Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Destroying evidence is evidence of a NASA cover-up.

The problem with that, other than the tautology, is that the evidence wasn't really destroyed. If the tapes were recorded over, there would still be a small amount of data that was not erased. You could requisition the tapes on a FOIA, put them on an antique tape reader and see what they contain. That's the least you can do in your quest to discover the truth, isn't it?

Originally posted by NewAge2015
I'll believe the moon landings when I see a McDonalds on the surface and BP drilling there for oil!

There are neither any cows nor oil on the Moon.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Destroying evidence is evidence of a NASA cover-up.

The problem with that, other than the tautology, is that the evidence wasn't really destroyed. If the tapes were recorded over, there would still be a small amount of data that was not erased. You could requisition the tapes on a FOIA, put them on an antique tape reader and see what they contain. That's the least you can do in your quest to discover the truth, isn't it?

John M. Sarkissian, CSIRO Parkes Observatory, Australia Telescope National Facility, has already done the investigation and he concluded:

I am a member of a small, informal team searching for the missing Apollo 11 SSTV Tapes. I've been searching for these tapes since the late 1990's. In May 2006, I produced a report detailing our efforts to date. This report led to NASA initiating a formal search headed by the Deputy Director of the GSFC, Dolly Perkins. The report on the formal NASA search was released on 4 November 2009. Source www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...

And what did Mr. Sarkissian have to say in his report?

In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By 1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes are now missing. Source www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...

Did you read that correctly DJW? He said

These tapes are now missing.

MISSING. What don't you understand about that?

First, let me start off by saying...I DO believe we landed on the Moon!!

However, just for fun, let me say; if 'they' had wanted to fake the Moon landing, it could have easily been done. To explain, I will state the most common hoax debunking theme and then illustrate an example of how it could have been believably faked.

Some background is in order first. By the time 1969 had rolled around actually getting to the Moon wasn't the hard part...landing on it was. In order to live up to Kennedy's earlier edict the US would have to do both. So, to the conspiracy theorist, there was a lot at stake (and therefore lots of reasons to contemplate lying about it). So, on to the possible fakery explanations...

They could have never faked the communications delay, the Russians were watching...

There was no need to fake it. The only thing the Russians would be able to tell for sure was the direction the signal was coming from and the approximate distance. Actually going to the Moon wasn't the problem...landing on it was. All they needed to do was establish orbit around the Moon and this argument would have been nullified.

Too many people were involved to keep it secret...

For all they knew, it really happened. The only people who would have needed to know for sure were the landing crew itself and a select group of handlers.

So how did the radio reflectors get placed on the surface?...

Well, that's a no brainer. Even the Russians had successfully placed items on the lunar surface before we got there, but they never landed a man there. Us placing an object on the surface would have been no different.

What about the recent pictures of the landing sites?...

Heh, how many people have actually stood in the control center for the satellite taking these pictures and looked at them in real time? After all, every picture on the Internet is real...isn't it?

The effects of reduced gravity could not be duplicated on Earth...

Usually dismissed out of hand my most Moon hoax theorists as trick photography, this one is actually one of the more difficult ones to explain away. In the end though, this could have been the case. One thing about all the Moon footage is you never saw two objects moving (in different directions) at the same time whenever this phenomenon was observed so there's no way to tell for sure if the frame rates haven't been adjusted.

Could it all have been some elaborate ruse to fool the world? I don't believe it was, but it could have been.

Again, I do believe the Moon landings were real...but it's fun to contemplate how a hoax might have been pulled off.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

MISSING. What don't you understand about that?

And what part of "re-used" do you not understand?

www.hq.nasa.gov...

There are some things I do find curious about the Moon landings though which I think add further fuel to many of the hoax theorists fire.

For having conducted what is arguably the greatest single accomplishment of mankind, there is an almost stunning lack of media coverage of the astronauts after the landings. So great was this accomplishment, media outlets should have been lined up for decades (centuries even) wanting to extract every single nanosecond of experience, emotion, data possible from the heroic astronauts themselves. Yet, very little of this exists. First hand accounts from the astronauts themselves are the exception rather than the rule, and even those accounts which do exist are vague at best.

The common explanation for this lack of coverage is these were all military men, uncomfortable in the spotlight. I guess this is true, but still, given the accomplishment it seems very odd. The media doesn't care if you're uncomfortable or not, they just want the story.

