Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1

They just wrote papers offering various hypotheses, in trying to explain it...

Why do you think they'd explained it back in 1972?

explain what??? according to you it cant be seen from the surface at all..
meaning it would be completely unknown about until the LRO images became available.

so why do they feel the need to explain something that cant be seen..

satellite imagery from 1972 was not good enough to image this phenomenon like the LRO does. unless you can prove otherwise???

I think until they either actually start doing real space flights for the general public (space tourism) and or they begin going back to the moon regularly and or allow the general public to go, then I believe it's somewhat safe to assume none of it is real. Or at least there's a good chance all of it is faked.

I mean they haven't gone back to the moon. Space tourism is always right around the corner but never arriving.

"Oups crashed again, sorry we'll have to wait another 5 years before you can go up okay!"

I think there's a reasonable chance it's all fake... space, moonlandings, mars landings, universe, etc etc.

Why do I say this????

Well the only proof we have is produced by NASA that's why. How can you trust them? You can't. They're nothing but a US bugetary blackhole. A means to steal money from the tax payers.

a reply to: bigpatato

I think until they either actually start doing real space flights for the general public (space tourism) and or they begin going back to the moon regularly and or allow the general public to go, then I believe it's somewhat safe to assume none of it is real. Or at least there's a good chance all of it is faked.

And when space tourism becomes commonplace (it's already happening) there will be idiots claiming that all the landing site artifacts were secretly put there yesterday.

Of course it was faked. The press conference that they had afterwards shows it, they look like they are lying throughout the entire thing.

a reply to: greg302

Do liars often smile, crack jokes and laugh? Or are you saying you've never actually watched the entire press conference and were just shown a 20 second clip and told what to believe?

Here's my personal favourite joke from the conference, but there's a few. youtu.be...

originally posted by: choos

explain what??? according to you it cant be seen from the surface at all..

No, according to the actual evidence, which is the Apollo 'surface' images, we find absolutely no such disturbance.

originally posted by: choos
meaning it would be completely unknown about until the LRO images became available.

No. If the Apollo 'surface' images show no disturbance, which they do not, it means the LRO images do not, cannot, show a disturbance caused by an Apollo LM.

Furthermore, there is no proof that they had no images of this feature before LRO images "became available". You assume they had none, based on NASA's claims. Which does not prove anything. I don't claim there is proof of such images. Just because none have been released, does not mean they cannot exist.

originally posted by: choos
so why do they feel the need to explain something that cant be seen..

Because if they cannot explain why none of the surface images show this disturbance, if means these images are fakes.

The assumption that images from lunar orbit show there is a disturbance caused by the LM, was entirely based on NASA's claim that the Apollo LM had landed at that precise spot, on the lunar surface, decades earlier.

They assumed the LM had caused a disturbance of soil, at that spot.

But none of the Apollo 'surface' images corroborate that assumption. They show NO disturbance of soil, around the LM.

That is why they are trying to come up with some sort of valid explanation. If they cannot explain it, as they obviously cannot, then it confirms the Apollo 'surface' images are fakes.

originally posted by: choos
satellite imagery from 1972 was not good enough to image this phenomenon like the LRO does. unless you can prove otherwise???

First of all, unless you can prove they could NOT have taken images of this feature back in 1972, or anytime before the LRO came along, your claim is worthless.

a reply to: turbonium1

Twice in that post you claim that surface images taken by Apollo show no disturbances of the surface around the LM. You need to clarify whether you are talking about physical disturbance or an alteration of the properties of the surface by the rocket exhaust plume.

You obviously missed the post where I showed that the surface images did show physical disturbance and that the physical disturbance was photographed form orbit by LRO. That physical disturbance has also been photographed by Japan and India.

This point is interesting:

First of all, unless you can prove they could NOT have taken images of this feature back in 1972, or anytime before the LRO came along, your claim is worthless.

Because there were cameras capable of taking details of the surface showing the LM and the disturbance caused by human activity back in 1972. They were carried on Apollo 15-17 and were based on terrestrial spy satellites. I've posted it before but here it is again, because you've obviously forgotten:

onebigmonkey.com...

Some more reading for you:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.redorbit.com...


adsabs.harvard.edu...

Man caused changes in albedo, observed for the first time from lunar orbit, which include: brightening of the surface area beneath the LM, probably due to compaction during descent

You can find more about that in the Apollo 15 PSR. So there you are, noted before 1972.

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: greg302

Do liars often smile, crack jokes and laugh? Or are you saying you've never actually watched the entire press conference and were just shown a 20 second clip and told what to believe?

Here's my personal favourite joke from the conference, but there's a few. youtu.be...

I've watched the press conference, and it shows they are very nervous, very uncomfortable - throughout the entire period.

