It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Monkey see monkey do...
If they all match so well are you saying they copied each other to further the lie?




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle




I didn't know videos had actually been released I read about this confession years ago...


As for those confessions...

Not one person in that film was recorded saying anything about Kubrick faking the moon landings, but feel free to show where they did.

Edited out of context is not proof.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
m.youtube.com...

I didn't know videos had actually been released I read about this confession years ago...

You do realize that the "documentray" that was featured in that video ("The Dark Side of the Moon") was a mockumentary -- i.e., it was a joke film; the film itself was a hoax.

There are clues in the full film that it is a hoax. If you watch the entire "The Dark Side of the Moon", you will see several people interviewed. Some of the names of the people who were interviewed for that film should have given it away. Many of the names were fictitious characters from movies -- mostly Kubrick movies and Alfred Hitchcock movies.

-- The person in that film named "Jack Torrance" is the name of the main character in Kubrick’s The Shining. In the mockumentary The Dark Side of the Moon He is played by actor David Winger.

-- Another person interviewed in that film is named "David Bowman". David Bowman was one of the two main characters in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. The witness in the mockumentary was played by an actor named Tad Brown.

-- The name "Dimitri Muffley" in that film is a mash-up of two of the main characters from Kubrick's movie Dr. Strangelove. "Dimitri" was the first name of the Russian President in Dr, Strangelove, and "Muffley" was the last name of the American President in that movie.

-- The woman is is supposed to be Buzz Aldrin's sister is named Maria Vargas. Buzz Aldrin doesn't have a sister named Maria. Her name was Fay, and her married name was "Potter", not "Vargas". The name "Maria Vargas" comes from the film The Barefoot Contessa, and was the name of the lead character. In the mockumentray, Aldrin's sister is played by Jacquelyn Toman.

-- The person interview as Nixon's Secretary is named Eve Kendall. Nixon's secretary was Rosemary Woods. Eve Kendall was a character in Alfred Hitchcock’s film North by Northwest. The Woman in the documentary who was supposed to be Eve Kendall was played by Barbara Rogers.


The are more fake names (and other fake things) in that fake movie The Dark Side of the Moon.

For example, the lens used by Kubrick for the candlelit scenes in Barry Lyndon was NOT given to Kubrick by NASA. Granted, Zeiss (the lens maker) produced the lenses at the request of NASA, but Zeiss made ten lenses, and NASA bought six. Three of other ten lenses made by Zeiss were bought from Zeiss by Kubrick. Kubrick's lenses came from Zeiss, not NASA.

Rent Kubrick's Insane Zeiss f/0.7 Lenses

Here is more information about the mockumentary:

IMBd -- The Dark Side of the Moon (Opération lune)

Dark Side of the Moon: A Mockumentary on Stanley Kubrick and the Moon Landing Hoax

Wikipedia -- Dark Side of the Moon (film)

Full Mockumentray -- The Dark Side of the Moon




edit on 2/2/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
We are going to Mars soon! Just as soon as we can figure out whether humans can safely pass through the Van Allen Belt. NASA will send a probe first, obviously, so we can learn more about these enormous fields of charged particles.

I don't see the problem, personally. We were able to easily send radio transmissions through it without delay or interference in the late 60's. How bad can it be?

Sure, the belts can sometimes damage satellites in low Earth orbit... but I'm sure they're not that bad. They're only thousands of miles wide.



Fun facts:
The moon is 238,900 miles away.
The deepest part of the ocean is 6.8 miles.
edit on 2-2-2016 by misterz because: added fun facts



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: misterz




We are going to Mars soon! Just as soon as we can figure out whether humans can safely pass through the Van Allen Belt.


It doesn't matter how many times you say it...it doesn't make it true.

We did go through the belt and we did go to the moon.

www.braeunig.us...



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Hahaha... you're right.

So when is the next manned space mission past the Van Allen Belt scheduled for?




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Hahaha... you're right.

So when is the next manned space mission past the Van Allen Belt scheduled for?