The other thing I find strange is; why didn't we ever go back? Now, I know this has been explained a thousand different times over (e.g. nothing left to prove, no reason to, expense, etc.), but the reality is, the staggering costs of the Apollo program (and all the programs that lead up to it) were principally in development and the infrastructure to support the programs, not the missions themselves. Building and launching a Saturn V rocket once you've already done it a few times successfully is cheap in comparison to doing it the first time. The tools are all there, the technology is there and all the support infrastructure is already there. The only thing missing is the labor and material costs to build the rocket and the wages for the personnel to man / support the mission.

Any major earth / satellite based telescope has a waiting list years long just to get a shot at studying something, surely there was still scientific value in the Moon after just a few missions! Just seems odd we never went back. Seems even stranger still when we hear talk that we simply couldn't go back now even if we wanted to...not in a practical sense. Why didn't we do it when we had the chance?

Just odd I guess...

reply to post by Flyingclaydisk

Lack of media coverage? You have got to be kidding?

The Apollo 11 crew went on a 'world tour' when they came back. They landed in 25 worldwide cities, and as many as 25,000 people shook their hands.

source

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Indeed, they did, and in all of that media coverage how many stories do you see about their actual experiences. You know, the ones that go..."...and as I stepped out of the LEM my harness caught on the tiny opening and, in the bulk of my spacesuit, it was difficult to..." Those kinds of first hand accounts.

One would think there would be detailed accounts of every microsecond, from every astronaut, from liftoff to splashdown, yet there are very few.

edit...sure you see stories that make good sound bytes like how someone pulled out a golf club and tee'd up a ball (yuk, yuk, yuk), but that's not what I'm talking about.

reply to post by Flyingclaydisk


I don't know how many actual interviews were given by the Apollo astronauts in the time after the moon landings, but there were many, and there have been plenty of blow by blow accounts of the actual landings.

As for the individual reticence of some of the astronauts, you mentioned this in your earlier post, and it simply is a statement of the character of these men, they were test pilots, they were highly focused, sometimes very intense people, they were not PR gurus, and most of them loathed but tolerated the media circus that surrounded the Apollo program.

Have you read any books concerning the Apollo program?

Originally posted by Flyingclaydisk

Moon footage is you never saw two objects moving (in different directions) at the same time whenever this phenomenon was observed so there's no way to tell for sure if the frame rates haven't been adjusted.

This part only works if you blatantly ignore all the cases where it's not true. Sure you could put a person in a wire harness and slow the tape to make them seem like they're moving in 1/6 g but that also means that you'd have to perform the exact same setup on thousands upon thousands of grains of lunar regolith which is also behaving at 1/6g. It's just not physically possible to do that even today. You need to realize that it's not just the astronauts that have to appear to be on the moon, it's EVERYTHING. Even with modern CGI it is still impossible to fake the moon footage. Just look at transformers dark of the moon, a movie which is 99% special effects and has a painfully fake looking moon scene.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Flyingclaydisk

 

Lack of media coverage? You have got to be kidding?

The Apollo 11 crew went on a 'world tour' when they came back. They landed in 25 worldwide cities, and as many as 25,000 people shook their hands.

source

That's a rock star propaganda tour, order by Nixon himself, and according to your source,

The "Giant Leap" 37 day round-the-world flight tour ended with an overnight stay at the Nixon White House.

Hmm. Apollo 11 is truly in bed with Richard Nixon!

I have always thought that the US did go to the Moon, however they didn't trust the Astronauts to be capable of taking the necessary shots with the Hasselblad Camera's to cover the event properly, this coupled with possible transmission issues you could understand that such a momentous event could be spoilt by bad "Holiday Pics".

So someone in the loop decided to go with the "Studio Shots" when something went wrong and they had to stick with the feeds through the duration of the mission, hence the discrepancies in the film/s. The tracks the moon buggy made have been spotted by the LRO Satellite and can be seen here....

www.bbc.co.uk...

They went to the moon, but used a studio to do a simulated landing for the public just like you see re-enactments now as lazy presentations back then they would of been considered cutting edge.

Originally posted by captainpudding
Even with modern CGI it is still impossible to fake the moon footage.

I certainly wouldn't go that far!

Depends exactly how you mean impossible.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Hmm. Apollo 11 is truly in bed with Richard Nixon!

