New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

Wow. Another tired old moon landing hoax thread. I can't even be bothered to argue with these ridiculous theories any more. They've been proven time and time again to be utter BS. The shadows, the flappy flag, the moondust, the lack of stars, have all been satisfactorily explained. And now here comes another one...an ambiguous white blob that apparently might be a cloth, if you squint.

Please.

reply to post by mee30


Why does it have to be 100% one way or the other?

All that picture shows is that the tracks CAN BE covered by dust falling back out of the wheel.

Originally posted by JulianAlien
reply to post by trig_grl

 

...The reason they faked it was they could never get past the Van Allen belt...

Except Van Allen himself said the radiation wouldn't be fatal. Also as noted by others, astronauts, today, frequently enter that belt. Sure they get an INCREASED chance of developing cancer or some other ill effect, but they wont die immediately.

hoax or not I can say with certainty that the Space Race was a hella of a ride and made for a good place to grow up in. I grew up in Titusville, saw every launch from Mercury to the present day
I personally beleive the party line (Yes we did land on the moon!
But, to each his own........

reply to post by Kr0nZ

Why does it have to be 100% one way or the other? All that picture shows is that the tracks CAN BE covered by dust falling back out of the wheel.

Right so now it is both? You said and I quote....

The rover tires were made out of a mesh so moon dust would fall back to where the tracks should be,

You didn't say it can happen SOMETIMES, you made the statement that they were designed that way "so moon dust would fall back to where the tracks should be"

BTW it has to be 100%, the dust is either deposited in front or behind... What could make it change?

Originally posted by trig_grl
What ive been asking for years and no one has given a solid answer is WHY? Why did they fake the moon landing? Ive seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax but im still confused as to why?

First of all I want to say that I don't know what to believe.

I heard a long time ago that it was faked because the US were not happy they didn't win the race into space so they had to be first to make it to the moon. I'm not saying this is true, just thats what I heard.

It seemed a bit crazy to me, but then I saw a tv documentary showing the reactions of the average American at the time . I was shocked at how upset they were and how wrong they thought it was, they did act as if no one should hae done it before them.

As I said, I don't know what to think, but we all know tv documentaries can be very misleading.

Interesting commentary www.erichufschmid.net...

Originally posted by WWu777

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:

grin.hq.nasa.gov...

I never noticed before, but the shadows are all wrong. The shadow of the guy in the suit goes to the right-forward on an angle of about 45 degrees off the center line of the camera angle. The image of the shadow in the visor goes almost forward straight. The person taking the picture actually doesn't appear to be holding anything? Weird? This must have been noticed before someplace right?

Cheers - Dave

I would have thought that the photographs that NASA has provided of at least 2 Lunar Landing sites, as taken from Lunar Satellites, would have dispelled this Hoax rubbish once and for all, yes, they went to the Moon.

In saying that......I DO personally believe, Some (Most?) of the extremely detail, beautiful coloured images of the Astronauts standing in poses on the Moon, clearly lighted from different directions, were staged in a studio PRIOR to the official Moon missions, as a "just in case", senario....just in case the Hasselbads didnt work, or just in case, the film didnt fry, just in case the didnt return (but sent lovely images)...etc etc.

I believe these Fake images were the PR branch in action. Pretty images to sell to the millions of magazines around at the time...which amazingly, came out with these images almost instantly after the moon landing.

I remember as a kid in 1970 borrowing books from the library of the Apollo Moon Missions, and amazed at the beautiful Colour Moon astronaut images, but pictures of the launch, the Saturn rocket on the pad, the Astronauts walking along etc all blurry and nonprofessional.

Of course the public were gullible in those days...we didnt know any better....The Americans would never lie!!!

reply to post by mee30


Smurfy's image shows a rover IN MOTION, dust can therefore get deposited in front of the tire because of dust getting trapped in the tire as it is turning. My image shows a rover wheel IN A LAB, its moving much slower to demonstrate that dust CAN fall out of the tire.

As the rover moves around on the surface it CAN collect dust, when the rover stops the dust will pour back out.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Gregorian
This might be a good time to consider the relationship between the Apollo mission science fiction moon hoax and the 9/11 terror hoax. Stanley Kubrick Productions was the sole designer of the Apollo moon mission in the spirit of his sci-fi film "2001: A Space Odyssey." That elaborate sci-fi exercise emboldened those responsible for 9/11 to follow their lead - of course, using Stanley Kubrick as the producer director.

edit on 27-11-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)

Then how did they "of course" use him as the producer and director?

Stop arguing and do as was suggested .....read the post!

reply to post by mee30


From the data straight out of your video at 35:30..

The narrator mentions only one project is still up and running - the mirrors.


"In 33 years no one has stood up, no one has come and talk to us." - Narrator: Gerry White would welcome a visit from the conspiracy theorists.
From 1969 til present, they have been firing the laser to the mirror.
The laser hits the reflectors...blah blah...
I'm just quoting the video...which is supporting my claims.

Now on to the spot where think you have your gotchya moment: The ruby laser fired on the moon that sent a signal back. Well, the moon is mostly glass, which is pretty reflective (ever notice how bright it is?), yet there is one intriguing factor about this experiment done in 1966 - the need for ultrasensitive electronic equipment. If you have equipment sensitive enough, yes, you can see a multitude of light signals reflecting off of the moon (which acts as a giant weak mirror, it IS mirroring sunlight back to us, after all).