NASA has a mission planned to lunar orbit in 5 to 7 years (scheduled for between 2021 and 2023). Beyond that, NASA has a planned mission to an asteroid (one that has been towed toward the Moon) in about 10 years.

The Orion Program milestaones are as follows:

Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1)
- High apogee test flight of the Orion crew module in Earth orbit.
- Completed December 5, 2014

Exploration Mission 1 (SLS-1 / EM-1)
- First launch of SLS-Block 1 Launch Vehicle/Send uncrewed Orion capsule on trip around the Moon.
- Planned for no later than November 2018

Exploration Mission 2 (SLS-2 / EM-2)
- First launch of SLS-Block 1B launch vehicle/Send an Orion capsule with four crew members in retrograde lunar orbit.
- Planned for no earlier than 2021; no later than 2023

Exploration Mission 3 (SLS-3 / EM-3)
- SLS Block IB launch vehicle/Send Orion capsule with four crew members to an asteroid that had been robotically captured and placed in lunar orbit in late 2025 (Asteroid Redirect Mission).
- Planned for 2026


Elon Musk and SpaceX says they will have a beyond-Earth manned mission in about 9 or 10 years, but SpaceX's schedule for these manned missions is not quite set. Musk said he will outline his plans for manned missions beyond Earth later this year. He thinks a manned mission to Mars is doable in 10 years or so (but I'm not sure if he means just an orbital flight, or a landing).



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: misterz

It's already been pointed out to to you, but..

I have never seen anyone claim that there is no blast crater because they are landing on solid rock. This is patent nonsense, and if you watch the 16mm descent footage on all of the landings you will see that there is dust - the astronauts comment on it. This dust disappears as soon as the engines stop. If there is dust right up to when the engines stop then quite clearly there is still dust around.

It is also a fact that the engines did have an impact on the surface in terms of discolouring and marking the ground on which they landed - again this was commented on by the crews. There is absolutely no reason why there would be a blast crater - if the descent engine was firing that hard, it wouldn't be able to land.

Finally, the dust behaves exactly as it should in a low gravity zero atmosphere environment. Dust does not produce a cloud in a vacuum. An engine firing will not produce a blast wave in a vacuum. There is a visible flame from the ascent engine, but you would not get a plume of smoke from the fuels used and in a vacuum.

By all means play a little game and imagine it was done on Earth with cranes and models, but they would not behave the way that Apollo did, because they are a) models and b) not on the moon.

The idea that there has *ever* been a crater made by any rocket exhaust anywhere seems wrong to me. The claim there should be a crater is weak at best. I challenge anyone who thinks there should be a crater there to provide evidence ANY rocket exhaust has ever left a crater in ANY place.

But, the idea that there would be "fine powder" dust a few feet under a rocket motor that has just been firing is also seems equally wrong.

1) Look at the landing video:
Link to Apollo 11 library: www.hq.nasa.gov...
Apollo LM landing video direct NASA link 16MB: www.hq.nasa.gov...
The video shows the dust being pushed away along with the worker saying "kickin' up some dust"(@14:37) and then "30ft down" moments later to suggest he is 30 ft away from the surface at the time. Seconds later, the worker lands the LM and says "engine stop" after they are stopped on the ground at 15:02 in the video. If dust is being kicked away at the 30 foot mark, how much dust would be kicked away two feet from the rocket nozzle? And while power may have been lowered to perhaps 1/2 that of the 30 foot mark, the pushing power of the exhaust should be been order(s) of magnitude higher than at the 30 foot mark when dust could be seen being pushed away from the LM.

2) The photos show no signs that dust was displaced. The dust is noted to be a "fine powder". My expectation is for all the fine powder beneath the LM to be displaced by the force of the rocket propellant. In addition, I expect there should be radial markings in the photos that match like those the shown on the landing video. Are these unrealistic expectations? Look at what the photos show directly under the Apollo 11 LM:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
and
www.lpi.usra.edu...
The photos show no signs of dust being ejected from under the LM.

