Video Of Faked Moon Flight

Can anyone tell me whether the footage at 2:25 is meant to be real? that can't be genuine right?, clearly it's on a gimble or something.


[edit on 22-8-2008 by squiz]

Like how did they do that.
Ask Disney.
They were in cahoots with ABC and Von Braun with shows on space science
for years.

I saw something vibrate.
So part of a model got stuck and someone poked it with stick.

All the camera angles and color film footage, its too look at me
I'm real.

But its not.
I met some one that worked for the camera company that was
contracted for the famous launch sequence.
Other than that I never head much else.

Originally posted by squiz
Can anyone tell me whether the footage at 2:25 is meant to be real? that can't be genuine right?, clearly it's on a gimble or something.

If you're talking about the footage of the LEM rotating 90 degrees starting at 2:26, then yes -- it's real footage.

However, that footage has been speeded up. The rotation of the LEM prior to docking with the CM took longer than a few seconds. I'd say that particular part of the video was speeded up at least 5X.

It would actually be easy to pull this off without everyone involved knowing. Thousands of people would not have to know the truth.

A film crew and the astronauts and a few key people at nasa to feed the data, and film into the computers at the right time and the astronauts playing their role speaking back when asked questions, from somewhere in supposed outer space, but really just a back room somewheres on earth. The people working at nasa seeing all of this data and info coming across their system would be as duped as the rest of us.

Also, if you were involved in this would you talk? First of all everyone saw the footage and they think we went to the moon, so how are going to convince anyone it is a fake? You wouldn't be able to convince most people, and then you are told it is top secret and you could go to jail or worse if you talk.

Do you know the average guy in the military and ex-military probably know some secret info? Their not talking, ever wonder why? Military prisons are not a vacation spot and no one wants to go there.



[edit on 22-8-2008 by goose]

First of all everyone saw the footage and they think we went to the moon, so how are going to convince anyone it is a fake?

Easy, show them the rover footage. If it's been faked in any way in the late 60's then it cannot show arcing dust without billowing, indicating a vacuum, in high arcs, indicating lunar gravity. It's impossible to fake both things simultaneously on a soundstage on earth, so that footage must contain evidence of a hoax. Since you know it was hoaxed just present the footage and point out how the dust billows indicating an atmosphere, or falls back to the moon at 9.8m/s/s, indicating earth gravity.

First of all if you look at the surface of the supposed moon in the film it looks like a heavy grade of rock dust and heavy weight sand, wet it down giving it a weight heavier than it's usual weight and it would behave similar to mud going over the top of the wheels, the mud flowing over top of wheels gives the same effect or look of what one sees in the film. When one looks at this stuff one would think it was just dust, that doesn't behave like dust.

I grew up on a dirt road, I know all about dust flying up, no one tailgated anyone I assure you. LOL The first home I owned was on a dirt road. The DOT used to come thorugh every once in a while during the drought times and put down some sort of oily substance and we would have no dust flying up for a week or two. Then eventually a little bit of dust would rise but fall back, it would not behave like ordinary dust does, until all of the oily substance would sink deeper into the ground or evaporate. So imagine mixing this oily stuff in with the mixture, one would get dust that does not behave like dust.

Now if the gravity of the moon(1/6th) is different than earth then the weight of the vehicle should not have left deep tracks in the so called surface of the moon, they can clearly be seen in the film looking just like they would have, here on earth.

The film could have been shot in slow motion which means the actors or astronauts had to do everything backwards and had to move at three times the speed we normally would to give it the illusion of the moon walk. These guys were athletes in top physical condition it is possible they could have done that with a little bit of practice, plus they were not running on the moon. Now show the film at normal or twice the normal speed and one would get something similar to the footage of the moon.

It would be interesting to see if any space movies showing anything similar was shot around that time period or if anyone has tried to make a film similar to the moon landing film using the same type of cameras that were available to film crews then or perhaps the next one to come out after the moon landing, I've been told the government usually has the latest technology before we do.

And then don't forget the number 19 written on the surface of the moon. I've been told that one puts the same number prop back over the number so that all of the props or rocks in this case are put back in place or kept in place during filming, apparently someone forgot fake rock # 19.

Originally posted by goose
First of all if you look at the surface of the supposed moon in the film it looks like a heavy grade of rock dust and heavy weight sand, wet it down giving it a weight heavier than it's usual weight and it would behave similar to mud going over the top of the wheels, the mud flowing over top of wheels gives the same effect or look of what one sees in the film.

Not at all. Mud clumps together. I don't see clumps, I see fine grain dust.

When one looks at this stuff one would think it was just dust, that doesn't behave like dust.

It doesn't behave like dust you're used to because it's in a vacuum so it doesn't billow.

I grew up on a dirt road, I know all about dust flying up, no one tailgated anyone I assure you. LOL

That's because earth has an atmosphere... as I said in my previous post, if the dust billowed around like earth dust then it'd be proof it was faked. It falls right back to the moon because there's no atmosphere on the moon to keep it suspended.