If you fire a laser at the reflective mirrors on the surface - there is no need for the "ultrasensitive" equipment, and the signal is markedly stronger when using a much less powerful laser. In short, we made the requirements for sensitivity of our apparatus on Earth lower because it is cheaper to build less sensitive equipment.

Think - just think.

I beg to differ...

In the picture in the last set, named "tracklessrover.jpg," I can see some tracks shown which are turning at a sharp right-angle. With a few filters to bring-out the tracks, you can plainly see the turn and tracks in the cropped portion of the photograph which denies the tracks exist.

You can see this highlighted with a hasty red freehand drawing used to illustrate this fact. The tracks are there, the pattern repeats the pattern in the tires.

Here's the photo:

reply to post by Kr0nZ

Smurfy's image shows a rover IN MOTION

Yours does not? It clearly says that the vehicle is moving to the right... Moving means IN MOTION, right?

dust can therefore get deposited in front of the tire because of dust getting trapped in the tire as it is turning.

Your picture shows the wheels turning ALSO!

Am I really having this conversation? WOW...

My image shows a rover wheel IN A LAB, its moving much slower to demonstrate that dust CAN fall out of the tire.

What does THE LAB have to do with the price of cheese? What is the SPEED of the one in your picture? I see no reference to it... Also you have just been saying that it was not in motion before! Make up your god damn mind! You are floundering all over the place...

As the rover moves around on the surface it CAN collect dust, when the rover stops the dust will pour back out.

SEE... We are back to it being NOT in motion again! Also we all KNOW that dust can fall off a stationary tire, but that would NOT cover tracks, would it? Besides your picture shows it in MOTION anyway, so this point is, well pointless...

reply to post by gort51


You are on to something here Gort, this may be why there is any question as to mankind going to the moon. The images DO look quite fake in a number of respects.

Despite this...we made it happen.

reply to post by OwenGP185


Despite their best explanations of "wire mesh tires" that allowed moon dust to fall down it still wouldn't cover any tire tracks made, obscure them slightly perhaps but no so much as to make them vanish.
I'm no authority on Apollo missions but I have 30 years experience in tracking, including tracks of vehicles for law enforcement, military and search and rescue.
There should be tracks visible there.
That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


They didn't hold the camera, it was mounted on the chest of their spacesuits. Basically whatever they were facing was in frame with the camera.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


This is an object that can be picked up and moved, much like you pick up a sled when in the snow to go back to the top of the hill.

Do you leave sled tracks when traveling back up the hill?

Remember: If we could all come together and prove one single little facet of this in either direction, we can just forget about all the rest of the "fluff". Proof is proof, and the rest would have to follow suit no matter how incredulous.

Originally posted by JulianAlien
reply to post by trig_grl

 

NASA has Satanic roots. Just Google Satan,NASA

And Google NASA and the Nazi's.

reply to post by hidden0

The narrator mentions only one project is still up and running - the mirrors.

And...?

"In 33 years no one has stood up, no one has come and talk to us." - Narrator: Gerry White would welcome a visit from the conspiracy theorists. From 1969 til present, they have been firing the laser to the mirror. The laser hits the reflectors...blah blah... I'm just quoting the video...which is supporting my claims.

Yes I did watch it, lol... But that was not my point...

Now on to the spot where think you have your gotchya moment: The ruby laser fired on the moon that sent a signal back. Well, the moon is mostly glass, which is pretty reflective (ever notice how bright it is?), yet there is one intriguing factor about this experiment done in 1966 - the need for ultrasensitive electronic equipment. If you have equipment sensitive enough, yes, you can see a multitude of light signals reflecting off of the moon (which acts as a giant weak mirror, it IS mirroring sunlight back to us, after all).

This is so funny... Okay for a start that experiment ALSO used a WEAKER laser, but you conveniently leave that info out... Also is it safe to say that in nearly 50 years the standards for "ultrasensitive electronic equipment" might have changed quite a bit? I mean I have a computer in my pocket that outperforms ANY computer they had in 1966! Even ones the size of a ROOM!

Also you are trying to say that they were doing it to save money... Did the guys lab look CHEAP to you? It still doesn't prove the existence of a mirror does it? Tell me, what is to stop the guy from doing his experiments just using the MOON itself?

If you fire a laser at the reflective mirrors on the surface - there is no need for the "ultrasensitive" equipment, and the signal is markedly stronger when using a much less powerful laser. In short, we made the requirements for sensitivity of our apparatus on Earth lower because it is cheaper to build less sensitive equipment.

I have dealt with this part above...

Think - just think.

Please keep this civil and do not insinuate things about me that you have no idea of... I think very critically about everything... As for the moon landings subject I am on the fence but the attitude of people like you really have me questioning your motives... As does the debunkers who are flip flopping all over the place... As does things like when the mythbusters tried to debunk the moon hoax... For instance they tried to replicate 1/6 gravity, they tried slowing it down and then they tried with wires... At no time did it occur to them to try BOTH at the same time! Like this...



Yet I have my thinking ability brought into question?

Just debate the facts please...