More Moon fakery

spartacus699
what's funny is they new when they faked it it wouldn't have to be prefect because they knew most people are too stupid to know enough to figure it out. And even when they did they'd still be met with the brainwashed masses who would do the defence for them

Herein we can see the real reason people like to indulge in the hoax fantasy: they think they're smarter than the average Joe....the irony of this should not go unnoticed, quote : a fool who knows he is a fool at least has some wisdom, but a fool who thinks he is wise is the biggest fool of all, unquote.

Alex Jones fan? It's like a machine somewhere turns his followers out, infowars clones, under the illusion of being 'awake' they abandon critical thinking and indulge in self delusion. Let AJ do the thinking for you kids. Anyone who doesn't see it your(AJ's) way is either "brainwashed" or in league with the devil.

spartacus699

geobro

spartacus699
what's funny is they new when they faked it it wouldn't have to be prefect because they knew most people are too stupid to know enough to figure it out. And even when they did they'd still be met with the brainwashed masses who would do the defence for them

even at the time people were questioning the landings i remember my grandfather going on about a number being on a rock that he noticed .

and a story on a.t.s. about a australian woman seeing a coke tin /or bottle in one shot but you are right about how stupid the masses are 9-11 proved that to me -see my thread on that one spartacus tptb arrogence is shocking

Ya but we were all that dumb too! (ya I'll check for that thread). Like for myself I didn't know jack until I started doing some research in 2011 and also started listening to Alex Jones. Then slowly very slowly I started to piece a lot of the BS together. Like that was only 2 years ago now! Before that I too was a totally naive brainwashed six oclock news sheeple! aaahhhhh. So ya it's sad. Even now I'm no saying I know it all, not even close, but I know enough to realize that most of what tptb tell you to believe is all BS or has some hidden agenda behind it. ahhhh

Alex Jones you can ONLY listen to him because all that DH does is shout

I absolutely believe we went to the moon.

I just also believe that they could not show the real footage and had to make some footage to release to the American public.

I believe that once we got there, and discovered it was inhabited,that was reason enough for them not to want to go back.

Cancerwarrior
I absolutely believe we went to the moon.

I just also believe that they could not show the real footage and had to make some footage to release to the American public.

I believe that once we got there, and discovered it was inhabited,that was reason enough for them not to want to go back.

What about the images and video makes you think they are not real images and video of the Moon, and what specific information makes you believe that the Moon is inhabited?

CaptainB, you had got some answers from the Apollo Defense team. Now it is time for a skeptical view. This is only my view, I don't represent any factions of thought and I don't support all versions of the many hoax theories.

CaptainBeno
Comments please:

1: The waving flag? Yes it has been covered but no real explanation....so go ahead.
The "Apollo 15 waving flag" is only one of many problem areas in regard to that mission. Remember, this is the crew that had smuggled the envelopes into space so they could sell them to collectors back on earth. The Apollo 15 stamp scandal has money connections to the Howard Hughes organization... and when I say Howard Hughes I mean the Godfather who owned half of Las Vegas and was the biggest employer in Nevada during the Apollo program. Payoffs were his specialty. If he couldn't hire you, he would buy you. If he couldn't buy you, he would destroy you.

2: No blast area under lander? Not even a little bit. Plus no dirt on feet.
NASA has made the point of showing us LRO images of the "halo" produced at a landing site, again, this is the Apollo 15 mission. This "halo" was created by the blast of the decent module AND the ascent module engines, both together.

However, the Apollo 15 pictures of the dust free feet were taken after the landing. We know that the surface regolith is very fine by looking at the dirt that accumulates/clings to the astronauts during EVA. The dust is very very fine, it clings to everything.

I think there should be a very fine dusting on the lander feet, not clumps, or small rocks, but a very fine dust.


3: Multiple light sources.
Multiple light sources are a reality on the lunar surface because of the reflectivity of the regolith. We see many images of well-lit astronauts facing away from the sun. Technically speaking... it's true... the camera lens will capture all the light, including multiple light sources (reflected off the descent module, reflected off the ground) when Apollo astronauts are snapping pictures on the lunar surface. Could some of these multiple light sources be artificial??




4: Reflections of "objects"....ahem, I mean stage lighting.



5: The infamous "C" rock........why indeed?
The "C" rock controversy is about the one image from Apollo 16, AS16-107-17446. I have never really thought this was important evidence because it's not logical.

All Apollo images, every single negative was first screened by CIA/NPIC image expert Richard Underwood.

