Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

reply to post by wmd_2008


As I said: "To understand my views on this you would probably need to read everything from then until now." You did not.

That video was posted.

Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

As I said: "To understand my views on this you would probably need to read everything from then until now." You did not.

That video was posted.

I ask you to give the link YOU gave a link that is NOT the same video and does NOT have the same content as the one I posted!!!

This is the link you gave

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Show me were the video I posted is on the link



You also have not answered the question re the bag drop at 1:24 on this video

reply to post by wmd_2008

I believe what MrN meant is that you should start at the link he gave you and then read from there. Somewhere along the line is the video you posted, the one with nice music. He may have answered your questions already during the course of the discussion. I will watch your video again now just to hear the music again. Thanks.

I can't speak for MrN, because if I could I'd order pizzas on his credit card, but I'd bet my oldest tin foil hat that if MrN had to make a choice "humans have been to the moon, yep" or "humans have not been to the moon, no way",with the life of his dog on the line, he'd pick the "been to" side.

He may not really be what people think of as a moon denier, but is a discerning person who wants every question answered and every inconsistency looked into. Because of this he has thought up an experiment which other "denyers" haven't thought to do. That's the value of that type of mindset.

You know, if NASA knew that there would be such a thing as "moon walkers deniers" they would have done some other things on the moon to prove they were there beyond any doubt - they just didn't think at the time that there would be such a thing or a need to prove the oblivious (pun not intended, but maybe it was). Perhaps they should have known someone would question the project, because at the time the JFK murder (and RFK, and MLK) was the grist of the more-or-less new field of conspiracy theory. But nobody there thought that they'd have to prove it.

reply to post by Aleister


If you look when people make a comment re a video they post either a link to the video or the post it was on not start from here and read all the post after that!

He wanted better evidence than the pendulum although the pendulum shows the same problems with the astronauts movements.

People have commented many times on this site re astronauts movements but you would think with videos of the pendulum and the bag drop to confirm the value for g on the moon and if the speed is adjusted the astronauts movements look wrong that is more than enough with all the other proof shown!

After all if you look back at this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

what is required on here for Apollo proof when a dot of light is taken as granted as evidence of Mog from Zog paying us a visit.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Yeah, that's what I don't get - if the astronauts movement "look wrong" because they were fast and jerky, don't you think that if NASA or Kubrick were faking it they'd ask their actors to do just those movements? The pendulum swinging, when speeded up enough to be full-gravity, has the astronauts jumping around a little but that can be easily done if the actors instructions from Kubrick or Truman Capote called for it. (I don't believe a word I say on this post, of course, just wondering why the fast motion of the astronauts at full-gravity speed proves anything).

reply to post by wmd_2008


Ah jeez, a triple post. I'd better write something here. As I said earlier in this thread, I really suggest to anyone who hasn't done so to communicate with at least one guy who's been on the moon, especially Aldrin. Call him on the phone, or meet him if you can. When the 12 moon men are gone, that's it, nobody else has been there. And Aldrin was the first/second person in earth's history to ever set foot on another body in the solar system. Meeting or talking to these guys is like counting coup with history.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I'm editing out my first triple-post, kind of like an unassisted triple play in baseball but without all the excitement and carvinal atmosphere in the clubhouse.

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Yeah, that's what I don't get - if the astronauts movement "look wrong" because they were fast and jerky, don't you think that if NASA or Kubrick were faking it they'd ask their actors to do just those movements? The pendulum swinging, when speeded up enough to be full-gravity, has the astronauts jumping around a little but that can be easily done if the actors instructions from Kubrick or Truman Capote called for it. (I don't believe a word I say on this post, of course, just wondering why the fast motion of the astronauts at full-gravity speed proves anything).

Well if you speed up the film to represent Earth's gravity the Astronauts movements are to fast it's that simple.

As for this constant reference to Kubrick as some hoax director he made so many mistakes with 2001 that gives me and others on here a good

The hoax believers seem to forget that Astronauts suits are not easy to move about in that's how they use the hopping motion they found it easier to get around that way.

Well if you speed up the film to represent Earth's gravity the Astronauts movements are to fast it's that simple.

As for this constant reference to Kubrick as some hoax director he made so many mistakes with 2001 that gives me and others on here a good

The hoax believers seem to forget that Astronauts suits are not easy to move about in that's how they use the hopping motion they found it easier to get around that way.

That's my point (playing the advocate of the devil, my neighbor's dog Sam), if Kubrick and Preminger made the films, they would have taken Hitchcock's advice and had the actors move around real fast and jerky, like hyper-robots, and then slowed the film down when they threw the bag and set the Rolex-designed pendulum in motion. And you thought those were actually bulky suite? Ha! You know that stuff that plastic bags are made of? Stretch that on a few wires and you've got yourself an all-American astronaut ready for his ticker tape parade.

(and I do hope you realize this is all satire, and don't go quoting it back to me with laughing faces attached)

reply to post by Aleister


Go get to very thick, arctic rated parkas and put them on. both of them. Now get a back pack and a LOT of heavy rocks in it, at least 60 pounds or more.
Put on the thickest gloves you can find.

Put on at least 3 pairs of jeans (more would be better).

Put a neck brace on if you can find it.

Now go outside and do exactly what you think would have been possible: move as fast as you can and quickly.......

Video tape the entire thing. Then edit the video with your computer to slow it down.....and let us see what it looks like.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Ah jeez, something something them if they can't take a joke. So suddenly I find myself arguing the hoaxer-believer side. OK, if I was hired to do a hoax film the astronauts would have on none of that equipment, it would all be costumes, lightweight and hollow and would just look like they had the heavy suits on . Then they could dance around at will, la la la, until David Lean yelled "cut" and they moved onto the next scene or LEM.

