I watched the video and apart from the biased title (Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17 : Stagehands have Tech Problems with the Fake Lift-off of the LM
:@@, didn't see what makes it a hoax. There were SIX moon landings. It's fine to ask questions, but I've never heard a reasonable
explanation why NASA would continuously fake moon landings? They've been there and come back SIXtimes. Enjoy it, don't deny it
Go to the link above and see all the proof yourself...including this :
4. Here we have two new pictures, which are like the previous two, but the anomaly lies in the foreground, the story is, the astronauts walk down the
hill in the first picture, which is at quite a distinct angle with plenty of distinct rocks on it. Then the astronauts get on the Rover (moon buggy)
and travel 2.5 miles away. Then, in true Blair Witch Project style, they walk down the exact same hill, incredible!
There is no point arguing that we didn't go to the moon as it is ludicrous to even believe we did. BUT if you wish to think we did then good for you.
Hmm, funny how in the second picture the astronaut is holding the experiment we see deployed in the first picture. I don't see any proof that these
two pictures were not recorded at the same location. Let me guess, some conspiracy theorist watched an edited produced video where random footage
from apollo was used, and they showed part of that particular hill and then came back to rest of the footage later after showing some rover
Why would it be ludicrous to think we went to the moon? Even amateur astronomers saw the spacecraft in transit to the moon. www.astr.ua.edu...
Some even recorded the radio transmissions from the spacecraft while it was orbiting the moon using some heavy duty radio equipment: www.svengrahn.pp.se...
(This was the radio dish used to record the above at the University of Florida: www.svengrahn.pp.se...)
I'm with SpaceCowgirl on this one. It is one of the hokeyiest hoaxes ever perpetrated on humankind -- less believable perhaps than even 9/11, that
two 140 storey buildings made of concrete and reenforced steel would fall at the speed of gravity because of a couple little fires, and another 60
story building (Building 7) would fall at the speed of gravity without being hit by anything.
Claim: The US uses imperial units, proving the lunar traverse maps are fake.
This is certainly a silly one. The lunar landings were primarily scientific, and in particular, geological expeditions. In science, and in particular
geology, the metric system is always used.
Claim: An image claimed to not be available on the NASA website, shows footprints in "damp" soil
The image is available here:
The lunar soil is very fine (much finer than sand) and has a cohesive nature causing it to stick to itself. Go to 7:30 here:
Claim: Two images, when compared, prove the photos were taken on Earth
The first image (shown above) is at the location of the ALSEP experiment. The second image is here:
Some sort of point is tried to be made about the hill in the center not appearing in the first image but appearing in this one. It's obvious that the
second image is taken from an elevated position. From a higher elevation, things in the distance become visible...amazing. From this it's supposed to
be plain to see that the photos were taken at Chezin Chotah. I'm not sure why, it is a bit moonlike, in fact the astronauts trained there prior to
the missions but a reasonably close look shows that the features on the moon are quite different.
Claim: Different images taken from different locations at the same landing site (Apollo 17) have the same background, proving...something
Distant mountains, when viewed from various locations in the same general vicinity, appear the same.
Claim: A photo of the Apollo 17 at Station 8 is claimed to be the final parking place of the rover.
No it isn't. history.nasa.gov...
Claim: Because mountains appearing in photos taken from different locations look the same, it is proof a backdrop was used.
I thought the claim was that the photos were taken in Arizona. Why go to Arizona if they were just using backdrops?
Excuse me, but you are making me the author of somebody else's post, so you'll need to go edit that.
However you said this:
"I thought the claim was that the photos were taken in Arizona. Why go to Arizona if they were just using backdrops?"
The obvious answer is that if photos were taken in Arizona it's because they wanted the flatness, the sand, who knows. There's more than backdrops
to setting up a movie set, which is what the hokey moon hoax was, except they should have hired better screenwriters and better set designers. But I
guess they figured the American people were so stupid and gullible that any old hokey cheap facade would do for us. (like the moon lander with its
gold foil and spider legs that was supposed to have been let down from othe "mother ship" (the tiny module you see in the Space Museum that was
supposed to hold that clunky piece of junk (aka lunar lander) that looks like a 12 year old made it in his back yard .)
I like this link a lot for proving what a hokey hoax the moon landings were:
I havent read all posts here, but I am under the beliefe that one of the reasons that the moon trips are trying to be prooven false do to the fact
that there are NO STARS in the Backround on photos and stuff. ??
Well, I just saw something wierd, and you must deside if that is the case, is that the Norm on the False Moonlanding front, cause it matters a great
You must deside, No Stars = Fake or Not fake ......
Go stand under a street light and look up and see how many stars you can see. The reflectivity of the moons surface blocked out the stars in the
pictures. One of the reasons that the astronauts didn't see stars is because they would have had to lean back to look up above them. If they did
that with the backpack on they would have toppled over, and once they were on their back it would have been extremely difficult to get up again.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.