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

Originally posted by ckno1
Hope this wasn´t posted before. tried to search but didn´t find it:

This video is so good, so incredibly brilliant, solid and simple, that you will want to paste it all over your Facebooks and Twitters just to piss off all the IMBECILES who still claim that the Moon landings were faked.* The reason is simple: the technology to fake it didn't exist.

Must they be called "IMBECILES"?? Can't both sides be civil or at least the side that knows everything take the higher road?

Ok just for sake of advocate:

Of course it was much more primitive, there is an established known line of fictional photograpgy dating back to the cameras invention.

There are many known hoaxes prior to the 60s, ghosts, aliens, ectoplasm, faeries, mini people, etc.
Sure some are unexplained but a vast majority are fabrications by prolific hoaxers.

Im still seeing a lot of open windows here.
Keep trying to convince me this is a fun topic.

Like get more specific about camera models and show known fakes from it to compare quality.

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by ckno1
Hope this wasn´t posted before. tried to search but didn´t find it:

This video is so good, so incredibly brilliant, solid and simple, that you will want to paste it all over your Facebooks and Twitters just to piss off all the IMBECILES who still claim that the Moon landings were faked.* The reason is simple: the technology to fake it didn't exist.

Must they be called "IMBECILES"?? Can't both sides be civil or at least the side that knows everything take the higher road?

edit on 19-1-2013 by six67seven because: (no reason given)

Ok thats fine but Im declaring neutrality.
I usually look at this thing from various alternatives.

I dont know if its all true, partially true, or all false.

Its hard to judge history from photos that are twice my age. It predates me.

I have been to the Saturn rocket, the shuttle, etc at Kennedy.
I know how impressive it all is, but I still wonder about all this stuff.

reply to post by ckno1
[
In order to help remove some confusion, I would say that the evidence does point to the fact that there was a movie made at the Stanley Kubrick studio.
www.youtube.com...

This does not imply that the moon landing did not take place.

so, here we have a you tube video being presented as 'definitive proof' of something. i have lost count of the number of times a you tube video is dismissed by so many here as any kind of evidence, for anything, by it's very nature. you can't have it both ways. as to the moon landing debate, i used to be firmly in the 'it's all fake' category. these days i think it's nowhere near as cut and dried as just 'real or hoax'. it's far too murky to be that simple.

I did not watch the video, but wanted to comment on your claim that the technology to fake it did not exist. That is an extremely bold, yet incorrect statement. I believe we did go to the moon, although there are a few inconsistencies that still nag at me sometimes, but there may be an explanation for those that I do not know about.
If the technology existed to go to the freaking moon, and film on the freaking moon, then why in the world would the technology not be available to 'fake' all of that? It doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
If the technology existed to go to the freaking moon, and film on the freaking moon, then why in the world would the technology not be available to 'fake' all of that? It doesn't make any sense.

The technology needed to go to the Moon is no where near related to the technology needed for faking it.

Do you know of any technology that can manipulate gravity? Change Earth's 1G to 1/6th G? What about a giant vacuum chamber that's at least several hundred meters to several km in size? You would need all that to fake the Apollo video's accurately.

No movie has been able to convincingly fake the airless, low gravity environment of the Moon. Not even with today's computer technology, let alone with 1960's special effects.

If you're in the industry, you'd know...

Most persons 'in the industry' can barely tie their own shoe laces nevermind understand a file format to any depth above wading pool level haha

that digital signals processed at 1 bit (not our whopping 64 bit of today), at millions of samples per second: are twice as resolute as 2 inch reel 24 track tape, or full chroma film. 1 bit facilitates far less processing power & allows for full redundancy (you can record multiple frames at once, in case a frame is dropped).

The method you're talking about is most likely DSD?

1 bit doesn't mean less processing power ... it means more in this context since by its very nature it's a codec. These days it doesn't really matter, since a good editing rig tears up audio files. In the 60s though? A digital low pass filter would destroy a calculator nevermind more complex maths.

A WAV file, for example, is already decoded. It use more data thru-put because it's large in data size, but less processing power because it's decoded. DSD formats use less space but more processing power to decompile.

It's still lossless because the data can be retrieved, but I wouldn't describe it in the way being presented. I also have no idea what your reference to 'full chroma film' means in this context, but DSD does not translate to being better than say R3D encoding etc etc ... blah blah ...

I know this, because I record audio at 1 bit/2.6 million samples per second. This technology was available to the public via the Sony corporation, since the late 1970s.

DSD as we know it wasn't really developed until the mid to late 80s by Sony. People had the idea earlier, but people also had the idea of using fourier transforms with images before Adobe Photoshop and modern computing gave us the power to do it.

Vague history here. There is a lot more information around as to why Sony developed the file format. If it was anything to do with the military they would have been somewhat more confident in their internal use of it.