Btw - there are several cuts throughout this clip, which means it does not show the entire conference. If they have the entire conference on film, I'm not aware of it being available to the public. There is absolutely no reason they would they not have filmed the entire conference. Also, didn't they claim the press conference was shown 'live' on TV? We know this clip was not 'live', because of the cuts. Why wouldn't they release the entire conference, without any cuts/edits, like it (supposedly) would have been shown, 'live' on TV?

Next point - why do you think they "often smile, crack jokes and laugh" during this press conference? The clip you linked starts with 39 minutes of nothing but 3 very nervous, uncomfortable astronauts.


Reporter: "I'd like to ask Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and I'm not quite sure how to ask this question, when you first stepped on the Moon, did it strike you as you were stepping -- that you were stepping on a piece of the Earth, or sort of what your inner feelings were, whether you felt you were standing on a desert or that this was really another world, or how you felt at that point."

Aldrin:."Well, there was no question in our minds, where we were. We'd been orbiting around the Moon for some time..."

This causes much laughter from the press, and the other two astronauts....followed by another period of nervous, uncomfortable astronauts..

Even this is bizarre..

The reporter merely asked Armstrong and Aldrin how they felt when they first stepped on the moon. Whether they felt it was like being in a desert, on Earth, or if it really DID feel like 'another world'...

Aldrin says,,, "Well, there was no question in our minds, where we were.."


Why would you even say that? If you weren't there, you'd oversell the idea you WERE there.

"..We'd been orbiting around the Moon for some time..."

And that's how you had no doubts about where you were, Buzz?

Nobody asked where you were, Buzz. They asked you how it felt at the moment you first stepped onto the lunar surface...

If you had scaled Mt. Everest, and someone asked you...

'At the moment you finally reached the summit of Mt. Everest, did it feel any different than any other mountains you've climbed, or not?'

You then say 'Well, there was no question in my mind where I was. I had been at the base of Mt. Everest for some time..'

Or 'How did you feel when you first saw Niagara Falls? Did it feel like any other waterfall you've seen, or did it feel different, more spectacular?'

'Well, there was no question in my mind where I was, because I booked myself into a hotel in Niagara Falls a couple of days before that'


Do you see why this is peculiar? Nobody asked you where you were. There is no reason to bring up that you had no doubt in your mind where you were. Unless you were NOT there. To lie about where you were, you would overstate the point. 'I really was there'!!


Anyway, to your issue...

So, after 39 minutes, Aldrin cracks a joke, which causes the other two to laugh, and smile....

A few seconds later, back to another extended period of being very nervous, and uncomfortable...


But we have more evidence of their lying, beyond their obvious behavior..

They have everything written for them. They are reading from a script. That's the reason they are all sitting behind a big table, or desk..On a stage. They have monitors sunken in the desk, angled towards them.

Sure, monitors could have provided them with various technical information, etc.

Most of the questions were not about technical issues, though.


Nobody knows what it feels like to land on the moon, to walk on the moon, to look at Earth from the lunar surface, to experience genuine lunar gravity, etc....

If someone went to the moon, he would know exactly what it felt like. To him, and him alone. Not someone who never went to the moon, nor someone who DID go to the moon, would know what he felt like, at the time.

Look at how these astronauts answer any of the questions...

How did you feel, the moment you stepped on the moon?

'We had no doubts in our minds that we were really there, on the moon. The reason we knew we were on the moon is because we'd been in lunar orbit for some time!


'Could you see any stars, while on the lunar surface?'

'I don't recall seeing any stars, without using the optics'

'I didn't see any stars', said the other astronaut, unwittingly forgetting his role in the script...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Twice in that post you claim that surface images taken by Apollo show no disturbances of the surface around the LM. You need to clarify whether you are talking about physical disturbance or an alteration of the properties of the surface by the rocket exhaust plume.

You obviously missed the post where I showed that the surface images did show physical disturbance and that the physical disturbance was photographed form orbit by LRO. That physical disturbance has also been photographed by Japan and India.

Japanese and Indian images are actually confirmation of a physical feature on the lunar surface. And this only further confirms that all of the Apollo 'surface' images are fake.

Not that we needed more confirmation, at any rate.



You claim there is a physical disturbance caused by an Apollo LM.

I see no disturbance in any Apollo 'surface' images. Not a physical disturbance, nor an alteration of soil, nor any other variance in that area.

a reply to: turbonium1

Btw - there are several cuts throughout this clip, which means it does not show the entire conference.

I take it you believe they cut out all the parts where they talked about what it was like working with Stanley Kubrick...?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Japanese and Indian images are actually confirmation of a physical feature on the lunar surface. And this only further confirms that all of the Apollo 'surface' images are fake.

And also confirmation of the disturbed ground caused by human activity as well as changes in reflectance properties. This only further confirms that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The features they identify were not there before the Apollo LM landed, and that you don't read links.

You claim there is a physical disturbance caused by an Apollo LM.

Because there is.

