NASA moon landing pictures Analyzed - new cool video!

I came across this and its only 3 months old and is very interesting

The moon landing has divided many people on if it was real or faked. The photos of that moon landing that were released for public viewing are analyzed by Marcus Allen. And the reasons as to why they could be fake might surprise some of you.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by smason202]

I hadn't seen that before. This is really good. I am surprised it hasnt been flagged by more or even commented on. I would say thats because you like me you are new here and I was told people here dont like new people and dont like to encourage them to post anymore threads..Shame really

[edit on 25-6-2008 by sallyann1234]

Originally posted by sallyann1234
I hadn't seen that before. This is really good. I am surprised it hasnt been flagged by more or even commented on. I would say thats because you like me you are new here and I was told people here dont like new people and dont like to encourage them to post anymore threads..Shame really

[edit on 25-6-2008 by sallyann1234]

Thank you for you reply sallyann I did post a thread the other day and did have some responses. I think its a thread that doesn't necessary need replying to, And I dont mind at all. I just wanted to share this video with people here Peace to you all

Ahh great video!!! Is this from secret space? And what a turn around if so. In the 1st one they were no way did NASA make the landings and now they did and it was to hide the evidence of Aliens there.. confused me... never

Originally posted by swamp123
Ahh great video!!! Is this from secret space? And what a turn around if so. In the 1st one they were no way did NASA make the landings and now they did and it was to hide the evidence of Aliens there.. confused

me... never

hehe I know what you mean I guess its all speculation

reply to post by smason202


Sorry, someone else posted a link to this same video, can't remember where.

The british guy shows obvious digital phot manipulation in some, but along the very bottom edges....doubt you'd hide anything there!!

THEN, he uses the 360 panorama photo from the Moon book to imply it's fake because you can't see the LM....um, he ain't too bright if he can't figure out there are low hills obscuring the LM from view!!! This is the kind of drivel that just grinds my gears!!!

AND, in case you're wondering how the Astronauts found the LM if they couldn't see it from behind a hill....ummmmm well, they simply follow their tracks back "home".....duh!!

Oh, and he goes on about the dark shadows....of course low shadows are very dark, but a man in a bright white spacesuit standing out in the open is going to be illuminated by reflected light!!!

AND, if this is the same video, he claims to see spotlights. SPOTLIGHTS? More than ONE light source would result in multiple shadows!!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Good call on the spotlights creating more shadows. A good book to read on what is myth and what isn't is Colonel Gordon Cooper's Leap of Faith. It is very good and very interesting read.

excellent find, starred and flagged. I love the part where he mentions the part about the model astronaut at the end compared to the known size of the boulder...Brilliant, just brilliant..

reply to post by prionace glauca


glauca.....you aren't serious, are you???

How do you judge relative sizes here on Earth? Well, experience with known sizes of familiar objects. It's the same way we determine perspective. Imagine a line of telephone poles....you know they are all the same height, but you see them looking "shorter" the farther away they are.

So one still photo is not going to give you the proper perspective on relative sizes. If you saw some trees or telephone poles on the Moon, then it would help you gain a perspective. If there were a video of the Astronaut walking around the boulder, then you'd gain a better idea of the sizes.

Understand yet????

I see the usual Moon hoax stupidity still impresses the gullible. Badly assembled composite picture, lighting from the ground, ordinary lens flares, perspective (this conspiracy theorist has difficulty understanding things appear smaller in the background), ... Not even worth commenting.

reply to post by smason202


That's a new one to me. I guess that I never sew those pictures before. It's really interesting how the man in the video picked up on the fact that NASA was cutting and pasting scenes together.
Going to have to look with better eyes from now on!!

Good post!!

There is so much ignorance in that video it surprises me how someone can spend time doing it!

First, if he wants to prove image manipulation he should not use a book, it should use the original photos, photos for a book were probably altered before the publication because of the different methods used.

Second, calling the lens flares spotlights only shows the level of ignorance of that guy.

I downloaded the video but I did not saw it after the "spotlights".

It is impressive how much some people want to disbelief in something, they grab anything thrown their way. Sad.

But this is not directed to smason202, it was a good find, and, as you can see, some people did not knew about it, so it is always worth posting, after making a search to avoid duplicate threads.

PS: don't believe everything they tell you about ATS and its members.

And welcome, although I am a little late.

Originally posted by nablator
I see the usual Moon hoax stupidity still impresses the gullible. Badly assembled composite picture, lighting from the ground, ordinary lens flares, perspective (this conspiracy theorist has difficulty understanding things appear smaller in the background), ... Not even worth commenting.

Ahh but you did comment and it is most certainly welcome. I myself wouldnt know for certain if its true or not. Only that its a possibilty

reply to post by smason202



thanks for posting this because i have not seen it before.

i have to say that it is one of the poorer debunking video's but the added parts of the pictures is interesting. the question is were those pictures released that way from NASA or was it done by the publishing company or someone in between ? would be nice to know what book it was.

i believe that we did go to the Moon but i also believe that many of the pictures were faked or altered. there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that some of the pictures are not genuine.

i am sure there are reasons for what they did wether it was to cover up alien evidence or they just wanted to keep the landing sites top secret for military purpose , i don't think we will ever know the truth.

But this is not directed to smason202, it was a good find, and, as you can see, some people did not knew about it, so it is always worth posting, after making a search to avoid duplicate threads.

And welcome, although I am a little late.

Why thank you very much I have to confess it didnt enter my mind that this thread has been done before and will look for it to add my 2 cents. I am new here. So lots of learn

Oh I already like many people here and know that it is very welcoming and incredibly intelligent so I love it here

reply to post by easynow


Easy, the book is titled "Full Moon". It's a big picture book, commony referred to as as 'coffee table' book, sometimes. ( got one for Christmas, some years ago). I'm certain it's still in print.

I second the post that mentioned that the photos for the book may have been manipulated (ArMap??)....to fit on the page. To blame NASA is the height of hubris. I would look to the Editors.....of the book.

reply to post by weedwhacker


thanks for the name of the book,

i found this...

Article Excerpt
MICHAEL LIGHT

During their travels, Apollo astronauts took nearly 32,000 photographs documenting their journeys. For years, many of these pictures weren't available to the public. Light handpicked 129 of them--57 black-and-white and 72 color images--and scanned the master negatives electronically. He presents his new prints in this album, recreating...

goliath.ecnext.com...
Full Moon.(Book Review) Industry & Business Article - Research, News, Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations

it say's he presented his ' new ' prints in this album.....

so in this case NASA may not be at fault here because it's kinda obvious that he recreated these photo's to make the book more impressive.

without seeing the negatives he had gotten from NASA there is no way to be 100% sure on this imo.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
excellent find, starred and flagged. I love the part where he mentions the part about the model astronaut at the end compared to the known size of the boulder...Brilliant, just brilliant..

So glad you liked it

reply to post by ArMaP


To which guy are you referring? The man who is making the claims the photos are fake clearly says "they look like spotlights, but we WON'T call them that, because we don't know that they are".

So the person you are calling ignorant is the camera man, the guy examining the photo's does not make this claim.

reply to post by Alethia


Thanks for clearing it to me, I don't know why but I have some trouble with the sound of the videos, I hadn't understood what he was saying.

Reading your quote and listening again showed me that what he really says is what you wrote, so I will withdraw my comment about the spotlights.

But he is still ignorant if he does not know what a lens flare can look like, especially when he is trying to prove other people wrong by his analysis of the photos.