I would expect the small pebbles which were 1/6th of the weight as on Earth being pushed away from the nozzle. Therefore, this is something that suggests the photos were not taken on the moon and if so they are being taken of an LM that was placed there without any rocket involved in the placement.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: misterz

originally posted by: centarix
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


The "earth in the window" hoax evidence you mentioned usually tries to claim that the Apollo craft was in low earth Orbit, thus the earth would have filled the entire _ This film claims the earth was some sort of fake transparency. Another similar film named "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" claims the Earth was a stencil cut out put in the window -- i.e. to make it look as if they were far away from Earth, they made a stencil "cut out" that they put in the window that made the Earth look small (because all you could see was the small cut-out portion).

As you mentioned, this video claims that the "gotcha!" moment when they could tell it was a hoax is when the window lit up completely blue. There are a few reasons why the window would look blue, one being that there was a blue-green coating on the window that may have caught some glare from inside the capsule.
I don't agree there should be such strong shades of blue in both windows. Space is black, and the sun is a "natural" white. So why blue? I do believe the opinion of light physics experts would have to be there to provide an opinion on this either way. I doubt any simulations of this are possible at the moment but may be that is the case. I believe that the lighting in the video is consistent of a craft in low-earth orbit, but not with a craft far away from a blue atmosphere. The implied claim of a cloud can of course be questioned and I consider it a good guess that may be wrong.

And speaking of lighting, here is another interesting anomaly as defined in 36:39 of the following video:
yo5w0pm24ic
as physics expert David Grove claims there is an additional light source. It is accepted by NASA that additional lighting was not onboard the LM. If someone can show me a picture of a round object with such a line of glare simply from reflected ground light, please do show it to me. It seems as though this can be confirmed with an additional physics expert. Personally I'll plan on contacting one myself though perhaps not anytime soon.

The photo is looking at the shadow side of the LM, and the worker is in the shadow of the craft. Yet, glare can be seen on the workers boot. Full quality NASA source: www.lpi.usra.edu...

I didn't have much time today, so be continued tomorrow...


Oh snap......

Ok, I am done with this one. This stuff was exposed a long, long time ago.

At this point, I think that this argument is probably never going to stop, but that belief in the moon landing will fade in time, until it becomes a part of history nobody bothers with. Then it'll be Columbus discovers America, Lincoln freed the slaves and America went to the moon.

Peace out.
The glare on the boot has never been touched by any analyst including people you would label "debunkers" so far as I know by my web searches (not "Google" searches btw why advertise for them?). Maybe I missed that. But, thanks sharing your ideas.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

1. What leads you to believe there was a blue-green coating on the LM windows? It seems that if glare is seen on one of the windows, then it wouldn't be on the other window after the cameras were panning because the angles involved would be different. Also, I would expect glare to only be visible from the outside. On a sunny day I never see glare from the inside looking out of a window. Rather, I see glare from the outside where it is sunny, looking into a window. Glare would mean the opposite side of the LM would have been the light source, then the blue-green coating would be reflecting that glare. So, the glare theory is something I don't find being plausible.

2. The pan footage of the Surveyor III in the post you reply to is alleged to be from the LM as it lands, not from the rover. So, the video claims that the workers claimed to see the Surveyor III from the LM as it landed, and then the footage provided in the "Conquest" video which is implied but not stated to be from NASA show that clip of the Surveyor III as it lands. I think that video is pretty easy to show is fake, but I doubt NASA has ever claimed credit for producing it. So, that would be irrelevant even if true. But none the less it would show that moon footage is sometimes faked.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: centarix

2) The photos show no signs that dust was displaced. The dust is noted to be a "fine powder". My expectation is for all the fine powder beneath the LM to be displaced by the force of the rocket propellant. In addition, I expect there should be radial markings in the photos that match like those the shown on the landing video.


laziness or ignorance is not an excuse




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: centarixThe glare on the boot has never been touched by any analyst including people you would label "debunkers" so far as I know by my web searches


so you say.. but i get the feeling you are quite lazy with your searches

www.clavius.org...



