Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1
You originally claimed it was because "One's real time, one's not". And I explained to you that is wrong, that they both shot footage in 'real time'.

That's because a lot of the nice looking shots in color inside the capsule were done with film.

You subsequently made it more clear that you were talking about the color TV camera. I'm not sure I would have called the color TV camera's output "glorious full color", it was actually pretty low res, slow frame rate, and crappy looking.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: turbonium1
You originally claimed it was because "One's real time, one's not". And I explained to you that is wrong, that they both shot footage in 'real time'.

That's because a lot of the nice looking shots in color inside the capsule were done with film.

You subsequently made it more clear that you were talking about the color TV camera. I'm not sure I would have called the color TV camera's output "glorious full color", it was actually pretty low res, slow frame rate, and crappy looking.

Compared to Apollo 11 footage, it is "glorious". But then again, what isn't, right?

They have a color camera. They are about to land men on the moon, for the first time ever.

"Let's use crappy black & white footage when we make history, guys. Tell Westinghouse thermal paint and metal gears cost too much!"

originally posted by: turbonium1
"Let's use crappy black & white footage when we make history, guys. Tell Westinghouse thermal paint and metal gears cost too much!"

Designing things to work in space can be quite challenging. But yeah, it's all real simplistic like that. Just some paint, and you're good to go.

If you want to see something even more simplistic, look at this...

Here is Apollo 11, in double speed...

www.youtube.com...

And here is a later mission (Apollo 15, iirc), also in double speed..

www.youtube.com...


In the Apollo 11 clip, set to 2x original speed, the astronaut moves in 'normal' speed. The only difference is that they helped in the appearance of him being in a 1/6g environment, by attaching wires to the top of his suit (which they simply edited out, before showing us the footage). The wires allow him to bounce about the surface on his toes, in normal speed. Then, they slowed it down to half normal speed, which is what we all think is on the moon.

The important point being, he is moving in normal speed, when the footage is set 2x original speed.

Now, in the Apollo 15 clip, also set to 2x original speed, the astronauts do NOT move in normal speed, whatsoever. They clearly are moving MUCH FASTER than normal speed. This is beyond any doubt.


So in the exact same environment, wearing the exact same spacesuits, with the exact same equipment worn on their backs, the astronauts do NOT move at the same speed. Both cameras were claimed to be filming the astronauts moving in the correct speed, within the exact same lunar environment.

This is indisputable proof that they are NOT on the moon. It is impossible to move in two radically different speeds, in the same environment. The only way to do this is by PUTTING THEM IN SLOW MOTION, IN TWO DIFFERENT SPEEDS.

Simple as can be, is it not?

Everyone around the world should see this for themselves, so they finally realize the truth - that the moon landings were hoaxed.

Those of you who ignore what you see with your own eyes, still know the truth, but cannot come to grasps with it.

Truth is eternal, denial of accepting the truth you see before you, is truly sad, and a complete waste of one's precious time, living on Earth.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Truth is eternal, denial of accepting the truth you see before you, is truly sad, and a complete waste of one's precious time, living on Earth.

The truth is man has gone to the moon, those who claim otherwise have wasted their life chasing a silly conspiracy theory. Very sad.

originally posted by: turbonium1
If you want to see something even more simplistic, look at this...

Here is Apollo 11, in double speed...

www.youtube.com...

And here is a later mission (Apollo 15, iirc), also in double speed..

www.youtube.com...

In the Apollo 11 clip, they move a lot LESS, but the rate seems the same to me.

originally posted by: turbonium1


No. They filmed the 'Earth' out the capsule window, with the color camera, and Houston saw it, 'live', and replied to them about it (ie:'the TV picture looks great').

Yes, they filmed the Earth, live, and those images appeared on the next day's front pages. Those images are an exact patch for the weather satellite images, which is impressive because those weather images weren't available to them. The crew also described in detail what they saw to the ground. The only way they could have done this was to be in space, on the way to the moon.

