New Video Purports to Prove Moon Hoax

I recently received a link to this site. The post contains a video that seems to show how the 'lunar approach' shots were faked using trick photography. You can see 'the moon', then all of the sudden the camera pans around and you can see that it's really just the inside of a studio with lighting and camera men.

Google Video Link

It's very odd to say the least. And why is it that the Hollywood movie "Apollo 13", which was made in the 1990's, seems so much more convincing? The fake moon looks way more real than the 'real' moon. Its very disconcerting to say the least....

Google Video Link

The astronauts don't act like they went anywhere. The LEM looks like a piece of junk because it was a piece of junk (wouldn't you all like to see NASA or any space program land a chemical rocket on earth and then have it take off again - don't hold your breath on that one - Ka-boom).

There is also no rational explanation for many of the photos from the moon.

www.brasschecktv.com...

reply to post by mdzialo


I'd love to get some of the 'mooninites' (astroNOTS that've been to the moon) on a modern polygraph with a well-trained examiner and see how they do.

And yea, the film in the cameras would have totally been ruined by the radiation. Thats just one of a number of problems with the photos.

Thanks for the link!

[edit on 12/16/2007 by sp00n1]

Looks like the simulated version to me. Of course they made all the other models to practice with. They're going 238,857 miles to the moon and back and it would be stupid not to practice a simulated version before going the distance. This wasn't the only time that people did work on the need to know basis. I live very close to Oak Ridge, TN where alot of that was going on to make the H-bomb. The whole town was a secret for awhile. Doesn't mean the moon footage was faked. This simulated version fooled the whole world back then I just don't see it. I could be wrong but I just don't see it being hoaxed.

reply to post by Solarskye


Compare the 'simulated' approach footage to the 'real' footage. They're exactly the same. "If you can't make it to the moon, fake it to the moon."



[edit on 12/17/2007 by sp00n1]

reply to post by sp00n1


I'll take a look at them. I'm not saying either way but I hope we didn't fake it because we couldn't make it.

The real live footage and the flag isn't waving in this one.



I'd like to say that nobody here has been to the moon so how can they say it was faked until you've been there yourself. Or has anyone been to the simulated studio or whatever you call it.

This is the only simulation video I could find and it's not the same as the real footage.

reply to post by Solarskye


I didnt say anything about a waiving flag. That is a red herring! And a straw man to boot! If you can't focus on the evidence presented, dont bring up something totally irrelevant!

The video shows the model, and the studio, and the camera on a track. It pans off of the moon model and you can clearly see it's being faked in a studio.

And then when you compare it to the hollywood movie from apollo 13, it is immediately evident that the 1990's movie FX were way better than the 1960's.

reply to post by sp00n1


Well I sure hope that our technology is better now than it was in the 1960's.
I know those old westerns don't compare to the ones we have now. And you're the one who said look at the videos they're the same? No they are not, and the flag was the obvious one.

reply to post by Solarskye


The 'real' approach shots are exactly the same as the footage shown in the OP, which is what you claim was 'from a simulation'.

It is blatantly obvious that is what i was talking about!! And of course you did not post any of the 'real' approach shots to provide a comparison.

It's not surprising you have to go totally off topic with red herrings and straw men.

[edit on 12/16/2007 by sp00n1]

Since you won't post the 'real' approach shots for comparison, here it is;

What about the astronauts who went to the moon that refused to swear on the bible that they went when interviewed?

That's the weird part about it.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by TheoOne]

Thanks for the video spOOn1, like I said " the only one I could find" was the one I showed. I can say that; that was a very big model of the moon to take that long to land and go from a far distance to the landing. That's much bigger than the picture of the two men standing in front of the lunar surface model.

But that's ok. We disagree on this subject and I can tell that there's no way to change your mind or mine. I'll leave it at that. Because there's a strawman version going on both sides. When that word ( strawman) come's into the subject, then I know I can only leave with my belief on this subject. I can't believe everything I see on video or read in books just because some else does. And I won't get dragged into a debate that I'm outnumbered in and can never win without believing what you all believe.

As shown in the video in the OP, the book shows that they had a camera on a track that approached three different models; One big sphere model which could be spun around and around indefinitely, one large model to show the approach, and one finer scale model to show the landing.

If you will notice, the 'real' footage has a couple of cuts in it. They do not show one continuous, un-cut scene of the approach and landing.

[edit on 12/17/2007 by sp00n1]

reply to post by sp00n1


There's one way to know for sure if we went there or not.

Look through the most powerful Telescope you can find, at the landing site & see if the Rover & other junk supposedly left behind are actually there.

Couldn't be any simpler..lol

Yes the moon landing was faked. And yes we were all fooled by our government in believing that there was nothing up there. "Where are the stars people?!?! WHERE ARE THE STARS?!?!?!?!?"

[edit on 17-12-2007 by omnicron]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by omnicron]

reply to post by TheoOne


They refused to swear on the bable because the bable could not explain the of existence what they saw up there.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by omnicron]

reply to post by omnicron



Umm,
You need an atmosphere to see stars. That's how we seem them on Earth, the light from the star reflects the atmosphere and that is how we are able to see them. In space, you would'nt generaly see that.

So I'm told.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by JackCash]

reply to post by Ironclad


Well, if that were true somebody would have done it by now. I'm sorry, but its not that simple.

Listen, I'm not convinced either way, but the whole stars thing is just silly. On film, especially older film, if you have a reflective surface brighter below you than anything above, the film cannot possibly pick up the dimmer objects by comparison. Try to film a house amongst a snow-covered yard on a bright day. The house will be dim if you let the camera adjust to the bright snow right away. You will get limited details, if any. A camera can get "snow blind" just like a person.

I know this, and I am by no means an expert, and yet I haven't heard it from anyone but me.

And the reason there is backlight is because of the reflective quality of the surface, along with very high powered flash photography.

Again, I guess I don't believe either way, but I need some better evidence before I take that leap. Everything discussed, from radiation, to the LEM, to whatever, has always been debatable. To prove something, you must squash the debate of the other ideas.

And I didn't see the cameras.

EDIT: Add

[edit on 12/17/07 by SantaClaus]