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: centarixThe glare on the boot has never been touched by any analyst including people you would label "debunkers" so far as I know by my web searches


so you say.. but i get the feeling you are quite lazy with your searches

www.clavius.org...


Well for one... On February 15th, 2001, Fox aired a documentary on the moon landings and it covered everything we have touched on in this thread.

The truth is out there.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: centarix

Again you show a lack of understanding about how the landing worked. You have to decrease the throttle, therefore reduce engine power, the nearer you get to the ground or you just don't land. The nearer you get to the ground the less force you're exerting. It's that simple.

It is still clear from the videos that dust is being kicked up as long as the engine is blowing, and stops the instant that engine does with no billowing at all. You can't do that in an atmosphere.

The particles that were capable of being moved were moved. Those that resisted movement were not. Plucking figures out of thin air as to what you would expect without any kind of support doesn't work - you're pretty much relying on the old favourite of "gee it looks kinda funny".
edit on 2/2/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: centarix

2. The pan footage of the Surveyor III in the post you reply to is alleged to be from the LM as it lands, not from the rover. So, the video claims that the workers claimed to see the Surveyor III from the LM as it landed, and then the footage provided in the "Conquest" video which is implied but not stated to be from NASA show that clip of the Surveyor III as it lands. I think that video is pretty easy to show is fake, but I doubt NASA has ever claimed credit for producing it. So, that would be irrelevant even if true. But none the less it would show that moon footage is sometimes faked.


The video showing Surveyor III during a landing is a fake. It is not produced by NASA, and NASA has never claimed it was theirs. The Apollo 12 landing 16mm footage is available from as soon as descent started and you can identify lunar features in it right down to the last few feet. At the time of the landing the Surveyor probe was almost completely hidden in the crater's shadow and they would not have been able to see or film it.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: centarix

Again you show a lack of understanding about how the landing worked. You have to decrease the throttle, therefore reduce engine power, the nearer you get to the ground or you just don't land. The nearer you get to the ground the less force you're exerting. It's that simple.

It is still clear from the videos that dust is being kicked up as long as the engine is blowing, and stops the instant that engine does with no billowing at all. You can't do that in an atmosphere.

The particles that were capable of being moved were moved. Those that resisted movement were not. Plucking figures out of thin air as to what you would expect without any kind of support doesn't work - you're pretty much relying on the old favourite of "gee it looks kinda funny".


Why this tone?

It does look funny. And the fact that it looks funny is normally how we, as humans, identify things that need further investigation. If it didn't look funny, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I have personally heard just about enough of this magic moon sand. It doesn't make dust, it doesn't move when blasted from rockets, it is solid enough to support space craft but it is delicate enough to leave fluffy foot prints in. It is everything and it is nothing. Like so many other aspects of the moon landing, it can be whatever it needs to be at any given time.




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: misterz

i thought you were done here??

so im guessing you want to AGAIN take the word of proven fraud and liar blindly that the moon landings were faked?

have you checked the claims of that documentary yourself?? or did you just watch it and think yes he is 100% correct.

because there are multiple times that Sibrel contradicts himself. i think he has even changed his story a little since then.
still think its accurate?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: misterz

It does look funny. And the fact that it looks funny is normally how we, as humans, identify things that need further investigation. If it didn't look funny, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I have personally heard just about enough of this magic moon sand. It doesn't make dust, it doesn't move when blasted from rockets, it is solid enough to support space craft but it is delicate enough to leave fluffy foot prints in. It is everything and it is nothing. Like so many other aspects of the moon landing, it can be whatever it needs to be at any given time.



its on a different WORLD with NO ATMOSPHERE..

stop applying what you know about how dust behaves ON EARTH with how it should behave on the moon.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
There is atmosphere on the moon. The flag blows in the wind.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I guess we are double posting.

I used google, and found that there is indeed lunar dust. Apparently particles can be charged and can be suspended in the... air?


If you kick up fine particulate matter into the air at high speed, in low gravity, why do you believe that will result in no dust cloud?

Have you tested this? Because you seem ultra positive.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join