Proof of moon landing hoax/Neil Armstrong One Small Step

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Hi
keep those 2 videos in pause at the 1st second of each video watch them at the same time you will see the moon landscape has the same angle in the back ground it's the same landscape for both so yes moon landing was fake


This is the only thing you need to know
Action take 1 but lightspot falls down
Proof of moon landing hoax



Original as seen on tv
Neil Armstrong One Small Step
edit on 4-4-2011 by knowneedtoknow because: (no reason given)



+19 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Let's just see what we have here:

People who say the moon landing was real: NASA; USSR; amateur astronomers; astronauts and their doctors; every scientist before and after the landing; anyone who knows how satellites work; the entire aerospace industry; every reporter and investigative journalists who have lived since the moon landings; telecomms industry; CNSA; ESA; Mythbusters; most people who finish school; people who can read

People who say the moon landing was fake: conspiracy theorists; weirdos on youtube
edit on 4/4/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Wow. That first "take." I had never seen it before. Seems that wouldn't have happened in the "real" landing. Hmmmm. Well, if that was an official footage - where has it been, why is it available now, and are they letting us know now that they faked it all?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The first video is a professorial fake.

rationalwiki.org...



Moontruth A conspiracy theory viral that sparked 3000 calls to NASA, most of them along the lines of “See – we knew the moonlanding was faked.” We made this as a joke, and it was written and directed by a guy called Adam Stewart who tragically died about 1 year later. He directed Headrush and Gift as well.
Source: moonhoax.net...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
If you think that footage is for real, then I'm sorry for you my friend.

They went to the moon the evidence is irrefutable.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Did we not have color-tv at that time...? The most advanced technology at work but impossible to have at least some b/w definiton when receiving the tv-transmission? You should almost think that the terrible quality of the signal is on purpose....The audio seems to be fine..Can somebody not give an educated opinion about why NASA did not use color camera's and why the tv-reception is so terrible?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


Well if you did any research you'd find that when dealing with the apollo landings, the video footage we all saw on TV was filmed from a projected image on a screen, hence the crappy quality.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


Well Mr Wise Guy, your post may seem to say it must be true then... However, forget all the trick photography and professionally faked videos... All you need to consider to understand why the trip was faked is a follows;

1. The Van Allen Belt!
2. The technology available at that time
3. The President had committed the US to beat the Russians, yet with the world watching, couldn't risk frying
astronauts live on TV.


If you watch ALL the youtube footage, and study all the evidence, it's easy to piece together why this never happened. Think outside of the 'box'.

They never landed and never could have - fact!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Yes I can repost this the third time today:


Originally posted by cushycrux
www.universetoday.com...

Apollo 15 was on the moon


on the left: selene simulation of Hight Data - right: nasa photo


....
This are 2 pics from Apollo 15, Some said the forderground is shopped, take a look. Different perspective:





posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


Because color to a video feed needs more information to be sent back to earth ... meaning more technology and more weight ... sound is easier to send because it doesn't take so much space in transmissions ... So .. Thats how much they could do for that time which is still quite impressive ..... Also a lot of the signal gets distorted because of radiation and other interferences ... Not to mention that its 390 000 KM AWAY!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


Please research more on the Van Allen Belt ... there are ways to pass it ... but nevermind .... it doesn't matter anyway.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


Do I have to point out everything for you? If you had done your research (or even paid attention in science class) you would know

Specific hoax claims examined

You also do not seem to realise that this was going on at the same time as the Cold War (space race). The USSR would have loved to have gone "actually, no NASA, that was faked". But for some reason were extremely quiet.
edit on 4/4/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


Dr. Van Allen himself says that the astronauts were in no real danger from the belts.

"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

The primary danger from the Van Allen Belts are high-energy protons and electrons. They are particles, not rays. Rays (x-rays, gamma, etc..) are harder to protect against and you need something like thick lead or other heavy metals to block them (hence the lead apron you wear when taking x-rays). As for the particles in the Van Allen Belts, thick layers of heavy metals are actually the WORSE way to shield something. The lighter the metal the better the protection. The Aluminum skin of the lunar spacecraft was a great choice, also, the fibrous insulation in between the walls of the spacecraft would provide a better shield than the 6 feet of lead some people claim would be needed.