Then eventually a little bit of dust would rise but fall back,

The only way it would do that is if it's clumping to some extent. The moon dust in the rover videos is fine grained the entire time.

Now if the gravity of the moon(1/6th) is different than earth then the weight of the vehicle should not have left deep tracks in the so called surface of the moon,

Wrong. 1/6th gravity is still gravity. Tracks will be made because the vehicle still weighs something and the dust is easily compressed.

The film could have been shot in slow motion

Slow motion would not affect the height of the dust arcs. Arcs that high on earth would mean the vehicle is not getting any traction as it would take all the vehicle's energy to launch the dirt that high.

which means the actors or astronauts had to do everything backwards and had to move at three times the speed we normally would to give it the illusion of the moon walk. These guys were athletes in top physical condition it is possible they could have done that with a little bit of practice,

Oh right, because that would be SO humanly possible with bulky spacesuits on... And I'm sure it wouldn't look awkward at all once the film is sped up...

/sarc

It would be interesting to see if any space movies

There is not a single space movie in existence that shows a perfectly created spacewalk or even zero g footage for longer than 30 seconds in a shot - no one can fake it adequately even to this day.

And then don't forget the number 19 written on the surface of the moon. I've been told that one puts the same number prop back over the number so that all of the props or rocks in this case are put back in place or kept in place during filming, apparently someone forgot fake rock # 19.

Geez, the claim is the "C rock" not the number 19... It does not appear in any of the film masters, only in the LPI version of the image; it's a scanning artifact. Here's a high resolution version of the photo. See any letters on the rocks? Neither do I.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Are there any other myths I can debunk for you?

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ngchunter]

For some reason I keep remembering the number 19 being on the rock, maybe my memory is getting foggy, I'll have to look for it, maybe the number 19 was on a photo from Mars. Thanks for the picture of the C.

There are a lot of things that might explain the way the soil behaved, we don't know what particle the soil contained, it's weight and mix in that oily substance on anything and it will behave differently, there will be no dust.

I did not say that there should have been no tracks only that they, should not have been, as deep as they were, since the tracks I saw seemed to be as deep as they would have been on earth. I don't really think that little moon buggy was all that heavy and then add to that 1/6th the gravity.

Even if you think the astronauts could have made it though the Van Allen belt, without dying from the radiation, which protects us from the sun flares of the sun, what protected the astronauts from the sun flares on the moon?

www.apfn.org...
The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

Then of course the astonauts did not exactly go to the moon for a vacation. They had to drive the moon vehicle all over the place, set up the flag and some other chores, so they only spent a small amount of time there. So then, who had the time to take the massive amount of photos taken? Also how was the all of the film protected going back and forth through the radiation belt? Would the film have survived this? For the info, I mention on the amount of photos, this guy has calculated time and photos and all of that. He makes a really good argument about it. Scroll down near the end of the link.

www.apfn.org...

Also because even a conspiracy theorist has a sense of humor, this one is just funny. It's a must see!

www.dc8p.com...

If you went on a Moon mission and put into earth orbit.
Then told to stay put in orbit.
Then brought down as returning moon walkers.
Could that be done?

Originally posted by goose
For some reason I keep remembering the number 19 being on the rock, maybe my memory is getting foggy, I'll have to look for it, maybe the number 19 was on a photo from Mars. Thanks for the picture of the C.

There is no C in the picture, proving it's specific to the LPI scan, not the picture. Here's an even higher res version. Label any "C"s you see in the image. I see none, even on the rock that's supposedly "labeled."
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

There are a lot of things that might explain the way the soil behaved, we don't know what particle the soil contained, it's weight and mix in that oily substance on anything and it will behave differently, there will be no dust.

Right, but there WAS dust, not mud, not clumps. It just fell back to the moon immediately, unlike anything you could recreate in an atmosphere. Here's some great footage of the rover on Apollo 15. Irrefutable evidence that we went to the moon, this cannot be properly recreated anywhere on earth. The dust arcs high without clumping or billowing, it just falls back to the moon as it should in a vacuum.
videos.howstuffworks.com...

I did not say that there should have been no tracks only that they, should not have been, as deep as they were, since the tracks I saw seemed to be as deep as they would have been on earth. I don't really think that little moon buggy was all that heavy and then add to that 1/6th the gravity.

On earth the buggy alone weighted 463lbs, but carried a cargo of rocks/astronauts on the moon up to an earth weight of an additional 1000lbs. That's 243 lbs on the moon - plenty enough to displace loose dust and leave "tracks." Incidently, the tracks don't look all that deep to me.
upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

Even if you think the astronauts could have made it though the Van Allen belt, without dying from the radiation, which protects us from the sun flares of the sun, what protected the astronauts from the sun flares on the moon?