There is no reason for Apollo 11 to use a b&w camera, instead of a color camera, for footage on the lunar surface...

Yes there is, you just refuse to accept/fail to understand it. The cameras were built completely differently to cope with completely different environments - inside the CSM and on the lunar surface, with weight an important factor.

Unless they were NOT on the lunar surface, of course. So that's why they used grainy b&w footage, on a fake lunar surface.

But they were, and the footage - even with the quality available on youtube - still contains identifiable features not seen in any pre-Apollo photographs.

I think they were still trying to figure out how to simulate 1/6 g at the time, for one thing. They slowed it down to 1/2 speed, but it doesn't allow for hours of continuous footage. As well, we had film projectors that could be set to double speed, in our homes. Apollo 11 surface footage is given away (as natural movement) when it's put to 2x speed.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

They obviously still weren't ready for color footage on Apollo 12, either. They claimed the color camera was 'mistakenly' pointed at the Sun, soon after they started filming. So they drop the camera - on the spot. And we can obviously see the camera DOES still work - it continues to film the surface, on its own.

Of course, nearly everyone still believes the camera was pointed at the Sun, 'accidentally', and that's why the astronauts couldn't film footage on the 'moon', anymore. While ignoring the fact it continues to film the moon afterwards. While ignoring the fact Houston would have noticed the camera still worked, but didn't bother to - um - mention it still worked to the astronauts!

The camera tube was burned out. Please provide us with a link showing anything to the contrary, and that it was capable of producing anything resembling a recognisable image.

Just go with whatever NASA says, because NASA wouldn't lie to Americans!

Again, your opinion is irrelevant, no-one has ever proved that NASA lied about Apollo, or anything else.

Well, how about Apollo 13? They had already used grainy b&w. They'd already used the 'Oops, I 'accidentally' pointed the color camera at the Sun, and ruined it' excuse.

'We can't land on the 'moon'. Problem solved, once more.

Yet they still orbited it, taking film footage of it and photographs with a time and date specific view of Earth included.

Finally, by the FOURTH 'moon landing' mission, they filmed it in color. Hours of continuous color footage directly from the surface of the 'moon'.

Yes, containing small details not known about before hand, and creating trails visible from orbit in LRO and Chandrayaan images, and leaving hardware photographed by Apollo 16's Panoramic Camera and by the LRO.

Nobody noticed that the Apollo 14-17 astronauts were moving slightly faster on the 'moon', than the Apollo 11 astronauts moved.

Because they aren't.

The reason is that any speed slower (or faster) than normal, Earth speed is unnatural, to us. Going in 1/2 speed to 2/3 speed appears to be the same - it is all slow, alien, and that's it.

The best way to understand that they did - without a doubt - changed the speed from 50%, on Apollo 11, to 66.66%, on all later missions...

Put Apollo 11 footage to 2x speed. It becomes normal, Earth speed.

Now, put Apollo footage from a later mission to 2x speed. What happens? The astronauts move TOO FAST compared to normal Earth speed...too fast, compared to Apollo 11 footage at 2x speed.

This is - as you know - utterly impossible. Whatever the environment, on Earth, in 0 g, on the moon, etc. - humans will move CONSISTENTLY, AT THE SAME SPEED, within the same environment.

We know that, don't we?

You would claim we move slowly on the moon, as shown by Apollo astronauts moving slowly.

But there is absolutely NO way you can get around the fact that the astronauts move at different speeds.

There is absolutely no way of getting round that you are just making it up.

Even if you are correct (and I don't believe you are) you are trying to compare two completely different broadcasting systems - you can't draw reasonable conclusions when your data are gathered entirely differently.

The only you can be certain of is that the TV footage contains details not known about before the missions, show images of Earth that are time and date specific, show human activity and the evidence left by that human activity verified by satellite evidence from several countries, and show material behaving in a way entirely consistent with a zero atmosphere low g lunar environment.

Claims about it being in slow motion is just nonsense and desperate clutching at straws by people who have nothing left. You can't broadcast live TV in slow motion for hours, complete with dialogue. Not possible.

