• 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!

What Happened On the Moon? - An Investigation Into Apollo

Free episodes:

So your supposition is that they filmed the moon landings in Hawaii, slightly modified the mountains before doing so, photoshopped out the atmosphere and greenery and stuff, and then modified the mountains back?

Then used robot rovers built in secret to put hardware exactly where they said? And faked the whole Apollo 13 stuff?

Wouldn't it be actually easier just to go to the moon?
 
Re: the plaque photos - the LEM had all kinds of latches and stuff to get at gear, including the LRV:
LEM-linedrawing.png


I mean, look at all the junk underneath it at one point:
1329px-Apollo16LM.jpg


So two different pictures taken at two different times show two different configurations of stuff under the LEM?

I don't find that evidence of fakery at all.

Let me ask you a question max: will any combination of direct evidence or logic convince you ever? Or will you continually seek more evidence for your position for all time?
 
So your supposition is that they filmed the moon landings in Hawaii, slightly modified the mountains before doing so, photoshopped out the atmosphere and greenery and stuff, and then modified the mountains back?

Then used robot rovers built in secret to put hardware exactly where they said? And faked the whole Apollo 13 stuff?

Wouldn't it be actually easier just to go to the moon?


i have no idea where they filmed it, but it is pretty clear where the backdrop scenery was shot/taken.

they went to the moon as far as i can tell, they never set foot on it tho.
 
sometimes i think you twist words/meanings, deliberately, as in your last 2 replies, you purposefully ms-reprisent what i say then spew a load of old bollocks out of it.


a sequence of 3 photos, all numbered consecutively, all shot one after the other, only the angle changes slightly, as he attempts to get a better shot of the plaque, it isnt complicated, click click click.
(AS11-40-5897, AS11-40-5898, and AS11-40-5899)
one

Apollo11_7.jpg


two

Apollo11_7.jpg







>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> three
PlatesShow.jpg





next you be asking me why they doctor their photo's i suppose.
 
Last edited:
isn't it an assumption that those three photos went 'click click click' when we can obviously see that light has changed significantly in the third photo - makes more of Marduk's case that configurations changed over a period of time between photos, more than doctoring of photos.

as for the backdrops, and the notion of the soundstage shoot, that also is pretty out there. look at the scale of those shots - what kind of studio lot are you in to take such pictures? that the polynesian island bears some resemblance, and only slightly, to a moonscape says much more about someone who painstakingly took the time to find earth based terrain that would match somewhat to prove their outer space theories. again, why go to all the trouble to fake things, and then fake them wrong - does not make much sense does it? if you are going to attempt to pull off one of the greatest forgeries of all time, and also somehow convince the many hundred or more of people involved in such fakery to never ever talk again about their involvement in this global conspiracy ever, you'd think they'd make sure that their artist painting the backdrop wouldn't sink them. these ideas stretch credulity and rational thought. where are all the whistleblowers - paid off? murdered?

i thought btw the reflector video from mythbusters made fairly direct sense as to the capacity and existence of the nasa reflectors and their locations.

as for the cold war argument being proposed by russian scientists no less, of course they will argue to the contrary - it's what they do, still peeved that america got there first.

i'd like to see more terrain similarities or evidence of soundstage work as it just doesn't bear any weight at all imho. please tell me how on earth did NASA manage to get their photos of terrain unseen to match terrain later confirmed by Selene?
 
sometimes i think you twist words/meanings, deliberately, as in your last 2 replies, you purposefully ms-reprisent what i say then spew a load of old bollocks out of it.
Again man, no need to call my responses "bollocks." If I've misrepresented your meaning I apologize but I just don't see it.

a sequence of 3 photos, all numbered consecutively, all shot one after the other, only the angle changes slightly, as he attempts to get a better shot of the plaque, it isnt complicated, click click click.
(AS11-40-5897, AS11-40-5898, and AS11-40-5899)

Now that's interesting... is there any indicator of the time the photos have been taken, i.e. is there a significant amount of time in between?

It looks like the light levels are significantly different leading me to believe that a relatively large time has passed. If you look at shadows cast by the rocks to the bottom right as an example... the angle of illumination is different.
 
what scale, BS, the screens are provably only a few 10s of metre's away.

AULIS Online – Different Thinking

simple trigonometry and it all falls to bit's burnt state.
plus
those pic's are a numbered sequence of 3 pictures, its obvious they were all shadowed out nasa has doctored the third to show the plaque, and air-brushed the missing object out as part of the process, i mean who would notice, it took over 40 years to get spotted.
 
