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

Who here has ever watched Disney' Man on the Moon?


Disney simulates a moon mission - complete with the discovery of an alien moon base:



*This video was made before the launch of Sputnik

reply to post by syrinx high priest
Of course, the OP ignores the equally sure and adamant ATSers who believe that there were additional "secret" military moon missions conducted AFTER Apollo 17 out of Vandenberg AFB or Wright-Patterson.

The overwhelming evidence confirms civilian NASA flights to the moon by Apollos 8, and 10 to 17.

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


jdub....HUH? A 'launch facility' at Wright Patterson?? AND no one in Cleveland ever saw anything, or mentioned anything???

Vandenburg....yeah, they launch things there. I grew up in LA. Saw it. NOTHING ever the size of a Saturn V was launched from Vandenburg.

IF you wanna theorize about secret 'Apollo-type' launches that were 'secret', then you should investigate out in the Pacific.

See...nearer the Equator, better the already turning Earth to add delta V. AND, a big ocean to drop the stages into. Can't do that very well from Vandenburg, now can we? (OOPS, big ole stage 1 landed on Kansas! So sorry!)

Still, there is the little detail of the hundreds of thousands of contractors and workers at Grumman and Northrop, just to name two, who would have been needed. Instead, what we have, are a few museum pieces that were built in anticipation of Apollo 18-20....but, since they didn't fly, we have them to admire.

EDIT = Oh...typed such a nice post, THEN realized what you meant. Take that! Addled brain fart!!

[edit on 5/1/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by syrinx high priest

I think you are focusing on the "humor" aspect of my post. Which is avoiding the essence of my position.

I prefer you to apply your ample wisdom to the actual point of my question I posed. Which is:

Despite the depth of knowledge one can obtain on the NASA moon missions, and rocket science applications; is it possible in your mind that the hierarchy presenting the knowledge and facts or (alleged facts) could be presenting a story of facts not actually performed? As the only facts we are able to learn are the ones given to us by the ones claiming them legit.

Also I think you were trying to imply that in some way my avatar implies that I believe spacecraft are to look "cool." Quite a menial aspect for someone so discerning as you to focus on rather than the point I offered.

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Despite the depth of knowledge one can obtain on the NASA moon missions, and rocket science applications; is it possible in your mind that the hierarchy presenting the knowledge and facts or (alleged facts) could be presenting a story of facts not actually performed? As the only facts we are able to learn are the ones given to us by the ones claiming them legit.

If the facts were not actually performed, then that's a HUGE amount of lying engineers (including an uncle of mine), and not a single leaker. It's also a huge amount of lying witnesses who saw the rockets launch, perform TLI, head for the moon, listen to radio transmissions from the moon, record laser beam bounces from the new retroreflector, and then return to earth. There's no reason to think those witnesses were lying, and no gap in the facts to think the missions were fake.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

You failed to address my point.

A HUGE amount of lying without any leakers must have gone on to disprove the fact of Santa Clause. Including (My Mother & Father).

Each of your points do not prove a moon landing occured, at all.

Radio Transmissions - From where north pole?

Watch a launch? - I've watched missiles launch and appear to head to the moon. Did they?

Retroreflector? - Bouncing off what a satellite with reflector?

I think you have no investigative third party documentation to prove any of your points verify any moon landing.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Komodonot only this .. but who's taking the side shot with the camera? Didn't think they had a hand held....only the ones on their chests. Noticed as well the steadiness of the side shot. I'd like to see a comparison of the chest on the drivers suit to the one of the passenger side hand held.

For some strange reason NASA thought people would like footage of the first step on the Moon. So they mounted a camera on an arm, and you can hear Neil saying it's extended before he climbs down for the re-entry test.

This falls under the "obvious" category, btw.

Always wondered about that external TV camera.
NASA must have paid a pretty penny for the miniaturization
beyond the technology at that time.

The live TV or any broadcast TV must have been a big hit at that time.

I met someone connected with cameras on the rocket as you
see stages fall behind. I think he said the company was Bauer
and had to have meetings with NASA officials especially if
a camera didn't work.
The rocket vibrations must have shook them up quite a bit.

Originally posted by FX44rice
A HUGE amount of lying without any leakers must have gone on to disprove the fact of Santa Clause. Including (My Mother & Father).