LOL! Do you realize that the particle radiation trapped by the van allen belts can be stopped by fibrous material like cardboard? Or like the insulation of the command module? Or that they passed through the belts rapidly and didn't linger? Or that Dr. van Allen himself stated it wouldn't have posed a problem for the astronauts? Quite simply, they went during the minimum of solar activity and there were no serious solar flares direct at earth during ANY of the apollo missions. Tell me, does this live chart of the 3 day X-ray flux from the sun look lethal to you? Because the sun is about as inactive now as it was back then:
www.swpc.noaa.gov...

Then of course the astonauts did not exactly go to the moon for a vacation. They had to drive the moon vehicle all over the place, set up the flag and some other chores, so they only spent a small amount of time there. So then, who had the time to take the massive amount of photos taken?

You can look at maps that chart where every single photo was taken and when. There is NO discrepency in the apollo photo record. Nice try.

Also how was the all of the film protected going back and forth through the radiation belt? Would the film have survived this? For the info, I mention on the amount of photos, this guy has calculated time and photos and all of that. He makes a really good argument about it. Scroll down near the end of the link.

The radiation received was not sufficient to fog film because the command module was shielded during the trip through the belts. Furthermore, you made the mistake of confusing the kind of radiation trapped by the belts with X-rays that your source assumes would have fogged the film. Your source assumes an X-ray level more than 1000 times as energetic as what is actually found in cis-lunar space. I refer you to the image I gave you above for the true level of X-rays currently in cislunar space.

As for your link, many of the photos were taken in rapid succession to form panoramas. See this map to show you how many panoramas were taken and how many photos each contained:
history.nasa.gov...

121 photos in 2.5 hours: that's less than a photo a minute with many taken in rapid succession in a short period of time. There is simply no discrepency there.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
If you went on a Moon mission and put into earth orbit.
Then told to stay put in orbit.
Then brought down as returning moon walkers.
Could that be done?

The question is not could it be done, the question is was it done. Photos showing the apollo command module on the way to the moon right where it should be, as photographed by observers on the ground, proves it wasn't done the way you suggest.
Apollo 8 on the way to the moon as photographed from Corralitos:
www.astr.ua.edu...

Video from translunar flight showing the moon in one window and the equally distant earth in the other also disprove this:
Disc 2 of this set contains an excellent video of this phase of flight:
www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by goose
I did not say that there should have been no tracks only that they, should not have been, as deep as they were, since the tracks I saw seemed to be as deep as they would have been on earth. I don't really think that little moon buggy was all that heavy and then add to that 1/6th the gravity.

The density of the soil is also a factor. If the soil is loose and not compacted, then it doesn't take much to make a noticeable imprint.

Even if you think the astronauts could have made it though the Van Allen belt, without dying from the radiation, which protects us from the sun flares of the sun, what protected the astronauts from the sun flares on the moon?

There wern't any major solar flares durring the Apollo missions. The Sun was at a solar minimum at that time if I remeber correctly or low solar activity anyway. There were a few larger flares in between some missions, but the majority of them were minor and didn't threathen the lives of the astronauts.

Then of course the astonauts did not exactly go to the moon for a vacation. They had to drive the moon vehicle all over the place, set up the flag and some other chores, so they only spent a small amount of time there. So then, who had the time to take the massive amount of photos taken?

It's pretty easy to snap off a few shots while doing other things. Just take a look at the mission transcripts, since the astronauts would some times mention when they were going to take photos.

Also how was the all of the film protected going back and forth through the radiation belt? Would the film have survived this?

Of course, the Val Allen radiation belts aren't deadly, especially when you're only going through them quickly as well. The aluminium hull of the spacecraft was more then enough to protect the astronauts (and thus the film).

For the info, I mention on the amount of photos, this guy has calculated time and photos and all of that. He makes a really good argument about it. Scroll down near the end of the link.

I've seen that before. I think it's a load of nonsense. Jack White (the guy who wrote all that) really makes it sound more challenging then it really is and some of what he says is an outright lie. For example...

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites.

Absolute BS. None of the missions had astronauts travelling 30 miles. The longest total drive time was 35.9 km (22.3 miles) for Apollo 17, but that's the just the total for all the driving through out the whole mission. The longest single traverse was 20.1 km (or 12.5 miles). Less then half of what Jack White claims. And not every photo was "vitually different". If you go through the Apollo photography, you'll see pleanty of duplicated shots and sequencial shots to make panoramas.

But back to Jack Whites PPM calculations. His method makes no sense. With Apollo 11 for example, I see no good reason why he takes the 31 minutes out of the total 2h31m EVA to calculate the PPM (other than to skew the results to his liking of course). Seeing as how the 121 photos were taken throughout the entire EVA, it would make sense to use the full 2h31m time for the calculation don't you think? And when you do that, you get 0.8 PPM instead of 3.90 PPM. Plus the later mission, both astronauts shared the task of photographing and documenting, so if you redo the calculations for Apollo 17, which has the most photos taken for it's 3 EVA's, and you use the total EVA time and divide that between the two astronauts then you get 0.75 PPM instead of 2.35 PPM.

Jake White does what ever he can to skew the results in his favour. I find him to be a very dishonest person.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by jra]