Photographic evidence that at least one moon mission is fake!!

reply to post by tim1989


I wouldn't get so excited about that. Please take note of the utube user who posted the 'trailer'...it is a guy promoting his OWN movie, for fun and profit!!

Jose Escamilla is a hack, and a fraud. Probably, he knows that the LRO will soon cause the market for his baloney to dry up...he needs to capitalize on people's naivete' while he can.

Back to reader's OP. We've run amuck in this thread, as is usually the case, but I believe the intent of reader's claim was that photos were 'fake' because of one photo that is alleged to show 'clouds'...

I happen to think it's a tempest in a teapot. Since we have plenty of video that doesn't show any 'clouds' or anomalies, it comes down to a chance angle of a shot where the helmet visor catches the light in a peculiar way. Not an expert on the composition of those gold visors, but I would venture a guess that they were multi-layered and sandwiched in their construction. Think of how your car windows reflect light, sometimes. Or, your gold-mirrored sunglasses.

I find it peculiar that people will nitpick so readily, instead of marveling at the scope and majesty of the space efforts!!

My edit is because I originally wrote a response to the wrong OP!!





[edit on 5/14/0909 by weedwhacker]

Hi, I have not decided if the moon landings were hoaxed or not, however while browsing google moon I noticed this, from Apollo 17 site, (top of 1st pic shows which photo it is)
Now if it's a hoax somone got sloppy, if it's not how did this envelope get there (with the little dude holding it, (toy?), there are no footprints near it.
Or perhaps some smart alec at the image processing lab is playing silly buggers and put it there to see how long it would take for someone to find it.

you decide

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/283e45d9d2bd.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d89a2bae42b.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/29b43b93970e.jpg[/atsimg]

That's where the children's letters to Santa go. That's an elf dragging it to the workshop

reply to post by PennyQ


Good Find

It could be moon garbage.

We did leave alot of garbage on the moon.

I don't think it was added in afterwards though - but I wouldn't put anything past those NASA types.

reply to post by PennyQ

Frame from Jack's Station 9 Pan. Northern wall of Van Serg. Journal Contributor Hiroyasu Hayashi calls attention to the white object at bottom center. In a detail ( 222k, we see that the white object is an empty individual-sample-bag holder.

www.hq.nasa.gov...



Schmitt probably discarded it while taking samples.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Fair enuff, but how did it get to where it is, there doesn't seem to be any footprints nearby, and as there's no wind it couldn't have blown there.

I'm still not sure about the little dude tho, lol

reply to post by PennyQ


There are footprints nearby.

Check again.

(start with your eyes at the bottom right corner, the prints are more apparent there)

I have always wondered how the Astronauts could go to the moon with their suits. I mean a lot of things had to go right for our planet to have the protective layer we call atmosphere around it. How could scientists recreate that in those suits? I want to believe. But it gets harder every time. Like for example the Soviet Union simply gave up on it. The US got to the moon and the Soviets said "Damn they beat us, lets go home." That doesn't sound like them. Maybe something more happened, like contact with a lifeform while they were orbiting earth or something. They for sure reached some sort of agreement. As for the "They stopped cause they had no more money issue." Thats a load of crap, they didn't have to pay anyone for work, they were communists.

Originally posted by 3vilscript
I have always wondered how the Astronauts could go to the moon with their suits. I mean a lot of things had to go right for our planet to have the protective layer we call atmosphere around it. How could scientists recreate that in those suits?

So, you think the space shuttle and space station astronauts have never really performed a spacewalk? Those were all faked?

I want to believe. But it gets harder every time. Like for example the Soviet Union simply gave up on it. The US got to the moon and the Soviets said "Damn they beat us, lets go home." That doesn't sound like them. Maybe something more happened, like contact with a lifeform while they were orbiting earth or something. They for sure reached some sort of agreement. As for the "They stopped cause they had no more money issue." Thats a load of crap, they didn't have to pay anyone for work, they were communists.

Using that argument (that communist governments don't need to worry about money) then I suppose every communist government everywhere has the best and most technologically advanced "everything" -- because they don't need to pay the people who build those things.

Originally posted by 3vilscript
I have always wondered how the Astronauts could go to the moon with their suits. I mean a lot of things had to go right for our planet to have the protective layer we call atmosphere around it. How could scientists recreate that in those suits?

The same way they do today in order to build the ISS... The suits consist of many layers of different fabrics, each with its own purpose, most for insulation. The life support packs are basically miniature versions of what any other spacecraft uses. They're really just fabric spacecraft themselves.
images.spaceref.com...

I want to believe. But it gets harder every time. Like for example the Soviet Union simply gave up on it. The US got to the moon and the Soviets said "Damn they beat us, lets go home."

Actually they said "Damn, our rocket blows up every time we launch it. We'd have to start from scratch on the booster if we want to land on the moon, and we can't afford that."

As for the "They stopped cause they had no more money issue." Thats a load of crap, they didn't have to pay anyone for work, they were communists.

Just because you're a communist does not mean you're immune from the basic laws behind economics; finite resources, also known as goods and services. Communism simply means that the right to those resources are not earned by the masses based on how everyone else values the own goods and services each person contributes, but it doesn't mean you suddenly have an infinite amount of goods and services. Rocket design and testing is expensive because it uses up MANY goods and services, even when it goes smoothly. The N1 booster development was deeply flawed and basically needed an entirely new approach from scratch. The thing never even made it into orbit safely, every single one of them exploded.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ngchunter]

The Moon looks like the surface of pulverized volcanic rocks covering the
surface.
Yet no supersonic wind to blow dust around as on Mars.
We do have remote control launders that examined the surface however.
So we would know the specifications.

There is no lack of static electricity seeing the sickness of the gray powder.

reply to post by FX44rice

I went to school for Mechanical Engineering. In some of our classes, our task was to calc out the fuel needed for specific trajectories of rockets. We were not seasoned scientists either.
I am not saying that we had our calcs perfectly correct, but we did them nonetheless.
I dont remember them being that difficult. Maybe I was loaded that day- dont remember.

i think that most of the moon landings were faked. there is always irrefutible evidence that there was some sort of hoaxing going on. come on they went to the moon in what 1969. they couldnt make any kind of quality product back then. but to travel to the moon. has any one seen the (pardon my french) P.O.S they went to the moon in. it looked like a cheap 1940s film about space. it looks like a prop, same as the appolo, in the past 10 years havent there been like 2 craft that blew up and killed everyone. hmmmmm

Originally posted by Thinker1
i think that most of the moon landings were faked. there is always irrefutible evidence that there was some sort of hoaxing going on.

I've never seen any irrefutable evidence, could you show me something you think is irrefutable?

come on they went to the moon in what 1969. they couldnt make any kind of quality product back then.

Umm, what?!

but to travel to the moon. has any one seen the (pardon my french) P.O.S they went to the moon in. it looked like a cheap 1940s film about space. it looks like a prop, same as the appolo

Just because the LM looks funny to you doesn't mean it's garbage. Its appearance has no effect on how well it performs and the LM's design is purely based around function and the bare minimum of what's needed, it's heavily optimized. I think it's an amazing piece of engineering as do many other people. I would recommend you take a deeper look into why it's designed the way it is, how it works, etc.

Had Apollo been a hoax, why would they have spent so much time optimizing the hell out of it? Why not just use the original design that they had come up with before all that instead? (Link)

in the past 10 years havent there been like 2 craft that blew up and killed everyone. hmmmmm

It's been 25 years since Challenger blew up (1986) and 8 years since Columbia (2003). But what does any of this have to do with Apollo?