Last edited:
Again man, no need to call my responses "bollocks." If I've misrepresented your meaning I apologize but I just don't see it.



Now that's interesting... is there any indicator of the time the photos have been taken, i.e. is there a significant amount of time in between?

It looks like the light levels are significantly different leading me to believe that a relatively large time has passed.


marduk

i made a statement to you about doctored photo's then just posted a 'randon' sample, i could have chose from dozen's i just chose them as a ''typical'' example.
 
no.


thats was your error, and the source of my frustration with you, i thought you were taking the piss.

now i know you were'nt, for sure, so peace, be lucky.
 
and also the moon rock and regolith nasa dispenses in grams here and there, whilst claiming to have kilo upon kilo of the stuff, safely brought back and stored, the ruskies have donated 10 times the amount of regolith to universities et al, for study, and guess what ?.
when nasa regolith is compared to it, it is claimed by several authorities that nasa regolith is completely different, and nothing more than ground down to dust moon meteorite, that went through the process of 'atmospheric entry' to earth .


so not only did they undeniably fake moon photo's, mis-use and mis-label pictures from previous earth orbit's, they passed off ground down meteor as hand collected moon dust.

addendum to the moon landing conspiracist questions:

so this would be interesting but where's it coming from? who is making the claim that american moon dust is not real moon dust? everything i researched online pointed to the fact that the russians got grams, america got kilos, and that the dust examined in universities donated from nasa includes micrometeoric content because that's what's hitting the moon all the time making all the dust. who is saying that it's from rare lunar meteorites entering earth's atmosphere - how much of that stuff even exists on this planet? what are those moon rocks then - props?

thumbnail.jpg

Great Scott it's a moon rock, Jim! Check out the micrometeorite pit in the centre.
 
There is so much evidence that we went. .so much you have been shown pictures of the landing sites. You seen pictures of moon rocks. You seen so much more. So what will it take for you to finally admit we landed on the moon?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
independent verification.

theres 10s of dozens of nasa doctored pictures, seeing isnt believing.

moon rocks have been falling to earth for millenia, and have been collected for decades.

independent verification that cannot be faked.

Chang'e 2

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres per pixel.



india and japan both have craft up there with similar capabilities, still not one pic of a nasa site.

not one, not a single independent of nasa picture, in all these years, not one.
 
Last edited:
i mean i suppose it is possible the moon landings could be faked but i think there was too much riding on it to be faked ,but if we did go to the moon why have we not been back there to build a moonbase or such like ?
 
Also I agree there is tons of doctored pic..but I believe that it is to hide the presence of aliens on the moon.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
independent verification.

theres 10s of dozens of nasa doctored pictures, seeing isnt believing.

moon rocks have been falling to earth for millenia, and have been collected for decades.

independent verification that cannot be faked.

Chang'e 2

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres per pixel.



india and japan both have craft up there with similar capabilities, still not one pic of a nasa site.

not one, not a single independent of nasa picture, in all these years, not one.
umm...

Independent evidence[edit]
In this section are only those observations that are completely independent of NASA—no NASA facilities were used, and there was no NASA funding. Each of the countries mentioned in this section (Soviet Union, Japan, China, and India) has its own space program, builds its own space probes which are launched on their ownlaunch vehicles, and has its own deep space communication network.

SELENE photographs[edit]
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres.

The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command/Service Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of manned landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo program.

Chandrayaan-1[edit]
As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site.[2][3]

Chang'e 2[edit]
China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified.[4]

Apollo missions tracked by independent parties[edit]
Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place. On later missions, NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories.[5]

Observers of all missions[edit]
The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment."[6] Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered," describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.[7]

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.[8]

Kettering Grammar School[edit]
A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.[9][10] In 1972 a member of the group tracked Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon.[11]

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
i mean i suppose it is possible the moon landings could be faked but i think there was too much riding on it to be faked ,but if we did go to the moon why have we not been back there to build a moonbase or such like ?
From my view, there are two simple reasons:
1. the cold war race to the moon was won, and then the Russians gave up sending people there. So there was no "moonbase race."
2. there was absolutely zero economics driving lunar colonization at that time. Pure science just doesn't pay the bills.

I'm not saying we shouldn't go back with a fleet of eagles and build moonbase alpha. Hell, sign me up. But I can see why we gave up going.
 
Back
Top