter-claim that 'man never landed on the moon', has itself now become the extraordinary claim requiring equally extraordinary proof.

But, proving that moon landings didn't happen, requires that you go to the moon yourself and show that there is no evidence at the landing sites - in other words, there is no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't go unless NASA admits themselves or an independent group goes to the moon and surveys the landing sites. Neither of these two scenarios is likely to happen - which is especially true in the latter case, if the Van Allen belts are as much of a limiting factor that the pro-hoax groups are claiming that they are...

...I still have my doubts about the authenticity of the moon landings. But I don't lose too much sleep over it because there is nothing that I can do about it. If anyone *did* fake the landing footage, my money is on Kubrick. He had a lot of help from NASA for his '2001' film - the film was shot around the same time, it featured a 'Moon surface' set, he hired NASA advisors and even borrowed lenses that NASA had used.

 

[musictomyears]

But, proving that moon landings didn't happen, requires that you go to the moon yourself and show that there is no evidence at the landing sites - in other words, there is no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't go unless NASA admits themselves or an independent group goes to the moon and surveys the landing sites. Neither of these two scenarios is likely to happen - which is especially true in the latter case, if the Van Allen belts are as much of a limiting factor that the pro-hoax groups are claiming that they are...

I understand what you are saying, however I don't think that including the Van Allen belts into the debate is particularly helpful. From what I have read, even the leading scientists don't agree on the relevance or dangerousness of the belts, so that, for us laypeople, it is quite impossible to draw meaningful conclusions.

To my mind, the most damning and obvious evidence can be found in NASA's still and moving images. I wished the same standards could be applied - in terms of critical analysis - to Apollo images, as to Billy Meier's and similar material. Whenever light or background conditions appear implausible in certain UFO images, posters (and mods), quite rightly, raise the red flag. However, for some reason, NASA images seem exempt from the need to feature consistency and plausibility. Perhaps this could change.

 

[pixelsmith]

thats becasue they used MAGIC MOON DUST®. duh. remember also available is MAGIC MARS DUST®

 

[Rick Deckard]

thats becasue they used MAGIC MOON DUST®. duh. remember also available is MAGIC MARS DUST®

Is that the explanation for the lack of tyre tracks from the lunar rovers in some pics?

 

[Rick Deckard]

To my mind, the most damning and obvious evidence can be found in NASA's still and moving images. I wished the same standards could be applied - in terms of critical analysis - to Apollo images, as to Billy Meier's and similar material. Whenever light or background conditions appear implausible in certain UFO images, posters (and mods), quite rightly, raise the red flag. However, for some reason, NASA images seem exempt from the need to feature consistency and plausibility. Perhaps this could change.

I agree with what you are saying - but, if I were already convinced that the images of the moon landings were authentic, I would look for a way to dismiss the analysis as flawed; I would probably say something like "you can't use 'regular' photo analysis techniques because of the unusual lighting conditions on the moon"...

...of course there is also an issue of credibility - a one-armed Swiss farmer versus a Government-funded, Military/Civilian space agency is no contest in most peoples eyes. I've been saying for some time now, that the credibility of the source is a key factor in the acceptance of presented photographic and video materials. Of course, a high level of credibility doesn't necessarily mean a high level of honesty and integrity.

 

[musictomyears]

if I were already convinced that the images of the moon landings were authentic, I would look for a way to dismiss the analysis as flawed; I would probably say something like "you can't use 'regular' photo analysis techniques because of the unusual lighting conditions on the moon"...

... which is exactly the most popular response to evidence of trickery in NASA images. Conveniently, it also kills the debate, since if we declare lighting conditions on the Moon incomparable to those on Earth, there is nothing left to discuss.

