Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

It's only a matter of time before every Apollo image (to the last one) has gone through and been grossly edited, CGI enhanced by NASA's propaganda assembly line fakery. I'm really surprised that so many people are defending NASA's less than journalistic intentions.

how are they going to "grossly edit" existing images circulating around on the internet??

they are only publishing new ones, they will not completely destroy every existing image known to man.

this is your chance to compare old with new. or are you so paranoid that you believe they will hack into your computer and swap the images you have collected for the new ones?

then collect newspaper images if you are so paranoid.. or perhaps NASA has a time machine and change those too?

This still remains a subject that people can get very upset about, It is not an easy subject to approach mainly due to the immense sense of pride that people have concerning this event. It only takes a cursory glance at the stats on any Moon Hoax related documentary to see that the Hoax idea remains one of the most unpopular conspiracy theories in existence, however in spite of this the fact remains; if there were not such massive problems with the Apollo photographic record would any of these Hoax theories even exist? Would most of the theories about Aliens, UFOs & structures on the Moon etc exist?

Running with this idea alone i.e. There is WITHOUT QUESTION Massive problems with the Apollo record (as most here at ATS will acknowledge) i decided to make a 6 part Mini series on the subject entitled Lunar Lore, previously i have compiled and edited a documentary series called Zero Point : Volumes I,II & III and decided this could be a fun project to tide me over till i work on Volume IV (due for a summer release). So far i have completed the first two episodes while my friend and colleague James worked on a companion series called Martian Mythology, here are the links to the episodes available so far

Lunar Lore : Episode One - No Smoke Without Fire

Lunar Lore : Episode Two - Fact, Fiction and Filmmakers

Martian Mythology : Episode One - A Mystery in Red

Martian Mythology : Episode Two - What is the Colour of Red?


I suppose my point is that we should not be afraid to approach the subject of the Moon Hoax, to simply draw attention to certain anomalies does NOT mean man has not walked on the Moon, simply that the photography may not be genuine, there could be many reasons to fake the record and we should not shy away from considering why.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


If my kid's school did a project on the moon landings and used photos to make a collage, then built some model rockets out of toilet roll, you'd be like "UK government entity doctors photos of landings, falsifies rocket tech using junk science."

reply to post by StrawMandelbrot


To keep my post short, I'll only respond to the moon Hoax video that you posted (quoted below), considering that is the topic of this thread:

Originally posted by StrawMandelbrot
Lunar Lore : Episode One - No Smoke Without Fire

First up is the "C" rock claim. It does seem that considering the "C" an be seen on a photo take from one angle, but not on another NASA image taken form another angle, the "C" could just be something om the negative (fiber, dust, etc.) . Then again, I suppose the hoax claimers would simply say it was airbrushed out of the image taken from one angle, but not airbrushed out of the image taken from the other angle, but that begs the question:'Why wasn't it?"

So even though there is a reasonable explanation for the "C" rock, the counter claims make this a stalemate.

However, the rest of the video is laugahabel enough to make up for this.

So the next claim made (at the 4:00 mark) is that there are photo duplications of rocks in an image (as if the photo was tampered with. First of all, the image in question was not a single image, but a mosaic of several images (all taken around the large rock known as "Tracey's Rock"). So, yeah -- there is some bad overlapping of the photomosaic, and some of the rocks are seen twice. However, this photomosaic is not an official NASA mosaic, and was made by an third party strictly for a book. So blame the guy/gal who made the mosaic if you like for doing a poor job. However, I'm not sure how that is evidence of a hoax.

Next up is the 360° panorama seen at the 5:00 mark. As mentioned in the video, this too is a mosaic made up of several images. The person claiming "hoax" in the video asks "if this is a 360° panorama, why can't we see the lunar lander?" This is certainly laughable "evidence" of a hoax, because if the video maker did any investigation, they would have found that this panorama was taken at "Station 5" during an Apollo 17 EVA. A quick check of the facts would have shown them that Station 5 is over 1 km to the west of the Lunar Lander (the astronauts drove to Station 5 using the rover.

Next (at the 5:56 mark), they talk about the mountains in distance in the background looking the same, while the things in the close foreground is changing. That is true, but it is also completely normal. To explain, consider this example: I can see a certain hill in the distance from the front door of my house. While standing at my front door and looking at the hill in the background, I see a foreground that consists of my front yard, the street in front of my house, and the house across the street. Now, if I go to my neighbors' house two doors down from me and look at the hill in the background, my perception of the hill has not really changed at all. However, the foreground has change considerably -- I see my neighbors front yard, the street in front of his house, and the house across the street form him is totally different than the one across from my house.

The next claim at the 9:00 mark is two claims. First, the claim that some "third party" was telling the astronauts when to speak was made only because we can hear a person say "talk" to one of the astronauts. however, this could easily just be yet another astronaut who was tell the other to reply to Houston.

The second claim staring at the 9:00 mark is the claim that the Earth seen in the Apollo 11 Command Module (CM) supposedly 1/2 way to the moon was actually a view of the earth in low Earth orbit (LEO) as seen through some sort of stencil, or through the window (these are the Claims made by Bart Sibrel in his films A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and Astronaut Monkey Business.