Underwood is a pro, he's not going to miss the "C" on his Apollo negatives! The negative would have been tossed in the fire immediately if it had such a plainly visible error. As such, he allowed the negative to go through the process of release to NASA, who released it to the public with the error intact. Again, this defies logic. They would not let something so easy go through the printers office. I think it's a printing mistake.



6: Disappearing crosses.....dear dear me NASA. Plus...many more
I know what you meant by disappearing crosses, however, NASA is also going one step further... NASA has joined with Arizona State University to digitally remove the cross hairs from all Apollo images.
The many problematic issues with the Apollo cross hairs on Apollo images has forced NASA to finally go in this direction. Once NASA/ASU remove all the cross hairs from Apollo images they will have scored a major propaganda victory for Apollo. See thread NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images www.abovetopsecret.com...


7: My favorite......multiple same background shots......what? Did you run out of "space" in the studio?
8: Lets all make one! I've got some tin foil!!
Apollo 15, again! Multiple back ground shots and the tin foil LM. This one looks like a projection screen technique used and then re-processing voodoo in the darkroom. Once the "new negative" is created, the old source is destroyed, the "new negative" is then released to the public relations officer.

Notice how this photo has almost HD like qualities? Strange? huh considering it was apparently taken on the moon? All other photos seem to be so grainy? That's another thing to be careful about when viewing NASA's images from the moon. They present a .jpg or .tiff file, we must believe that they have faithfully and accurately scanned any of the negatives. Catch-22.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Ahhhh the personal attacks......

Didn't take long did it seabhacrua? Can't think of a witty reply, so choose the "I'll make a fool of you" approach huh?

Shame.

Try a bit harder buddy.

Notice how crap the LM assembly looked. Then think to yourself "would I get in that and trust a blast off from the moon"?

Ummmmm nooooooooo.








Oh sure, they did right? Pull the other one please.

I have flown in many many dodgy aircraft, but this one takes the Pi$$

reply to post by CaptainBeno

I have flown in many many dodgy aircraft, but this one takes the Pi$$

Well, there's your first mistake. The LM was not an aircraft, it was a spacecraft.

reply to post by DJW001


Righto.

SayonaraJupiter
CaptainB, you had got some answers from the Apollo Defense team. Now it is time for a skeptical view. This is only my view, I don't represent any factions of thought and I don't support all versions of the many hoax theories.

The "Apollo 15 waving flag" is only one of many problem areas in regard to that mission. Remember, this is the crew that had smuggled the envelopes into space so they could sell them to collectors back on earth. The Apollo 15 stamp scandal has money connections to the Howard Hughes organization... and when I say Howard Hughes I mean the Godfather who owned half of Las Vegas and was the biggest employer in Nevada during the Apollo program. Payoffs were his specialty. If he couldn't hire you, he would buy you. If he couldn't buy you, he would destroy you.

Opinion. Proves nothing.

NASA has made the point of showing us LRO images of the "halo" produced at a landing site, again, this is the Apollo 15 mission. This "halo" was created by the blast of the decent module AND the ascent module engines, both together.

Actually it was the Japanese probe that found that, not NASA. www.nasa.gov...

Glad to see you admit it was there.

However, the Apollo 15 pictures of the dust free feet were taken after the landing. We know that the surface regolith is very fine by looking at the dirt that accumulates/clings to the astronauts during EVA. The dust is very very fine, it clings to everything.

I think there should be a very fine dusting on the lander feet, not clumps, or small rocks, but a very fine dust.

"I think" is not proof. There is no atmosphere, dust would not be floating around to settle vertically downwards again, it is fired off towards the horizon, as shown by the landing and take-off videos.

Multiple light sources are a reality on the lunar surface because of the reflectivity of the regolith. We see many images of well-lit astronauts facing away from the sun. Technically speaking... it's true... the camera lens will capture all the light, including multiple light sources (reflected off the descent module, reflected off the ground) when Apollo astronauts are snapping pictures on the lunar surface. Could some of these multiple light sources be artificial??

"Could" is not proof.

The "C" rock controversy is about the one image from Apollo 16, AS16-107-17446. I have never really thought this was important evidence because it's not logical.

All Apollo images, every single negative was first screened by CIA/NPIC image expert Richard Underwood.

Underwood is a pro, he's not going to miss the "C" on his Apollo negatives! The negative would have been tossed in the fire immediately if it had such a plainly visible error. As such, he allowed the negative to go through the process of release to NASA, who released it to the public with the error intact. Again, this defies logic. They would not let something so easy go through the printers office. I think it's a printing mistake.