I like this line of reasoning just as much, as I like the one where, on one hand, 1960's technology was sufficiently advanced to send people to the Moon and return them alive, yet, simultaneously, technology was *not* sufficiently advanced to provide the special effects required for faking such an event - as if it would have taken computer generated FX to build a few 1:1 scale models, stick them in a large studio hall, and let a group of actors in space suits play around with them. There is nothing in the "Moon" images that could not have easily been created by a team of 3rd rate film producers - in fact, Stanley Kubrick most certainly wouldn't have made half as many blunders.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I like this line of reasoning just as much, as I like the one where, on one hand, 1960's technology was sufficiently advanced to send people to the Moon and return them alive, yet, simultaneously, technology was *not* sufficiently advanced to provide the special effects required for faking such an event - as if it would have taken computer generated FX to build a few 1:1 scale models, stick them in a large studio hall, and let a group of actors in space suits play around with them. There is nothing in the "Moon" images that could not have easily been created by a team of 3rd rate film producers - in fact, Stanley Kubrick most certainly wouldn't have made half as many blunders.

I'm in total agreement with you - I have seen these arguments made many times before.

People are inconsistent in their required standards of 'proof' - a few years ago, I had a discussion with someone on AboveTopSecret. He was demanding absolute proof of the existence of ETs. He wanted to see one of these (alleged) dead aliens they have in Area 51 and until that time, he was 100% convinced that ETs do not exist.

I noticed that in his forum signature he had the message "America - the Land of God's people" (or something to that affect - I can't remember the exact words) and so I asked him how, on the one hand he needed to see a dead alien before believing they exist, but on the other hand he believed in God - he replied "the existence of God is unprovable and therefore to believe in his existence doesn't require proof". My participation in that discussion ended shortly after that reply and within a few weeks, I'd left ATS altogether.

My point is, that no matter how much evidence/proof you think you might have that the moon landings were hoaxed, it's never gonna be enough for some people. You can't disprove what they *know* is the truth - they have committed themselves to that reality on an emotional level; they were there, they saw it on TV, they saw the ticker-tape parade, they had a lump in their throats and they were proud of their country's achievement. They're not gonna let go of that for the sake of a few 'iffy' photos...

...I mean, can you imagine America's world-wide reputation if it were ever proven that they faked the moon landings? Okay, their reputation probably isn't that high at the moment, but can you imagine the fall-out from that revelation? It really is unthinkable for a lot of people.

So, I say let it go. Let them keep their glory. If they really did go, then I don't think the American people got their money's worth. It's been 'down hill' for the US space program ever since they got back from the moon...I find that really odd.

If it was faked, that truth won't remain hidden forever. I'm looking forward to seeing China go to the moon - surely, if they have the opportunity, they will seek to embarrass the USA.

Personally, I will be relieved if China (or another non-allied country) can confirm the moon landings - truly independent confirmation is what is required - if they prove otherwise, all hell will break loose.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

According to a 99 Gallup poll only 6 percent believe the Apollo landing was a hoax.
Moon landing conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More polls.
Moon landing conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hoax rebuttal links.

First one is a vid.

David P (Hoax proponent), gets busted.

Bad Astronomy's list of links.
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions

Christ even Hoagland thinks we've been to the moon.
Home Spray Foam Insulation - Kits, Equipment, DIY, R Value, and Cost You can skip this link, I just put it up as a joke.

Many, if not all of the arguments dealt with here.
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

Another site loaded with info.
Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax

Non Fake Moon Landings. Lots of links at bottom.
The Moon Landings Were NOT Faked


Humans Walked on the Moon. Moon Rocks
Username Service

 

[Farside]

I don't know for a fact that the USA did land on the moon - the only 'evidence' I've seen are the books and photos kindly supplied by the NASA public relations machine - on balance, I think that the USA probably did land on the moon.

But, for the record, I do think that it is possible to fake such a thing - the question is how can you verify NASA claims?

The answer is - you can't. You have to have faith in what NASA is presenting as the facts and hope that they are telling you the truth.

why do you think it was a fake, i mean really. next thing you will be saying is that the earth is a box that has a fuzzy cat inside and everthing we see day to day is just us hooked VR and being give info, it like saying the moon was made by aliens. it just is not so. i kind of getting sick of hearing ever body saying it was fake. if we did not land on the moon then we did not land on mars. all the photos form mars are fake, why try to get to space when the gov can fake it and say they did and still get money off it.