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Ah jeez, something something them if they can't take a joke. So suddenly I find myself arguing the hoaxer-believer side. OK, if I was hired to do a hoax film the astronauts would have on none of that equipment, it would all be costumes, lightweight and hollow and would just look like they had the heavy suits on . Then they could dance around at will, la la la, until David Lean yelled "cut" and they moved onto the next scene or LEM.

edit on 7-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

Sorry, that won't work.

They were in a vacuum chamber according to Hoax Believers, remember? Can't use fake suits. Have to have the real thing.

User Ismail turned me on to this vid. I thought everyone, except for MrN who has no sense of humor, will enjoy it. (Well, okay, MrN has a great sense of humor. He is a moon-landing denier semi-denier)

From the outset I will state my position - I don't know if we went to the moon or not, I wasn't there.

It may well have happened, yet from the 'evidence' put forward I strongly suspect that events did not unfold as they (NASA) would have us believe.

Now, as for the O/P material, ie. the video - it is merely anecdotal and hearsay, he does not validate, cite, or even elaborate on his so called 'proof'. Who is the video subject, where does/did he work, why does he consider himself an expert, etc etc?

To take the O/P material as *evidence* would be ignorant, and in the spirit of the essence of this site ("deny ignorance") I will challenge this ignorant leap of faith.

Do not tell me that they were not adept at faking footage, William Shatner concurs they are...



NB. What about all the so called 'debunkings' by 'Mythbusters' et al, who have supposedly created moon footage/stills to debunk certain loose theories...all they actually did is inadvertently prove that 'moon footage' can be created on earth! Think about that for a second, actually digest the implications and then realize how this weakens your position significantly.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Now, as for the O/P material, ie. the video - it is merely anecdotal and hearsay, he does not validate, cite, or even elaborate on his so called 'proof'.

Well you could do the math yourself. You can start here and here.

reply to post by 1nquisitive


If I had a moon rock for every time that the idiot narrating your video points out that some of the Star Trek actors are acting-while-Jewish, I'd have enough moon rocks to pave my garden and one left over for the fish tank. He forgot Whoopi "Goldberg" though. And the entire video is centered around the fact that William Shatner visited NASA and was welcomed into the LEM by being shown a model of the Enterprise flying past the window. This, of course, is meant to prove that people never went to the moon, proof positive and a star for you unless I forget to give you one..

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Do not tell me that they were not adept at faking footage, William Shatner concurs they are...

I don't really think you can quote Captain Kirk as a reference on this particular topic.

Besides, there is a large difference between making a passable visual or special effect fake and a fake that would pass scientific and forensic investigation.

The video poster is pretty chatty anyways, and does reply to at least some messages. It's not like the person is hiding their identity or anything of that nature. I don't believe the person is debunking every single theory that the moon landing is faked ... but their credentials etc aren't really the point ... from reading the person's youtube comments, 'Phil' I believe would probably just wish that you would actually learn the technology you're disputing about.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Now, as for the O/P material, ie. the video - it is merely anecdotal and hearsay, he does not validate, cite, or even elaborate on his so called 'proof'.

Well you could do the math yourself. You can start here and here.

You're totally missing the point: the O/P does not validate, cite, or even elaborate.

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

If I had a moon rock for every time that the idiot narrating your video points out that some of the Star Trek actors are acting-while-Jewish, I'd have enough moon rocks to pave my garden and one left over for the fish tank. He forgot Whoopi "Goldberg" though. And the entire video is centered around the fact that William Shatner visited NASA and was welcomed into the LEM by being shown a model of the Enterprise flying past the window. This, of course, is meant to prove that people never went to the moon, proof positive and a star for you unless I forget to give you one..

edit on 15-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

At what point did I say that I don't believe we went to the moon?

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Do not tell me that they were not adept at faking footage, William Shatner concurs they are...

I don't really think you can quote Captain Kirk as a reference on this particular topic.

Besides, there is a large difference between making a passable visual or special effect fake and a fake that would pass scientific and forensic investigation.

The video poster is pretty chatty anyways, and does reply to at least some messages. It's not like the person is hiding their identity or anything of that nature. I don't believe the person is debunking every single theory that the moon landing is faked ... but their credentials etc aren't really the point ... from reading the person's youtube comments, 'Phil' I believe would probably just wish that you would actually learn the technology you're disputing about.

Yes, I see your point.

Again, there is evidence that we DID go to the moon, I don't dispute that one bit. My problem is with all the so called evidence that doesn't stack up, ie. the whens/wheres/hows just don't add up.

The NASA version of events *isn't* really standing up to the scientific and forensic investigation, is it?

I don't think we've been presented with the true version of events, and in hindsight I guess that at the height of a 'cold war' televising your superpowers moon landing, on a *supposedly* unknown and alien landscape, isn't really in the interests of clearance/security.

We know they've lied to us at least once
fake moon rocks

We know that event footage has been faked by others - both the titanic and the san francisco earthquake saw fake footage being presented as bona fide news.

I personally think the early Apollo visuals were faked prior to the moon landing simply to negate the risk of

1. some tragedy hitting the astronauts live on air in front of the whole world (I think in this event we'd be led to believe it was successful - look into 'surrogate astronaut' theory, it's a rabbit hole)

2. or even simply to negate the risk of failed transmissions/damaged film.