For once we can agree. The 'C' os not a 'C', it is a fibre. it does not appear on all prints - including ones printed in magazines at the time.

]I know what you meant by disappearing crosses, however, NASA is also going one step further... NASA has joined with Arizona State University to digitally remove the cross hairs from all Apollo images.
The many problematic issues with the Apollo cross hairs on Apollo images has forced NASA to finally go in this direction. Once NASA/ASU remove all the cross hairs from Apollo images they will have scored a major propaganda victory for Apollo. See thread NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are no problems with the cross hairs except those invented by conspiracy theorists. You've also had it pointed out to you many times that the original photos are all still available, and only some digital versions are having the crosses removed. They will never be able to remove them from the paper copies I have of them.

Apollo 15, again! Multiple back ground shots and the tin foil LM. This one looks like a projection screen technique used and then re-processing voodoo in the darkroom. Once the "new negative" is created, the old source is destroyed, the "new negative" is then released to the public relations officer.

That's another thing to be careful about when viewing NASA's images from the moon. They present a .jpg or .tiff file, we must believe that they have faithfully and accurately scanned any of the negatives. Catch-22.

"Looks like"? "Voodoo"?

Again, there are many many many paper copies of these prints, and the process of producing them is well documented. The original negatives are locked in a vault, they have not been destroyed.

All you have is "Looks like", "Probably", "could be".

Not a single fact in there that helps prove your point. Whatever that is.

spartacus699
Appollo 17 they were on the moon for 1320 minutes. They took 1986 photos, so more than 1 per minute of every waking moment they were supposedly on there? I doubt it.

Many of those photos are part of panoramas, so the shots were taken in quick succession. And even in-between panoramas, the moonwalkers were documenting everything they were doing; some shots were done in succession to get the subject centered in the view (the cameras were attached to their chest), and some shots were even taken accidentally.

Also, were all those 1986 photos taken during the EVAs, or does that number include photos taken from inside the Apollo modules during the lunar transfer, orbiting, and being on the ground?

SayonaraJupiter
...the Apollo 15 pictures of the dust free feet were taken after the landing. We know that the surface regolith is very fine by looking at the dirt that accumulates/clings to the astronauts during EVA. The dust is very very fine, it clings to everything.

I think there should be a very fine dusting on the lander feet, not clumps, or small rocks, but a very fine dust.

The descent engine was shut off when the LM was about 4 or 5 feet off the ground (the contact probe is 5 feet long, and the astronauts shut down the engines when the contact probe indicated contact).

Therefore, the dust that was being blown horizontally outwards by the descent engine prior to the LM being less than 5 feet off the ground would have stopped being blown horizontally outward when the engine was cut, and would have (at that point) fell to the ground on a ballistic path continuing from the horizontal path the dust was on prior to engine cut-off.

At that point there would be very little dust at around 4 or 5 feet above the surface, which is where the landing pads were. It's not as if the dust would have been hanging/suspended there, because there is no atmosphere (virtually none) in which the dust would be suspended.

The only dust that would have been able to settle on the landing pads would have been the small amount of dust that would have been reflected back upward by the thrust of the engine. However, most of that dust had already been reflected upward and was pushed away before the landing pads got to a point below that dust (where that dust could settle on the pads).

Now...if they did this in a studio with atmosphere or out in some Nevada desert, then, yes -- the dust would have been suspended in the air by the atmosphere and settled back more slowly than gravity would pull it back. THAT would cause dust to settle on the pads.

By the way, depending on the mission, there is some dust on some of the pads. However, that's due to the LM digging in a bit on landing on some missions. Sometimes the landings had a bit of sideways component to them.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

What about the images and video makes you think they are not real images and video of the Moon

There is an abundance of information on this very site concerning that. Search is your friend.

what specific information makes you believe that the Moon is inhabited?

The moon is very anomalous in and of itself.

Ingo Swann convinced me along with the weirdness of the moon itself that it is inhabited.

Cancerwarrior
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

What about the images and video makes you think they are not real images and video of the Moon

There is an abundance of information on this very site concerning that. Search is your friend.

When I asked

What about the images and video makes you think they are not real images and video of the Moon?

I was asking about what YOU specifically thought was wrong with the images of the Moon, not the claims of other people on this site.