In that video linked by the OP, they showed some parts of the film that was made during the flight to the moon, but they left out some other parts that clearly shows the WHOLE EARTH see through the rectangular window of the CM. Here is more of that video, including the parts the (deliberately?) left out. In the video below, you can see at the 6:20 mark and gain at the 7:13 mark that the entire earth is visible, and there is no "cut-out" making up its small round shape.



There are too many things to debunk about the idea that the view of the Earth was hoaxed in this one post, so I will instead provide this link to a web page that does an excellent job in debunking this claim:

apollo-history-and-hoax.com...

I'm not sure if the makers of the video titled "No Smoke Without Fire" that was provided by the OP were intentionally or unintentionally trying to push disinformation on us, but that video certainly is disinformation.

reply to post by choos


choos it's very easy for them to pull the plug on a digital archive. As an example, I went over to the Richard Nixon presidential diary archive, I have been there a hundred times before, but it's down. And NASA could easily do the same thing to every legacy server that has Apollo images on it.

Background

The Presidential Daily Diary is the official record of President Nixon’s meetings and telephone calls. Documents in this digital copy of the PDD include daily appointments calendars, lists of attendees at official functions, and passenger manifests for presidential transport.

This digital collection is currently down for re-review and will be back online as soon as possible. Contact us if you need specific information from the Diary.

www.nixonlibrary.gov...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

And they could have never put them on the servers in the first place.
But I hope you're downloading them all and putting them in a safe place for us.

reply to post by Phage


Well there was production of printed images by NASA in the early 1970's and the prints are quite sought after by collectors. There seems to be a constant flow of this material in space auctions. Say good-bye to those cross hairs!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Goodbye crosshairs. I never really liked you guys too much anyway (no offense), but see ya!
Oh wait, I've still got 'em on my hard drive. Never mind.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

choos it's very easy for them to pull the plug on a digital archive. As an example, I went over to the Richard Nixon presidential diary archive, I have been there a hundred times before, but it's down. And NASA could easily do the same thing to every legacy server that has Apollo images on it.


www.nixonlibrary.gov...

apollo lunar images are still up!!!!!!!!!!!

quickly start collecting and you can start on your next lunar conspiracy when the new images come out!!!

or perhaps NASA will hack into your computer and change the images stored on your harddrives???

p.s. how many times am i going to have to repeat this?

The moon landing was just a money making scheme on the US public. I think they spent something like 100 billion on the so called apolo landings. When in relality the fake show could have been done for like 1 billion. So they pocketed the other 99 billion basically. That all went off shore or toward R and D on other ways to rape the sheeple. It's always been a con game on how to deceive the people, and it always will be.

reply to post by spartacus699

I think they spent something like 100 billion on the so called apolo landings. When in relality the fake show could have been done for like 1 billion.

Where'd ya hear that? The innernet?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Hey, thanks for your response, however i feel you have completely missed the point o my post and failed to interpret the tone of the video appropriately. First, the opening line clearly states "it is NOT the purpose of this series to prove whether or not man walked on the moon..." It is merely an exploration of theories, it is posted on YouTube as entertainment so cannot be classed as dis-info. I actually mention the possibility of the C rok being a hair. At least one of your points is completely self-defeating; if the panorame was taken over 1km to the west why is there imagery showin the LEM at this very location. I accept that duplicate rocks may be accidental but included it under the banner "no smoke without fire" as this does NOT appear to have been a bi-product of image stitching, at least at a glance. For what its worth, i do NOT believe the program was a hoax, i do however strongly suspect that the images are fake, that is NOT the same thing. Once again, the final line states "Could tere be other reasons for this apparent deception". I will check out your link debunking the little Gem when i get the chance

Thanks again

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Well there was production of printed images by NASA in the early 1970's and the prints are quite sought after by collectors. There seems to be a constant flow of this material in space auctions. Say good-bye to those cross hairs!

Meh. If there are people who want their pictures of the moon "prettied up" without the reticules (cross hairs), then fine. Let them have their frameable-quality moon-photography artwork without the reticules.

However, for scientific and historical use -- and just for the sake of posterity in general, the images with the reticule cross hairs will still exist.

Originally posted by StrawMandelbrot
if the panorame was taken over 1km to the west why is there imagery showin the LEM at this very location.

can you show us what you mean or referring to? because i dont really understand what you are saying here.

Originally posted by StrawMandelbrot
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Hey, thanks for your response, however i feel you have completely missed the point o my post and failed to interpret the tone of the video appropriately. First, the opening line clearly states "it is NOT the purpose of this series to prove whether or not man walked on the moon..." It is merely an exploration of theories, it is posted on YouTube as entertainment so cannot be classed as dis-info.

Gotcha .
However, while the people who compiled these different hoax theories fro that video may not have been pushing dis-info, the original people shown in those compiled videos purporting their hoax theories may have been.