Originally posted by shefskitchen
I'm from the school of thought, that the military has had advanced flash based RAM recorders since the 1950s.

They would have had to be bigger than anything available decades later. Circuitry would also have to be able to encode/decode DSD file formats which would make the army 20 - 30 years ahead at least.

One of the larger elephants in the room though is they would need a file allocation table to store the large file sizes. Bill Gates and Marc MacDonald didn't do that until 1979 forward ...

Think of gun camera footage, from old wars. Film would have taken too much space, for too little footage. Video transmission would be too un-secure, and resolution would be low. How can we watch half hour dogfights?

Random funny point, as recent as this decade they've attached unencrypted cameras to drones. Admittedly, people got fired, but it happened.

And no disrespect, but unless I'm totally missing something or there is some new 1 bit file format that no one told me about, this doesn't make sense!

By all means, I won't be upset if you correct me or simply say 'oh no, I really do think they had that technology.'

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I did not watch the video, but wanted to comment on your claim that the technology to fake it did not exist. That is an extremely bold, yet incorrect statement. [sic] If the technology existed to go to the freaking moon, and film on the freaking moon, then why in the world would the technology not be available to 'fake' all of that? It doesn't make any sense.

If you watched the video it actually builds some of a case for that.

Not saying the video is perfect, or answers every scenario ... it actually answers very specific scenarios but ... this thread is disturbing to me for the number of persons that manage to comment saying things like ... 'I stopped watching when' and 'I didn't watch but' ...

Seriously, if someone takes the time to post a thread about a video (even if they are a little mean about it) its common curtesy to watch it and not just start randomly dismissing it and talking about turtles being launched into space.

reply to post by Pinke


I explained why the "I stopped watching when", and even after the replies directed at my observation, that was incorrect in the detains of how I interpreted what was being stated but even after the clarification between video and film and considering that the person talking on the video admits that there would be possible at that time to do it with existing tech (even if not publicly available and know to be near the exact requirements) it develops then in conjectures.

I have decided that there are many incongruences, delays in access to information, loss of data and records, etc... culminating in logic problems the US started behind, was in a cold war with the other competitor but they ended in collaboration in space, the US was in active war in Vietnam, the US was under Nixon and ultimately the track record of the US as a nation.

I'm not a lunar fanatic, I already know more about the tech to go to the moon that I care to know, my time to pursue this specific issue is limited and I do not waste listening to conjectures if I see some inconsistencies I assure you that I watches all of MoonFaker presentation and some of the response to criticisms and I stick to what I said it is the best free and open content on the subject.

I'm truly interested to see how they will shield the next humans to go above LEO, the path of the voyage and how it will handle solar flares. I have no problem been proven wrong and in the context of the time (as we fully see it now) it occurred the feat would have even been of a larger scale than people then thought of it (because we now know much more).

One other thing that to me is a larger indication of a problem in the tale as told is that we should have at least a 24/7 presence in the moon by robotic telepresence building solar arrays, telescopes, mining water (how unbelievable it is that we only found that out recently) and radioactive for propulsion, creating habitats and infrastructure and yet we have none...

reply to post by ckno1


That was, in a word, outstanding! I want to buy that man a beer. Maybe two.

Besides, if Kubrick had filmed such a thing, we would have all died of boredom watching it. I watched those landing on television, way back then (I was small, but I remember). Also watched 2001, and Star Trek, and the rest of the stuff. No way that was faked. No reason to think it was.

Love his ending!

Originally posted by taccj9903
I can't say for sure either way but I have always suspected something wasn't right about the whole thing. After I saw this interview I really want to know what is going on. I wonder what Neil Armstrong meant when he told that guy, "you do not deserve to know the answers."

edit on 19-1-2013 by taccj9903 because: (no reason given)

Matthew 5:34-37 - "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

In other words, the guy was being a total jerk, and demanding something that those who actually believe the Bible would know wasn't to be done. Telling a jerk that he doesn't deserve answers isn't saying that the whole thing was a lie. Sheesh.

reply to post by Panic2k11

I'm not a lunar fanatic, I already know more about the tech to go to the moon that I care to know, my time to pursue this specific issue is limited and I do not waste listening to conjectures if I see some inconsistencies I assure you that I watches all of MoonFaker presentation and some of the response to criticisms and I stick to what I said it is the best free and open content on the subject.

No, it's not:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jarrah White is a liar and idiot. If you find anything he says the least bit compelling, you know far less about the "tech to go to the Moon" than you think.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
*snip*

In war since WW1 anything goes, even so you can look on how the Germans and English treated high patents and even POWs (amongst themselves) to get a glimpse on the type of mentality. *snip*/quote]

Oh, brother! Have you ever actually spoken to anyone that was THERE when our troops got into Germany, after the victory? I have. Very sweet German lady, who was a child at the time. The American troops were WONDERFUL towards the German people, and the same cannot be said for those of some other nations. She knew some ladies that found out how bad some were, and was very grateful that she was in a place that Americans were in charge, not some of our allies. The "mentality" was honorable.