 

[Rick Deckard]

why do you think it was a fake...

Why do you think it was real?

BTW, I stated in that quote that they probably did land a man on the moon...

 

[Farside]

i dont think its real i know its real, try this one on for size. if we never landed on the moon back then they we have landed on the moon now, if tech can send people in to space and bring them home and fly around the moon and come back then they can land on the moon. i think that it dose not matter, it was not fake, i think its a ourage that people still think it was faked. why go into space when we can fake the whole space program. the gov is not perfect but to say they fake the moon landing is a outrage.

 

[Rick Deckard]

i dont think its real i know its real, try this one on for size. if we never landed on the moon back then they we have landed on the moon now, if tech can send people in to space and bring them home and fly around the moon and come back then they can land on the moon. i think that it dose not matter, it was not fake, i think its a ourage that people still think it was faked. why go into space when we can fake the whole space program. the gov is not perfect but to say they fake the moon landing is a outrage.

You're very funny - I am laughing at you.

 

[musictomyears]

A.LeClair, posting links to a bunch of debunking sites and videos doesn't answer the specific questions I raised in my earlier posts. I am not going to link to my posts again, if people wish to ignore them, that's entirely their prerogative.

There are probably hundreds of pro or con Moon hoax sites on the web, and every single one I have seen contains numerous errors and misinterpretations of the available data. To be honest, I don't have the time or inclination to sift through all that material, in order to find something that appears agreeable. For this reason did I post my own questions. I was hoping for personalised answers, not generic one's.

There are obvious, demonstrable problems with the official Apollo record. Every single issue needs to be dealt with individually. Blanked statements - pro or con - don't cut it.

I find it pretty shocking when I hear, again and again, that since we watched the Apollo broadcasts on television, the missions must have happened exactly in the way they were presented to us. "I have seen it on TV, therefore it must be real". "The president and his minions told me so, therefore it is true". Good Lord. Talk about mental programming.

It would have been easy enough to fake every single film sequence. Creating a mock lunar surface isn't rocket science, people. You could do it, I could do it. Given the available budgets, I am in fact surprised that the results didn't turn out to be more convincing than they actually are.

Here is a site (and a mirror) that shows us in detail how the trickery was accomplished. Nobody from NASA has ever denied the authenticity of these images (You need to ignore the rough language at those sites):

Geocities has shut down
APOLLO REALITY

 

[pixelsmith]

thank you for posting this. i like this part:

"According to Bobby Braun and other NASA officials the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled LM. However NO ROCKET POWERED LM WAS EVER SUSPENDED FROM THIS CRANE. In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine. If the pro Apollo nutters disagree, then perhaps they could direct me to a video or film showing how the feat was, or could be accomplished. The landings were controlled purely by traverse and lowering of the LM in the same way as a conventional crane."

that is how they leave no crater on the moon, the LM was gently lowered into place.. DB will have you think that the jet engine blew the dust away yet leave no crater. however the famous "first step on the moon" photo taken a foot away from the LM show an imprint in the dust. wouldnt a massive jet engine blow the dust a little further away? how is it possible to only blow the dust away from directly under the LM and around the LM feet but NOT away from the ladder? responce DB? nevermind...i dont expect you to respond. your mind is made up...like mine used to be.

 

[Mogwa]