At least one of your points is completely self-defeating; if the panorame was taken over 1km to the west why is there imagery showin the LEM at this very location.

I'm not sure which image you mean that shows the LEM at this location. The location of that panorama is station 5, and Station 5 was 1 km away from the LM. The LM is not visible in any of the images taken at Station 5. Perhaps you mean this image, taken on the same EVA as the Station 5 Panorama:
AS17-145-22184

If that's the image you mean, please be aware that it was NOT taken at Station 5, nor at the same time as the Station 5 Panorama, but was taken about 15 minutes after the last photo of the panorama. The description on this photo (description found Here, photo AS17-145-22184) says that this images was taken at a distance of about 290 meters from the LM -- i.e., it was taken during the drive back to the LM from Station 5.

If the Moon was a flat plain, I suppose the LM would have been visible in that Station 5 panorama, even at the distance of 1 km. However, the moon is bumpy and hilly, and the LM could have been obscured behind one of those small rolling bumpy mounds.

I accept that duplicate rocks may be accidental but included it under the banner "no smoke without fire" as this does NOT appear to have been a bi-product of image stitching, at least at a glance.

Right. But then again, don't forget that the image of Tracy's rock in that video that showed the duplicate smaller rocks was made by a third party for that book. Even if it wasn't a "stitching problem" per se, there is still something wrong with the way they made that mosaic for that book.

However, the bottom line is this: I'm not sure how a poorly-made mosaic made for a book has anything to do with a Moon Hoax. If I create a poorly-made mosaic of (say, for example) a space shuttle launch and publish it in a book, and that poor mosaic includes a bad overlap, does that mean the that there is something fishy about that space shuttle launch? Or does it simply mean there was something wrong with my mosaic?

Here is another better-made mosaic showing Tracy's Rock. In this image, you can clearly see the area pointed out in the video with the duplicate rocks. There seems to be nothing hiding there:


Plus, all of the images used to make that mosaic in the "hoax" video are openly available on NASA's website, so anyone can look for themselves to see what was on the surface where those duplicate rocks were seen in that video's mosaic. Those images can be found Here (starting with image AS17-140-21493).

Originally posted by spartacus699
The moon landing was just a money making scheme on the US public. I think they spent something like 100 billion on the so called apolo landings.

A little research goes a long way.

A simple search using "total apollo program cost" gave me this as the first search result.
$25.4 Billion. You exaggerated the actual budget by a factor of four.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by spartacus699
The moon landing was just a money making scheme on the US public. I think they spent something like 100 billion on the so called apolo landings.

A little research goes a long way.

A simple search using "total apollo program cost" gave me this as the first search result.
$25.4 million. You exaggerated the actual budget by a factor of four.

S.O. -- I believe you meant "$25.4 billion" (with a "b")

Originally posted by choos

increase yes probably.. but definitely not to levels that will cause acute radiation sickness in less than 12 days.

the levels of radiation for a 12 day mission is not sufficiently high enough to make them sick.. it will probably make them sick if they stayed there for several months, but will not make them sick in less than 12 days.

How can you keep making claims like that, without any supporting evidence?

It's nothing but worthless opinion, a futile attempt at validating the Apollo story.

'Nuff said...

Originally posted by turbonium1
How can you keep making claims like that, without any supporting evidence?

It's nothing but worthless opinion, a futile attempt at validating the Apollo story.

'Nuff said...

no supporting evidence?? how about 12 men who have walked on the moon?? apollo 8-17 missions which left LEO??

www.hq.nasa.gov...
its not only journals, but the bio-medical reports are there as well
www.astr.ua.edu...
observatories tracking the apollo missions
www.honeysucklecreek.net...
The Bochum Radio Observatory, Germany

even your own reports do not say that it is impossible for a 12 day mission, so even those can be used as evidence..

so lets see your evidence that says the astronauts should get severely sick/die from radiation in an aluminium shell beyond LEO for missions less than 12 days.. lets see your evidence which shows the levels of radiation in an aluminium shell are at a level which will make a human sick in about 6-12 days..

because so far you have posted nothing which says they should be severely sick in 6-12 days only your speculation.



p.s. you are trying to deny history here, so if you want to do that then you better bring some good solid evidence and not speculation. otherwise i can easily say that WW2 never happened it was purely staged hollywood acting and aliens abducting humans for experiments, a coverup.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

No, actually it isn't, because they don't say that it becomes a "radiation cooker", just that it increases levels. Depending on the amount they're exposed to, they can be looking at only an increased chance of cancer, or glaucoma, or other health problems much later in life. Several of the Apollo astronauts did suffer problems later in life that could potentially have been caused by their space flight, including cancer, but it was never proven conclusively that their flight was the cause of it.

The experts say aluminum increases the radiation.

You merely invented everything else from that point.

Where do the experts claim aluminum is adequate shielding for ANY manned flights beyond LEO? Never!

What makes it adequate for a short stay, like a few days or so? Oh, right - because you say it is adequate, that's why!!

The experts don't claim such a thing. You assume it, anyway.

You can't do that, no way.