Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

Something I've always wondered about the moon hoax theory, if it was true what was the point of faking Apollo 13? It seems a bit odd that the US would go through all that trouble to show the world how they can muck things up and thereby handing a PR coup to its rivals.

So… why?

reply to post by Mike_A


Did the US need some american heroes at that time? Maybe they were really trying to get there and something did actually go wrong for real. I can only speculate why this would have been hoaxed, but my best guess is that they tried to get to the moon and after seeing that they couldn't get through the Van Allen radiation belt (maybe trying new tech) they turned around and couldn't just admit that.

I have heard apollo 11 was fake but never 13. Mind sending me a few links where I could get better informed?

I think they really did get there but found something really profound that they had no choice but to show us a faked moon landing.
I would believe the entire video of the actual landing was too full of "stuff" that they could not possibly "airbrush" them to release something authentic.

So! Kubrick to the rescue, moon landing faked and presented to us on a platter.

Hail the first men on the moon

PS: I am talking about the Apollo 11 landing and not 13..

reply to post by superman2012

but my best guess is that they tried to get to the moon and after seeing that they couldn't get through the Van Allen radiation belt

they got through it just fine.

www.xmission.com...

But don't take that persons word for it, or any NASA scientist. Take Van Allen's word as he stated himself:

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Don't feel bad. I fell for the Van Allen scam myself until I actually did some research, 3 minutes tops to find all the claims busted hard. Sorry.

This isn't to say they went to the moon or didn't, but the whole Van Allen side is closed, they can and did make it through just fine, plenty of data to back this up too if you take a minute to look for it.

reply to post by NerdGoddess


I can't provide links to it, but the most plausible explanation for why they would hoax Apollo 13 is in the ratings. Nasa launches for the first few Apollo missions were be all end all TV watched by everyone. once 13 rolled around, no one really gave two craps about it as it was old and boring at this point. So to get the ratings up, and public interest back, they faked a deadly situation in space, getting everyone to stop and watch. Then brought them safely back to earth with nothing but American ingenuity.

i don't buy it myself, they went to the moon, Apollo 13 was hit by a micrometor and suffered damages as we have been told, it's a miracle they made it back because even just 1 astronaut lost in space would be enough to end the entire program.

I think that if they were faked it was either to show superiority over the Rusians space program which was sending unmanned shuttles to the moon since the mid 50's (maybe later) and/or to Distract from the ever unpopular war that we all know as Vietnam.

I find it strange also that We decided to cancel the last three moon missions slated for '72 and after ( Do not remember the dates exactly). When in '72 the Russians finally had capability to track Crafts into deep space.

Just my two cents and nothing to unfamiliar.

reply to post by NerdGoddess


The theory I've heard most is that no human has ever been to the moon, not just Apollo 11. I don't have any links for you; it's just what I've read on here.

It just seems to me to be utterly pointless if not counterproductive to fake a failure and I've never seen the conspiracy theorists deal with this.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ad57080c18d5.jpg[/atsimg]


To be honest, hoax or no hoax, it was needed at the time. There will always come a time when a nation must reinvigorate the population, to get their creative jucies flowing again.

We needed something to beleive in that would capture our imaginations. The Space program did that, and still does to this day.

Why?

Because it's next. Because we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is on a timeline of explorations and this is What's next.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by superman2012

 

but my best guess is that they tried to get to the moon and after seeing that they couldn't get through the Van Allen radiation belt

they got through it just fine.

www.xmission.com...

But don't take that persons word for it, or any NASA scientist. Take Van Allen's word as he stated himself:

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Don't feel bad. I fell for the Van Allen scam myself until I actually did some research, 3 minutes tops to find all the claims busted hard. Sorry.

This isn't to say they went to the moon or didn't, but the whole Van Allen side is closed, they can and did make it through just fine, plenty of data to back this up too if you take a minute to look for it.

I understand that they experimented with the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, but, does this span for approx. 50,000 km? Didn't think so. The point I was trying to make was, is it possible that they could have been exposed to that amount of radiation for so long and then lead a long healthy life? Also, how thick was their shielding?