The evidence for the success of the Apollo program is overwhelming. Period. Arguments to the contrary are based upon misinterpretations of data, disinformation, or just plain ignorance. I offer that opinion without malice to anyone.
Yet, on the other hand, I understand why so many otherwise intelligent people can subscribe to such an illogical argument. NASA lies. They lie about everything they do, all the time. Often the lies they tell are intended to cover their mistakes, but most often the dishonesty is an integral feature of the National Security State regime Harry Truman initiated after the second world war.
NASA was supposedly intended to be a civilian organization that could draw upon government resources for the exploration of space. It isn't, and it never was.
There is a substantial evidentiary trail supporting that contention, dating all the way back to leaked information on the Blue Gemini program. Remember Gary McKinnon, the UK hacker who was convicted of breaking into several U.S. government agencies' classified databases? He supposedly discovered an entire secret elite military space force, complete with detailed personnel rosters. Almost immediately, the inmates of the less intellectually discriminating ward of the ufology nuthouse began circulating stories of bases on Mars and interstellar dogfights between courageous American Space Rangers and baby eating grays. The factual explanation for what Gary found is much more prosaic, but no less frightening: the weaponization of near earth space.
The United States military doesn't have any piloted vehicles capable of traversing the solar system reliably and quickly. What it does have are orbital nuclear weapons platforms, squadrons of conventional aircraft modified to serve as ASW interceptors, and "aggressive" satellites designed to destroy orbital enemy communications and surveillance assets. So do the Russians and Chinese, although they appear to be ten to fifteen years behind current U.S. technical capabilities.
All these programs violate either ratified treaties or informal concordats. While the Chinese and Russians scramble to fund their respective space forces, we Americans face no such limitations. As Judd Hirsch asked in Independence Day, do you think the Pentagon actually pays twenty thousand bucks for a toilet seat? Three thousand dollars for an ash tray? And how about the 1.1 trillion dollars that turned up missing back in 2003? No problem, it was a computer programming glitch...or something, even though no one could prove just exactly how that was supposed to have happened, or who was responsible.
So it's no mystery why NASA behaves the way it does. It's just another military/intelligence front pretending to be an innocent gang of ivory tower tech geeks stumbling over their own clumsy feet. I do not doubt for a moment that some of the released Apollo program film footage and photos are staged propaganda, that would be consistent with the agency's function; to lie, mislead and cover up. Why should they be any different than the rest of our government, which exists only to maintain a permanent state of undeclared war?
The consequences for my country, and the world, are tragic. When people lose faith in almost everything, they will believe almost anything, including faked moon landings.

 

[musictomyears]

your mind is made up...like mine used to be.

Well, this is the core of the argument, isn't it. Once you take a deep breath, and begin to view the Apollo images with the possibility in mind that they could be faked, all contradictions and inconsistencies disappear, but become explainable. No more need for stretching what is probable and logical beyond reason - no more intellectual contortions.

Once you alter your bias towards being an Apollo sceptic, you see evidence for fraud in virtually every shot. As you mentioned, there are no landing craters or tyre marks on the "Moon" dust, because the models were simply lifted into place by a crane. This picture says it all:

 

[musictomyears]

The evidence for the success of the Apollo program is overwhelming. Period. Arguments to the contrary are based upon misinterpretations of data, disinformation, or just plain ignorance. I offer that opinion without malice to anyone.

Mogwa, I appreciate you post, in particular your mention of the ongoing weaponisation of space. I think it is a scandal, it is a threat to all of us, and very likely a massive threat to ET life-forms visiting Earth (in fact, has this ever been covered by the Paracast? If not, how about making a show about it?).

But I have to call you out on your intro: "The evidence for the success of the Apollo program is overwhelming. Period."

You know, stomping your foot on the ground like an angry child doesn't lend the Apollo saga any additional credibility. Like others, you evaded answering specific questions with regard to inconsistencies in the official record, but sought refuge in mere generalisations. I posted the links to selected NASA images for a reason.

Also, if you are prepared to accept that certain images might not be genuine, you then have to accept that none of them can be, for reasons of consistency. Before sending people to the Moon, NASA had no way of knowing what exactly the lunar environment looks like. Blending in pre-recorded film with actual live footage would have been impossible. The logical conclusion is that either all images are real, or none of them.

 

[BrandonD]

All of these arguments back and forth are great fun, but I would REALLY like to hear an answer to my original question, which is precisely this:

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that human beings landed on the moon during the apollo program?

I would like to hear the answer in your own words, from someone who considers themselves educated on this subject.

5 pieces of evidence. Or 3, if you're short on time.

Regarding this subject, I'm only interested in evidence. I've read the top pieces of evidence that we've not landed on the moon, and I think they're pretty compelling. I'm not a "believer" in either story, but it is rather odd that no one will answer this seemingly simple question.

Why is this such a difficult question to answer if it is so obvious?