The thing that always gets me is this. Why has no other country wanted the prestige of putting their own man on on the moon? It's been almost 50 years technology has advanced. Why would the rest of the countries of the world just give up?

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

Because it cost billions and billions of dollars.

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
The thing that always gets me is this. Why has no other country wanted the prestige of putting their own man on on the moon? It's been almost 50 years technology has advanced. Why would the rest of the countries of the world just give up?

The issue of cost has been pointed out repeatedly, by several people...so I'll try a different approach.
There are 196 recognized countries on Earth (subject to change on short notice).
There are 12 countries that have demonstrated the ability to get payloads into orbit (the USSR, the USA, France, Japan, China, the UK, India, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, and North Korea). The USSR is gone, leaving 11 countries.
Of those 11, Iran and North Korea have serious reliability issues, India and Israel have severe payload limitations.
That leaves 7 of 196 countries with the demonstrated baseline capability to seriously consider a lunar landing...and of those 7, 5 (the US, China, Japan, France, and the UK operating under the ESA) have publicly discussed manned lunar flights.

In short form, it isn't that the rest of the world gave up...it's that most of the world *can't* do it, and the few that can run into problems of cost (which really translates to political will). To quote an old JPL bumper sticker...."This isn't easy. It really *is* rocket science."

I received a copy of 'The Sun', a British newspaper dated 24/12/68 - I purchased it for the front page photo of the Earth taken from Apollo 8's TV broadcast the night before.

An opinion piece in the paper reflected on a TV programme balancing the problems of starvation in India against the billions being expended on the space race. This before they'd even reached lunar orbit, and from a country not even spending the money.

a reply to: turbonium1

You may be right about JFK being only slightly informed of the real capabilities. But, remember the key element was propaganda against the cold-war opponents, and of course galvanizing the country behind winning the space-race.

The other key elements missing are that we were always talking about the Moon and space domination as being the 'military high ground'. With that superiority, we could just 'nudge' tiny meteors or masses from space or from the Moon and threaten the USSR - it wouldn't require a rocket with the US's name on it. We'd be able to just go 'oops, sorry that happened, Kremlin'.

But we never followed up on this or any other military advantage from being 'first on the Moon'. Why?

I just don't believe we spent all that money to be pure scientists or for pure knowledge. You know the bulk of the Shuttle missions were military in purpose. We also had the 'secret shuttle corps' with military backing. What the HECK were they doing?

So many things just don't make sense and so many potential explanations, even conspiracy ones, don't answer all the issues.

People keep slipping up in NASA talking like we've never been above 300 miles, talking like we don't have radiation protection, and NOW they stupidly try to jump over the whole need to dominate and occupy LEO and the Moon area and are gonna jump to Mars for no reason?

If you think about spacefaring video games, a sure way to lose one is to be too ambitious and forego building local bases and outposts and try to jump to interstellar missions before you're ready. It's just so important to build in near space and on the Moon FIRST and get REALLY good at that. Something's fishy or NASA is just monumentally stupid.

Thanks for the props!

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: turbonium1


But we never followed up on this or any other military advantage from being 'first on the Moon'. Why?

I may have missed it, but where has anyone ever mentioned any kind of strategic advantage to being on the moon? It's way too far away and a logistical nightmare for any kind of military use.

a reply to: captainpudding

I do think there were parts of the military that assumed it would be so, just because it seemed like there ought to be, but in practical terms there isn't any at all. Even those who didn't think it would be of any use wanted to be there just to make sure the Russians weren't first. If you launched a missile it would take three days to get to the target, which would keep moving underneath it, you can hardly go about building a secret base without someone spotting the hundreds of missions it would take, the signals to and from it could be traced, and international treaties prevent any nation from laying claim to it. Sure there are resources there, but the cost of extracting them far outweighs any benefit they might bring.