I doubt you are saying you believe every claim here on ATS and elsewhere about problems with the Apollo imagery, because obviously many of those claims have been proven to be false -- usually due to the claimant not understanding photography in general or the specifics of moon imagery.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

I doubt you are saying you believe every claim here on ATS and elsewhere about problems with the Apollo imagery, because obviously many of those claims have been proven to be false -- usually due to the claimant not understanding photography in general or the specifics of moon imagery.

Not every thread is mere "claims".

But you are correct, many of those claims have been proven to be false, however many more have not.

There are many threads with very valid information and solid points. And FYI the older the threads are the better they are in alot of cases. ATS thread quality has declined in recent years.

Soylent Green's question
what specific information makes you believe that the Moon is inhabited?

CancerWarrior's reply
The moon is very anomalous in and of itself.

Well, I'm convinced....

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


Post an example then?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. Alot of heavier elements like Titanium are present in vast quantities on the moons surface, so much so that many geologists have considered these elements were brought to the moons surface in some unknown way.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The moon has been confirmed to be about 5.3 billion years old. how is it older?

Moon rocks are magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. Several of the moon’s craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions.

Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In 1958, Soviet astronomers at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus. They also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region. These observations have proved to be precisely periodical.

The moon is also much less dense than earth , much speculating has been done that the interior of many areas of the moon is hollow, and that the moon has a very light (if existant) core

How does one explain the fact that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Coincidence I suppose.

And don't forget, one side is always facing the earth, no matter where it is relative to orbit. All we are ever going to see is the side facing earth.

I don't see any way these phenomenon are natural in any way.

And as crazy as the moon might be a spaceship (or some other engineered astral body) there is really no data to disprove such a theory. I believe truth really is stranger than fiction many times.

My two cents anyway.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


Thank you for replying with specifics, rather than opinions.

Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. Alot of heavier elements like Titanium are present in vast quantities on the moons surface, so much so that many geologists have considered these elements were brought to the moons surface in some unknown way.

The Moon has no active geology. What lands on the surface stays on the surface. Elements transported by the interplanetary medium lay where they fall.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The moon has been confirmed to be about 5.3 billion years old. how is it older?

In this case, you have simply been misinformed. Lunar rocks are only slightly older than the oldest surviving terrestrial rocks. The active geological processes on Earth tend to "recycle" rocks. Both planets are approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Moon rocks are magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. Several of the moon’s craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions.

Earlier in its history, the Moon did have a magnetic field. Because it is significantly smaller than Earth, the radioactive elements that heated the core, creating the magnetic field, decayed earlier.

Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus. He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region. These observations have proved to be precisely identical and periodical, repeating themselves as the moon moves closer to the Earth.

Transient lunar phenomena (TLPs) have been observed for millennia. What do they have to do with the materiality of the Moon landings?

The moon is also much less dense than earth , speculating that the interior of many areas of it is hollow, and that the moon has a very light (if existant) core

It's not that fluffy!

How does one explain the fact that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Coincidence I suppose.

You suppose correctly. Eventually it will move far enough away that all eclipses will be annular.

And don't forget, one side is always facing the earth, no matter where it is relative to orbit. All we are ever going to see is the side facing earth.

Correct: the Moon is tidally locked to Earth, as most satellites are to their primaries. What does that have to do with the Apollo program?

I don't see any way these phenomenon are natural in any way. Just my opinion.

You are entitled to your religious beliefs. None of the above has anything to do with whether or not human beigns have been to the Moon.

Cancerwarrior
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. Alot of heavier elements like Titanium are present in vast quantities on the moons surface, so much so that many geologists have considered these elements were brought to the moons surface in some unknown way.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The moon has been confirmed to be about 5.3 billion years old. how is it older?

Moon rocks are magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. Several of the moon’s craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions.

Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In 1958, Soviet astronomers at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus. They also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region. These observations have proved to be precisely periodical.

The moon is also much less dense than earth , much speculating has been done that the interior of many areas of the moon is hollow, and that the moon has a very light (if existant) core

How does one explain the fact that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Coincidence I suppose.

And don't forget, one side is always facing the earth, no matter where it is relative to orbit. All we are ever going to see is the side facing earth.

I don't see any way these phenomenon are natural in any way.

And as crazy as the moon might be a spaceship (or some other engineered astral body) there is really no data to disprove such a theory. I believe truth really is stranger than fiction many times.

My two cents anyway.

edit on 10-12-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)

It's not exactly your two cents though is it - it's been regurgitated around the internet for years, for example.

cosmoquest.org...

Ironically, most of the knowledge you're citing there only exists because of Apollo samples or NASA probes like the LRO whose authenticity is doubted.