As for the moon landing, those of us that were alive then, and watched it (and all the films and tv shows about space) know it was real. We know what fake looked like. Give it a rest, already. the space scenes in 2001 were BORING. The moon landings were exciting stuff. We went. The Russians didn't go because it had been done, it cost a ton of money, and there wasn't any real reason. That was the end goal of the race back then. We did it. What were they going to do, collect their own rocks? If it was all fake, they could have done that, too, and would have. Again, those of us alive then know the mentality.

Originally posted by PurpleVortex
IMHO, the moon landing videos are fake/edited. There are a lot of things Armstrong saw in the moon that are prohibited from the public eyes, and whatever he saw told him you are not welcome here again.

....yet we went back, again and again? Proof, of ANYTHING you state there? Next thing, we'll be hearing they didn't go back because of unfriendly rocks.

reply to post by DJW001


I do not see how calling someone a "liar and idiot" addresses the points he makes. He even addresses other people criticism and remains pretty civil about it (even if he clearly is exasperated at times).

I do find in some parts of what he says to be compelling, but he is not even the original proponent of many of the claims or issues.

I never claimed to be (or wanting to be) an expert on the "tech that got us to the Moon", what I do know an hear simply makes it all very improbable (the fact that I at least acknowledge that I have limitations puts me ahead of those that would not even contemplate that possibility and blindly acceptance of what they are told) .

What is the relevance of the link to the other thread ?

what about the possibility that the went to the moon but saw something when they were about to land and had to leave, then faked the actual landings.

seems more plausible ?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Well if you read my post again you will look that I was specifically referring to military personal not civilians, civilians have been in Europe at the bottom of the any considerations, forever that is even why the US as a project was in part an answer to the aspirations of the masses of Europe. If you think that the Africans had a bad time with slavery to the Americas you fail to understand that it first happened in Europe and (even in Africa among different tribes or villages). I was talking about the logic of power and responsibility by nationally bound ruling classes that what makes a nation historically great or respectable is not military power, its behavior the choices it makes, those are the defining features of what is national identity.

I'm not comprehending if you are specific referring to the Soviets in regards to the treatment but you have to take in consideration what the Soviets endured at the hands of the Germans and Stalin and that they were generally speaking and in large majority in a completely different educational and social level that the American, UK or French forces in Germany. I also did not put Russia in the same boat as the rest of Europe.

For the moon landing issue I believe that it is even harder for anyone that lived the experience and the, well, propaganda, to think anything beyond the official story. In large part the program was about propaganda. But I fail to see the motivation for stopping the space exploration, the goals then are the same goals as today, I do hope that China gets its lunar base by ~2020.

I don't believe we have been on the moon and consequently that any video or photographic evidence for a manned trip to the moon is faked. The narrator of the video says that it would be impossible to fake such film footage but goes on to explain how to do it. His objections to the procedures he cites seem to be that they are complex and that one would have to be very careful doing it.

He also says that people involved in doing it who knew the real truth would have to die mysterious deaths.

I think that the Apollo moon trips were intelligence/disinformation operations and that key people knew what they were doing and that it was an intelligence/disinformation operation that they were working on. They were probably very proud to do the service for their country and knowing the stakes involved were probably more than willing to keep the secret, without threats, as many intelligence officers doing other operations are.

What interests me most about the presentation is the ending where the presenter goes on to psychoanalyze conspiracy theorists. This approach has become the "official" fallback position of the perps when they can't argue the facts. It is interesting to see it applied in this context. Especially interesting is the presenter's transformation of the conspiracy theorists disbelief in an official story based on analysis of evidence into belief in a scenario for which there is no rational basis or evidence.

This guy seems way too glib for me. Is he on a disinformation campaign on behalf of some government agency and following a psychologizing paradigm, which seems now to be the standard psyop response to anyone who questions the government's explanation of unusual events?

This guy gives the impression of examining evidence and giving an informed opinion but cites nothing and refers to nothing except his own authority. He has a nice line of what the British used to call "patter".

I think his premise is really flawed, i.e., that it is easier to go to the moon using 60s technology than it would be to fake going to the moon using 60s technology. To me that is an absurd proposition. Any craftsman worth his salt has had to invent tools and jigs to get things done occasionally. Sometimes on a job the first thing is to invent the tool to do the job.

Bottom line. I'm not buying what this guy is selling.

S&F because it is a bloody Moon Landing Hoax thread and not one about Gun's

(And i thought these threads about Planet Size Objects At Our Sun were the greatest pain in my bum)

Btw... the last tiny bit of prove was this here for me ---------->