The issue with your case, Sayonara, is that the vast majority of observations you make could occur if the Moon Landing was faked or not. I'm yet to see the smoking gun or billowing cannon observation that makes me double take and completely change my mind on this issue.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Man, you have a hard on for Nixon.

reply to post by Pinke


You're right, I shouldn't say impossible, but since you'd essentially have to make the entire environment out of cgi, it would be noticeable (one uncaught artifact and the gig is up) and the shear size of the project would require a large enough team with enough hardware to make it rather difficult to hide.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

 

Just watched that documentary in it´s entirety and it seems pretty obvious to me that it COULD be hoaxed, evrything from the footage to the radio transmissions to the moon rocks taken from Antarctis.

it didn´t fully convinvce me however until part where they try to get the astronauts to swear on the bible that they went to the moon and back(for which they also would receive 5000 dollars if they did)) and they straight out refused!! It made no sense whatsoever for them to refuse to do this if they actually went, and even if they didn´t go they could just lie some more by swearing on the bible and get 5k for free...unless they where deeply religious and didn+t want to sink that low for this hoax... that part convinced me it was probably a hoax, yes, and they have been payed good money during all these years to propagate this hoax as the truth in the interest of national security, the punishment for revealing the truth would probably be more than severe and they know it...

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

Whats putting your hand on a STORY BOOK got to do with the Moon landings

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix



This shows them superimposed and you can clearly see that the hill line changes so it is a different angle, but you can see that the hilltop on the left remains in the same place, and also the beginning part of the hill to the right is in the same place.

The second picture is a bit weirder.




Thank You for doing this ! See.. I knew my suggestions would turn up something interesting. It certainly looks to me like THIS can be a smoking gun. These Moon LEM pics (well, one or both) had to be faked. No doubt about it in my mind. I just needed someone to help me prove it.

Severin did this for me by request in response to my posts here:

This doesn't prove we didn't go there but it does prove that one or both of these pics were faked. ( After the LEM landed on the Moon it should not have been possible to take essentially the same picture without the LEM being in the shot)

Something may be smoking but it's not a gun!!!

Sorry to tell you but your pictures above are BS those crosses are etched onto the glass plate in the camera.

The Reseau plate was engraved with a 5 x 5 grid of crosses. The intersections of the crosses were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the double-sized central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses (also known as fiducials) were recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.

The crosses cant be moved look at your top image the crosses are at different locations in the image so both images are not from the same spot. Compare whats in the foreground of the second picture.

The distance between the 2 pictures was enough to take the Lander out of view but as the mountains are so large and in the distance their apparent movement is small.

The images are here Apollo 15 images

The Lander picture is AS15-82-11057 the other picture appears to be AS15-82-11082 you can see the other images and the change in position in between them.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Depends on who's expert you listen to. Some say even a few minutes in the Van Allen belts at it's thinner areas would kill a human in the poorly shielded tin can those guys used. You say we went through quickly.. How quickly? Do you have this data?

We know the space suits were not designed for radiation protection nor was the tin can they used. ( I have read os these things.. I can look them up for specs on these things if you need sources) NASA would not even let anyone outside of NASA test the suits to prove their effectiveness after the Moon landings.

Well how about this expert then

"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

So do you think he may have had an idea about the belts named after HIM

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Man, you have a hard on for Nixon.

I believe that Richard Nixon is the key to unlocking the Pandora's Box, aka, the Apollo Phenomenon. Or did you forget that all 6 manned Apollo lunar landings occurred during the Nixon presidency?

Or did you forget that Richard Nixon's brother, Ed Nixon, a geologist with 2 geology degrees, couldn't find work as a geologist so he went to work for Bellcomm.

While at Bellcomm, Ed Nixon, the brother of the future President of the United States, placed a help wanted ad in a geology trade magazine. Farouk El-Baz answered that ad. And Farouk El-Baz selected all 6 Apollo landing sites.

Do you care to dispute these facts?

There is one undeniable fact and proof about the Lunar Landings. All Spacecraft were tracked and their positions triangulated by thousands of HAM operators all over the Planet.

Add to this the Soviet Union tracking the U.S. Spacecraft in order to discover any possibility of hoax. The Soviets would have been First to cry Rat if they thought the Lunar Landings were a hoax...they did not and it is LUNACY to think they would not.

Split Infinity