Also, Leonid Elenin discovered a comet, it does not make him an expert on that comet. I am sure he doesn't know its composition, weight, etc.

In my opinion, they didn't fake the moon landings. But they might have faked the movies of them. I've always thought that it's possible that the lighting and conditions of the lunar environment were too extreme for the cameras they had at the time so they faked the movies on earth.

Surely I can't be the first person to have thought about this? There must be some moon hoaxers out there that have been asked this before, it seems such an obviouf flaw in the theory.

By the way, just to clarify, I'm not asking if or suggesting that the moon landings were hoaxed, I'm 99.99% sure they weren't.

reply to post by Mike_A


I just spent the weekend in Huntsville at the Space and Rocket center. If you can stand next to any of those machines and not be in awe and accepting of the obvious logic that they did INDEED do what we all know they did then you have to be dense.
Great question OP send the hucksters packing.

Huge Discovery

reply to post by Mike_A



I have never posted on the topic of Apollo before and was a believer in the landings until an hour ago. Then it dawned on me. I made a huge discovery. It was almost thought experiment like. Apollo 13 must be a hoax. Here is what I came to realize.

Remember during the Apollo 13 mission, how before they burn to get back on to a free return trajectory? They have to download all of the Command Module computer info into the LM computer. They do this and then they burn. But the thing that they do not know is the attitude of the LM and with it, the attitude of the entire stack. They do not know its platform orientation. That is because when they dock, the relationship between the command module and the LM is not fixed. The command module is free to rotate 360 degrees about the docking site. Also, the precise relationship between the CM platform and the LM platform could not be known even in principle because of all the crazy activity. The command module platform could not be trusted to be known given the explosion and all the small jets firing to stabilize the craft.

Before the burn then they would have to align the LM platform with the AOT. But there is too much debris for this. They cannot see stars well because of the explosion. So the LM's platform orientation and with it the attitude of the ship stack could not have possibly been known. For it to be known they would need to be able to unambiguously sight stars through the AOT. And NASA says that is one thing they could not do.

I actually feel kind of scared now having discovered this. I mean scared in a good way. Wow, what a discovery. It just came to me. I always thought Apollo was real before this.

I guess this has happened with some of the others. On the other hand, I realize what I have discovered is new. I have never seen it before written anywhere. It obviously is true. Stands up to all scrutiny.

Huge Discovery.

This is an old thread resurrected but I'll bite anyway. The reason Apollo 13 was faked was to make the hoaxes more believable. It created the illusion that they could actually fail, without anybody actually dying (which, in reality, is what would really happen). Keep this in mind: Nixon was in office for the entirety of the Apollo program (the last time we "landed on the moon" was 1972, Nixon didn't resign until 1974). Do you think it's impossible that Nixon would be willing to fake such a thing? Absolutely not.

What seals the hoax for me is the death of Thomas Baron. He was set to deliver a safety report to a Congressional committee on why "NASA will never get to the moon". He was soon killed and the report disappeared.

Further proof is the hiring of a company named Foy (flybyfoy.com) to create fake video of the moon landing to broadcast "in case the original feed was lost". Of course, according to Foy everything went as planned and the actual footage from the landing was broadcast.

(An actual email response from the company)
"That is correct. Foy was prepared on standby in case the video feed was lost. However, everything went smoothly with the moon landing and the actual event was broadcast"

reply to post by kiwasabi


Hey kiwasabi, nice to meet you. I agree with your reasoning about how Apollo 13 made failure plausible. With that, everything was in a way more believable.

Also, think about this. They must have been afraid of televising from the fake lunar surface. Now that I know what I know, the Apollo 11 tv looks sickly weak in terms of being authentic. They knew they had to improve the tv image to convince us. For Apollo 12 they had nothing better to offer technique wise so the camera was broken on purpose. 13 doesn't land and so they do not need to show the moon with the tv camera. Apollo 13 is a stalling technique for the tv images needing to look better. By 14 the technique was improved, not a lot, but some.