Incorrect analogy; your parents obviously leaked the truth to you. You're comparing parents lying to their kids (something I do not do with my own daughter) to throngs of engineers lying to their adult families all the way to their deaths without a single leaker.

Each of your points do not prove a moon landing occured, at all.

Radio Transmissions - From where north pole?

No, from the moon. You won't pick up signals from the north pole when your dish is pointed at the moon.

Watch a launch? - I've watched missiles launch and appear to head to the moon. Did they?

You seem to think they head to the moon at launch in one motion. Your knowledge of orbital mechanics and spaceflight is sorely lacking. Those are two separate events, but both were followed by observers on the ground. Amateur astronomers tracked the flights from there as they headed to the moon. They went to the moon indeed.

Retroreflector? - Bouncing off what a satellite with reflector?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't fake a lunar retroreflector with a satellite; to match the motion of the moon in the sky perfectly to the point that the reflection appears to come from the landing site, you must actually be at the moon's position in space, at the landing site.

I think you have no investigative third party documentation to prove any of your points verify any moon landing.

Oh right, all those amateur astronomers' reports I read about tracking apollo were lies... Unfortunately for you, calling my bluff won't pay off because I wasn't bluffing. Here's the photographic and audio evidence from those who had the equipment to take the pictures back then:
Launch:
www.astr.ua.edu...
farm3.static.flickr.com...
TLI:
www.astr.ua.edu...
Trans-lunar coast:
www.astr.ua.edu...
www.astr.ua.edu...
Radio communications from the moon:
www.svengrahn.pp.se...
www.svengrahn.pp.se...
Returning to earth:
www.astr.ua.edu...
Reentry (as photographed by a fortuitous passenger on an Air New Zealand flight):
www.astr.ua.edu...

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

Wow, I have the flu and that gif animation is definitely what I did NOT need. Thanks for taking the time and effort to put it together though.

I am having a hard time with this moon landing hoax stuff.

post by ngchunter

How about reviewing the site linked below. Obviously it is too comprehensive to list every point in a thread for 12 hours.

It is fun to debate this issue however you people should wake to the reality that what you are told is not always fact. There was extremely good reason for the govt. to create the perception that man had landed on the moon. And it did not happen.

If it did you and I would have visited by now. Go ahead and throw all of your facts you ascertained from the entities claiming them at me, it gets you no closer to the truth.

I suggest you contact Bernie Madoff to secure your investments for you as well. LOL

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

[edit on 1-5-2009 by FX44rice]

Originally posted by ngchunter

If the facts were not actually performed, then that's a HUGE amount of lying engineers (including an uncle of mine), and not a single leaker.

What should should they say - should they tell us the truth so we can laugh at them and call them liars?

Why should anyone open themselves up to such ridicule?

If you want examples of this sort of thing, just do an ATS search on NASA astronauts discussing UFO sightings - you will notice a propensity of ad homenim attacks and character assassination attempts.

reply to post by FX44rice


That site has so many inaccurasies that to I cant bear to trust anything they say. At least try to find a credible source.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
What should should they say - should they tell us the truth so we can laugh at them and call them liars?

At least one of them would have admitted it to clear their conscience, not to mention the fame. When Scott McClellan suddenly flipped sides, he wasn't laughed at by the people who previously ridiculed him, he was instantly accepted instead and got an extra 15 mins fame. Moon hoaxers would be like bees to honey if an engineer came forward with claims and proof of a conspiracy, but not to laugh.

If you want examples of this sort of thing, just do an ATS search on NASA astronauts discussing UFO sightings

I've participated in such threads and neither myself nor others have ridiculed astronauts who have claimed to see something themselves that they think was an alien ufo - edgar mitchell is usually the example, but he's said he's never seen anything unusual himself with regards to ufos. He has, on the other hand, claimed in the past that Uri Geller could really bend spoons - he's gullible. That's not at all equivalent to an engineer coming forward to make a personal admission that they were part of a moon hoax conspiracy.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by FX44rice
post by ngchunter

 

How about reviewing the site linked below. Obviously it is too comprehensive to list every point in a thread for 12 hours.

Attempting to divert the discussion after calling my bluff. How about we address all the evidence I just posted instead?

And it did not happen.

The evidence I just posted shows it did happen.