Also, the navigation team for the Apollo missions plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts (because the belts consist of low and high density areas, it is not a uniform situation) and had the astronauts traverse the belts in just about, or just under, 4 hours thereby minimizing the effect of the travelling through the belts. Many theories state that the navigation charts don't show that but the charts available without heavy searching or to people not willing to look only show a 2D image of the trajectory of the craft whereas the actual navigation charts/info are 3D in nature and show very well the path through the thinnest parts of the belts.

I'm sure there are a bunch of other facts and scientific measurements to show this but I don't work for NASA and I'm not a degreed astrophysicist (yet!).

I'm not arguing with you about the reality of whether the landings were real or faked. I'm just trying to inject some knowledge into the thread because I hear "what about the van allen belts?!" all the time but nobody ever does their research.

--Apex
edit on 4-4-2011 by Apex Predator because: to add quote by Dr. Vann Allen



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


ok then how can you explain me this even the original has spotlights or anomaly
the first 12 seconds of this video are really important how much closer can he be to the sun
on the lader it looks like he has a spotlights over his head. when he goes down the lader
At 13 second he is in the shadows he go out a bit and he clows like a star at 16 seconds stop the video take a look the picture you are looking at is the moonscape has what 17 meters in diameter so explain me this how can if its the real sun make just a cicuference of about 8 meters on the moonscape and stop the video at 20 second thx you see the light comes from the left side . 2ND why all of the moonscape don't glow like the middle or him if the light comes from the left side why the left side of the moon don't glow but the astronaut is glowing for sure

but i will try to make some screenshot of the video later to explain you better



edit on 4-4-2011 by knowneedtoknow because: Add some pictures



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Ah. Thank you for that. I thought it was a bit fishy, thus my questions. [smile]

Man, they're good at faking things these days, eh?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


Your link to Hoax Claims is interesting, but can be disputed in many ways. For example, just because 400,000 people were involved doesn't mean they had to lie.

If I employed you and 9 others to build parts for a secret weapon I was making, and you were instructed to produce one element of that weapon, not knowing what the other 9 were doing, could you confirm a secret weapon was built, or simply that you built one part of it?!

The more people that were involved made it easier to hide the next and previous stages. No one saw the complete task from build to launch, to land!

As for other 'proofs' it happended, most of these can be disputed.

I say, even if Van Allens Belt wasn't a threat, the technology wasn't advanced enough, and the risk was too great to kill a bunch of astronauts live on TV.
edit on 4-4-2011 by ckitch because: typo (say to saw)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Apex Predator
 


Ok, I may have been wrong on the Van Allens Belt bit, but all the other elements still stack up for me, and I don't believe for one minute the event took place as we are led to believe.

It would have been easy to fake this back then and a lot less risky!

Like a lot of these types of situations, the evidence against far outweighs the evidence for. Take 9/11 for example!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WideAwakeNow
If you think that footage is for real, then I'm sorry for you my friend.

They went to the moon the evidence is irrefutable.


No, I'm sorry, the evidence is not irrefutable, some rocks in a museum and grainy photographs "they lost" is not irrefutable evidence. Irrefutable evidence of going to the moon would involve them continuously going to the moon, moon colonies, airline tickets on expedia allowing you to buy right now a ticket to the moon. That would be irrefutable evidence of mankind traveling to the moon. Right now we have a "program" that was designed specifically to out-compete the Russians and when their hoax was successful they ended the "program"
edit on 4-4-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
Let's just see what we have here:

People who say the moon landing was real: NASA; USSR; amateur astronomers; astronauts and their doctors; every scientist before and after the landing; anyone who knows how satellites work; the entire aerospace industry; every reporter and investigative journalists who have lived since the moon landings; telecomms industry; CNSA; ESA; Mythbusters; most people who finish school; people who can read

People who say the moon landing was fake: conspiracy theorists; weirdos on youtube
edit on 4/4/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)


i thought the ussr said the only reason they never went to the moon was bc they couldnd break the radiation barrier. where do they agree that the usa got a man on the moon?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by Apex Predator
 


Ok, I may have been wrong on the Van Allens Belt bit, but all the other elements still stack up for me, and I don't believe for one minute the event took place as we are led to believe.

It would have been easy to fake this back then and a lot less risky!

Like a lot of these types of situations, the evidence against far outweighs the evidence for. Take 9/11 for example!



Please take your time and look at the pix i have posted above. This is no a stage, this is the 3d moon as you can see from this two perspectives. And please don't ignore the fact that jaxa/selenes hight data as you also can see is exactly the same. How can they film this on earth, but the landscape is 100% exact like on the moon, no way.





new topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join