The sole advantage in military terms is to say "we got here, look how amazing and technologically superior we are to you".

originally posted by: turbonium1

In the Apollo 11 clip, set to 2x original speed, the astronaut moves in 'normal' speed. The only difference is that they helped in the appearance of him being in a 1/6g environment, by attaching wires to the top of his suit (which they simply edited out, before showing us the footage). The wires allow him to bounce about the surface on his toes, in normal speed. Then, they slowed it down to half normal speed, which is what we all think is on the moon.

inertia called and said your explaination of how they change directions while moving forward while bouncing on his toes etc. is complete and utter BS.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: turbonium1
If you want to see something even more simplistic, look at this...

Here is Apollo 11, in double speed...

www.youtube.com...

And here is a later mission (Apollo 15, iirc), also in double speed..

www.youtube.com...

In the Apollo 11 clip, they move a lot LESS, but the rate seems the same to me.

The same rate being too fast, or same rate being (at or around) normal Earth speed?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

There is absolutely no way of getting round that you are just making it up.

Even if you are correct (and I don't believe you are) you are trying to compare two completely different broadcasting systems - you can't draw reasonable conclusions when your data are gathered entirely differently.

The only you can be certain of is that the TV footage contains details not known about before the missions, show images of Earth that are time and date specific, show human activity and the evidence left by that human activity verified by satellite evidence from several countries, and show material behaving in a way entirely consistent with a zero atmosphere low g lunar environment.

Claims about it being in slow motion is just nonsense and desperate clutching at straws by people who have nothing left. You can't broadcast live TV in slow motion for hours, complete with dialogue. Not possible.

They didn't broadcast it 'live' on TV, that's what you need to understand, first of all.

You don't know how it could not be 'live', but it was simple to do. I'll explain whatever you think is 'impossible', if you can be more specific..

Faking the images from Earth orbit is easily done by satellites, for example. They claim Apollo is taking these images enroute to the moon, and they match up date/time...

Your argument doesn't mention satellites, in hopes of avoiding it...




You say different broadcasting systems were used, and this would explain the different speed in Apollo 11 footage, compared to footage from the later Apollo missions....

NASA said Apollo 11 footage was 'live' from the moon, showing astronauts move/walk around within a genuine 1/6 g lunar environment.

They never mentioned errors in footage speed(s), for Apollo 11, nor did they ever mention a change of (footage) speed for all subsequent missions!

Perhaps NASA never realized in over 40 years time, that Apollo 11 footage is slower than all the footage taken during all later Apollo missions!

Or maybe they did know it, but didn't bother to mention it! No big deal, why bring it up?


They didn't mention it, at the time. They didn't mention it, over 40 years since then.

When you first told me...

" There is absolutely no way of getting round that you are just making it up."

... obviously you were speaking about yourself

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

In the Apollo 11 clip, set to 2x original speed, the astronaut moves in 'normal' speed. The only difference is that they helped in the appearance of him being in a 1/6g environment, by attaching wires to the top of his suit (which they simply edited out, before showing us the footage). The wires allow him to bounce about the surface on his toes, in normal speed. Then, they slowed it down to half normal speed, which is what we all think is on the moon.

inertia called and said your explaination of how they change directions while moving forward while bouncing on his toes etc. is complete and utter BS.

Right, that's why wires pull you up 15 feet above the ground, hold you there, floating in mid-air, for 10 minutes, and gently set you down to ground again...it's called "inertia"!!

If that's not complete and utter BS, then nothing is!

I suggest you research how wires are used for these effects on humans, before you bleat any more of this gibberish.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Right, that's why wires pull you up 15 feet above the ground, hold you there, floating in mid-air, for 10 minutes, and gently set you down to ground again...it's called "inertia"!!

If that's not complete and utter BS, then nothing is!

I suggest you research how wires are used for these effects on humans, before you bleat any more of this gibberish.

looking at your comment you have no idea what inertia is.. you are describing low gravity not inertia

im talking about the changes in direction ie. left to right
maybe this explaination will help you:

Definition of INERTIA for Kids. 1. : a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force.