Glad you chimed in! I was freaking out yesterday when this came to me. I didn't know what to do but felt obviously I should share it right away. I picked this thread because it came up on the site when I searched Apollo 13. Scary isn't it? You seem more calm than me.

Another Huge Discovery

reply to post by kiwasabi



Kiwasabi! Holy smokes! You were so right on with that flying by Foy reference. This is wild wild wild. Here's what I did and discovered.

I googled "flying by foy, apollo" and got directed to another Apollo discussion site that does a fair amount of CT. So there is this thread google directs me to in which a poster raises the Fly by Foy issue. This poster is not a CT person. He says he is just raising the question to see what people know about the Flying by Foy/Apollo history. One person responds by claiming to be a "Flying by Foy technician ". He says he is familiar with Foy because of this and argues if this really was the case, why weren't the Foy films and images shown to the public in the case of Apollo 12?

Some other people post and they don't add anything substantive really. They pretty much say Foy was involved but innocently.

Here is where it gets very weird and VERY fake. Another person posts who claims to just happen to be the webmaster and defacto historian for Flying by Foy. He says he has direct knowledge and expertise in the area of concern. He says yes there was in fact such a contingency, play the Foy videos if the Apollo live link fails, of course making it clear what was then being seen would have been simulations.

Is it remotely conceivable that this web master who only made this one post on this web site would just have happened to be perusing this Apollo Hoax web site , just happened to be perusing that thread, and just happened to be the best and perhaps only person to defend NASA's situation given the embarrassing circumstances?

I can see now kiwasabi that these types of threads are set ups to cover the incriminating evidence. Then they have one of their own ask the possibly damning question and then conveniently have one of their own answer the question in their favor.

Thank you so much for the information kiwasabi. Yesterday I had Apollo history as a hobby. Now only 24 hours later I am a full fledged conspiracy theorist with an original discovery and approach to a proof of hoax. I cannot believe I was fooled this badly for so long.

reply to post by hugediscovery


That is some very interesting stuff, hugediscovery. The Foy stuff is highly suspicious and of course they're going to say that "the footage wasn't needed". NASA had also bought a large facility in the desert that simulated the gravity on the moon.

Did you ever see this documentary that aired on FOX in 2001? It's quite amazing that this managed to get on broadcast television.

www.youtube.com...

You should also look into a disinformation "mockumentary" created by Donald Rumsfeld and others in 2002 called Dark Side of the Moon. It takes itself completely seriously saying that Stanley Kubrick was hired to fake the whole moon landing. Then finally in the end credits everybody involved is laughing in the credits hysterically. It is quite mind-boggling and since Rumsfeld was involved I think it was disinformation produced to counter the FOX "Did we really land on the moon?" program.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by kiwasabi


Hi kiwasabi. I have a huge library of Apollo materials, books, mags, film, autographs and what not. I do have a copy of that film you referenced and youtube linked , "Did We Land On The Moon". That material is only semi interesting to me . Obviously I had it and it never convinced me before. Much more compelling is the platform orientation issue I uncovered simply considering the story line as presented. I'll need to look this over again but my impression now is that they show these videos and write books presenting weak and relatively easily attackable , plausibly refutable issues. Things like waving flags or shadow controversy and that type of thing. It is not that these things may not be valid, but they are not really provable and the NASA people have a good retort.

Something like I just discovered is not refutable. You need to know precisely how the LM and ship stack is oriented with respect to the stars in order to burn back into a free return trajectory. If you can show they could not have known the orientation, then you have absolute proof of the hoax. We do now have that. Just think about how they said the ships were "tin canning" , twisting and moving with respect to one another. So no matter what the platform orientation was prior to the explosion or the assumed orientation of one platform to the other pre explosion, they could not have come up with the LM platform orientation without a direct star sighting by way of the AOT . They did not do this and so the thing must be fake.

I guess that is a long winded way of saying I like my proof better as it is so air tight.

The other movie you mention , "The Dark Side of The Moon" is terrific. I have seen that. I remember when it came out on French television. That is a very deep film, mostly about the media as opposed to Apollo I recall. Incredible.