I see no disturbance in any Apollo 'surface' images. Not a physical disturbance, nor an alteration of soil, nor any other variance in that area.

Then you're blind and it's no wonder you flail around in the dark when things from earlier on in the thread are mentioned. I posted photos taken at the time showing them.

You claimed that there was no reference to changes in the surface caused the LM engine before 1972. I posted a link to something that proves you wrong yet again.

Funny how you skipped over that.

originally posted by: turbonium1

'Could you see any stars, while on the lunar surface?'

'I don't recall seeing any stars, without using the optics'

'I didn't see any stars', said the other astronaut, unwittingly forgetting his role in the script...

And here we can see just how dishonest you are. This is qhat was actually asked and answered:

PATRICK MOORE I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the starsin the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. The footprint would penetrate a half an inch or sometimes only a quarter of an inch and gave a very firm response. In other regions near the edges of these craters we could find that the foot would sink down maybe 2, 3, possibly 4 inches and in the slope, of course, the varlous edges of the footprint might go up to 6 or 7 inches. In compacting this material it would tend to produce a slight sideways motion as it was compacted on the material underneath it. So we feel that you cannot always tell by looking at the surface what the exact resistance will be as your foot sinks into a point of firm contact. So one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.
ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS I don't remember seeing any.

The subtleties may be beyond you, but Armstrong responded to a specific question with a specific answer. Everything else you interpret is your prejudice.

Here, btw, is the raw uncut conference you claimed wasn't out there.



Here's another version:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Changing camera angle is not the same as cutting things. If you pay attention for once you might notice a room full of journalists who just might notice if things were expunged from the record.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Some more reading for you:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.redorbit.com...


adsabs.harvard.edu...

Man caused changes in albedo, observed for the first time from lunar orbit, which include: brightening of the surface area beneath the LM, probably due to compaction during descent

You can find more about that in the Apollo 15 PSR. So there you are, noted before 1972.

I'll explain the problem, once again....

These papers are all saying that a disturbance can be seen from lunar orbit, for the first time. And all of these papers have assumed it was caused by the Apollo LM, during its descent to the lunar surface.

Here is what you need to understand...

They make a claim of a disturbance, being caused by the Apollo LM. They claim images taken in lunar orbit show the disturbance.

However, they know that none of the 'surface' images support their claim of a disturbance, caused by the LM.

So they completely, and deliberately, ignore the Apollo surface images - as if they didn't even exist.


A few of the papers try to come up with a hypothesis to resolve the problematic surface images. But, for obvious reasons, they never even refer to the Apollo surface images, in their papers.

Ignore the evidence which doesn't support Apollo, like usual.

The question he asked them was.. "And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the starsin the solar corona in spite of the glare?"

And the replies were...

ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS I don't remember seeing any.

Collins was not on the lunar surface, so he could not have 'looked up at the sky', right?

Collins said he didn't remember seeing any stars. How would someone be in the capsule, and forget that he was never on the lunar surface, and could not have been looking up at the sky, and if any stars could be seen from there.

a reply to: turbonium1

Never heard of the new invention called windows?

Also, can you see stars during the day? No? Well why would you expect astronauts to see them during "day light" on the moon?

a reply to: turbonium1

Try finding out what the solar corona is.

a reply to: turbonium1

Still don't get it do you.

People created a physical disturbance on the moon during Apollo by walking and driving round.

That disturbance was photographed while they were on the ground and while they were on the way back up again to orbit.

That disturbance was also photographed from lunar orbit during the missions.

That disturbance has been photographed by: the LRO, Chandrayaan and Kaguya.

The LM descent engine also had an influence on the ground by scouring away smaller particles, which was both observed and photographed by astronauts on the ground,and by producing more subtle changes only visible by repeat observations from a distance. The latter effect was reported at the time, and has also been observed since by other spacecraft and at locations for other spacecraft landings, as well as empirically demonstrated on Earth.

You have variously denied all of these things, and had your backside handed to you every time.

Do you have those photographs taken before Apollo that show the things you claim the aren't Apollo artifacts?

Do you have any photographs that show the lunar surface in the same level of detail as Apollo images taken before anyone landed?

Do you have anything other than ignorance, prejudice and your woefully poor understanding of the available data to support your case?

originally posted by: turbonium1



'Could you see any stars, while on the lunar surface?'

'I don't recall seeing any stars, without using the optics'

'I didn't see any stars', said the other astronaut, unwittingly forgetting his role in the script...

Interesting. You accuse NASA of editing the press conference yet you deliberately omit quotes that are very important to the context of the statement . . . it's called lying by omission if you were unaware.

originally posted by: turbonium1

However, they know that none of the 'surface' images support their claim of a disturbance, caused by the LM.

curious.. how would you describe this picture?


explain to me
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why the regolith within the red circle, darker than the regolith surrounding it?

Ignore the evidence which doesn't support Apollo, like usual.

so will you continue to ignore this little image??