If it did you and I would have visited by now.

Quite the assumption. The enormous cost of Apollo, consistent with the high cost of even a suborbital tourist flight and the downright insane cost of an orbital space station visit shows quite clearly that civilian tourism of the moon is still well out of reach.

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

You can't debate the facts and evidence I just presented, so you refer me to a long-debunked website (which also claims copyrights to NASA images?) to do your arguing for you without out so much as distilling the info? That takes all the fun out of the thread. I'll just discredit the whole website rather than waste all my time debunking every sentence, 12 hours as you say, by hitting on some of the lies and distortions they tell:
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
The infamous "c-rock." The site claims it's not a hair on the scanner. Funny how they fail to mention that in the full resolution version of the image, or in any other scan or reproduction of the original image, the "C" isn't there:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
They also claim that the "cross hairs" are missing over bright objects:
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
But they never refer you to the full resolution version of the images where the fiducials can still be seen:
history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Huh?? "...miniaturization beyond the tecnology ot that time."?????

Who says the camera used for the live Apollo 11 step off the ladder was miniaturized? You, it seems.

The camera was added as a sort of last-minute idea. It was, obviously, off-the-shelf B/W, but it did its job.

As to seeing it live, you youngsters have no idea how incredible it was. This, I think, is the crux of the problem with Moon 'hoax' believers. They are influenced by a combination of bad science knowledge and a misunderstanding of real space flight because of the baloney they see in common science fiction movies.

For instance, I remember slapping my forehead with my hand first time I saw "Star Wars". Spaceship 'fighters' flying in space like airplanes! It was ridiculous. (As you know, George Lucas used films of WWII dogfights as a template for a lot of those sequences).

Eventually, though, I caved in and recognized it for what it was: A fantasy-driven mind-numbing popcorn-selling piece of pablum. Very lucrative pablum, but dreck, nonetheless.

If you want to see a more realistic portrayal of real space, (within the limitations of filming on Earth) try "Apollo 13". OR, for ACTUAL real space, get SAT TV and watch the NASA channel. You can see live EVAs from the ISS and the Shuttle, when she's on orbit.

reply to post by weedwhacker


"As to seeing it live, you youngsters have no idea how incredible it was. "

I was in boot camp at the time. They let us stay up past taps to see the landing. When Neil stepped off the LEM there was a spontaneous "snap to and salute" without any orders. We saw history then, and on the later flights.

The people here are some what obsessed with "visitors from another world", but they diss the fact that at one time WE were the aliens, landing on a world very hostile to us.

Reality, what a concept.

reply to post by PsykoOps
How about pointing a few out then if there are so many inaccuracies. I am interested to see them.

For starters there's the whole thing with crosshairs on the photos which has been beaten to death several times. Then there's the whole no stars issue which has been beaten to death also and if you know anything about photography, it's a farce.

[Edit] About the whole 'no flame' on the moon thing, I'm no expert but I do know that rocket motors carry onboard supply of oxygen. That's why rockets are used in space and jet engines in athmosphere.

That site just plain and simple sucks.

[edit on 1/5/2009 by PsykoOps]

reply to post by ngchunter


I'm sorry but the liks of photos you posted hardly lend credence to a successful landing on the moon.

There really wasn't anything for me to respond to other than:

-A rocket launching. That = Moon Landing??

-Pictures of a craft blazing through the upper atmosphere. That = Moon Landing??

-Pictures of possible stars / craft / moon / planet? That = Moon Landing??

I mean really I think your post supported little if anything.

I am not the one claiming an outrageous feat. You in fact are. The obligation of proof lies upon you, not me.

reply to post by FX44rice


Hoo boy, pointing out ALL of the inaccuracies on that idiot website?

That's a full-time job, if I ever saw one. "The pure O2 in the spacecraft cabin would melt the film in the cameras"!! Total stupidity.

Back to what PsykOps mentioned, fuel for the CM/SM and the LEM (both the descent and ascent stages) spacecraft is what's called 'hypergolic'...they mix, and react chemically. They do not produce a visible flame.

Maybe it'd be easier if you asked pertinent questions as to what's bothering you about the Lunar missions. Myself, or ngc will be happy to oblige. The OP, mike, knows stuff too (methinks). He just likes to stir things up, a bit, now and then.