Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

One of the most compelling conspiracies to me is the Apollo Moon Missions. I have seen a lot of information on different theories of how or why they could be fake and here is my take on it. Granted some of these are circumstantial or opinonated, but as they say where there's smoke there's fire and with this much smoke there has to be a fire somewhere.

1. Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
www.reuters.com...

Lost and then recreated. Sorry, that's suspicious to me.

2. NASA Has Lost Hundreds of Its Moon Rocks, New Report Says
www.space.com...

3. Why would they lose moon rocks? Maybe because they're fake?

Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
www.telegraph.co.uk...

4. Nasa didn't provide a feed of moon landing video, the news media had to film it from a TV screen! This is very suspicious to me, very controlling.
www.apfn.org...

5. There are no flaws in the moon pictures. Going through radiation, heat and subzero temperatures yet the film all made it back in pristine condition? There aren't even some blurry pictures that you might expect. Extremely suspicious.

www.apfn.org...

6. Dangerous stunts on the moon. Golfing, running, jumping on the moon? If you traveled to one of the deadliest places in the universe and the only thing keeping you alive was some layers of cloth and a helmet would you risk instant death by cavorting around like a 12 year old? Or a slower death by using up your oxygen? Not to mention most of the astronauts were ex military people who would be more serious and methodical than acting like buffoons.

7. Astronauts differing accounts of viewing stars from the moon.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

8. Strange moon pictures. I am not a photographic expert, but it sure looks to me like the background and foreground on many of the pictures are two different pictures spliced together, or made with a backdrop, like Stanley Kubric is famous for using in 2001 a Space Odessey. In this picture you have the foreground, then you have a mountain in the background that looks like it was filmed from 50 or 100 miles away. Maybe it was, filmed from a probe and then that photo used as a backdrop in a studio?

www.google.com... korea.co.kr%2Farticle%2F2295%2Fspace-exploration-korean-government-aiming-launch-its-own-space-vehicles-2020&ei=td28Ve33INC2ogSQw7qYBQ&bvm=bv.99261572 ,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNERhRjC09ETpFNfWigoV14p4z0W3w&ust=1438527290960423

9. Disney has a giant moon surface set that the descent could have been filmed with. The capsule descent footage sure looks like a model to me. I can't find a link to this but I saw a video once of the huge moonscape with a camera boom in front of it for filming moon footage.

10. How did they travel at thousands of miles an hour to reach the moon, then slow down enough so that they could descend and land without flipping over, then after redocking speed back up to get back to earth in the same amount of time as the trip out when they had a giant Saturn rocket to get the up to speed?

[snipped]

a reply to: CB328

The first moonlanding or all of them?

And yet decades later, not one of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who were involved with the moon landings has ever come forward to say they were faked.

People are such good secret keepers.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
And yet decades later, not one of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who were involved with the moon landings has ever come forward to say they were faked.

People are such good secret keepers.

Not to mention the other nations like Russia who were watching every minute of the landings would have been the first ones to scream fake.

There's a reason for that, only a few knew they were fake. One of the films made about this discussed how NASA had a satellite that could send "fake" telemetry data to Houston for training, then supposedly it died before the moon missions. If they were faked then they could have used this satellite to send most of the data for the mission.

a reply to: buster2010

I thought the same thing. They Russians would have loved to make fools of the capitalists.

a reply to: CB328

So all the astronauts are in on it. Senior staff at NASA. Members of the scientific and medical communities.

Other countries that were either involved in or watching the space race.

Not to mention the people who supposedly filmed the fake landings.

Still seems like an awful lot of people.

We faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident and no one admitted it until a few years ago.

a reply to: CB328

But you left out the most conclusive piece of evidence for the landing being faked...
The U.S. Flag flapping around in the breeze!!

*ROLLS EYES UNTIL HEAD EXPLODES*

Might as well just say the Moon is fake, so therefore impossible to go there

May I direct you to a tool known as google, it's great, full of information including photos. Just search "moon landing photos from earth".

You can literally SEE the tire tracks, parts from the lunar module, etc.

originally posted by: CB328
One of the most compelling conspiracies to me is the Apollo Moon Missions. I have seen a lot of information on different theories of how or why they could be fake and here is my take on it. Granted some of these are circumstantial or opinonated, but as they say where there's smoke there's fire and with this much smoke there has to be a fire somewhere.

1. Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
www.reuters.com...

Lost and then recreated. Sorry, that's suspicious to me.

2. NASA Has Lost Hundreds of Its Moon Rocks, New Report Says
www.space.com...

3. Why would they lose moon rocks? Maybe because they're fake?

Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
www.telegraph.co.uk...

4. Nasa didn't provide a feed of moon landing video, the news media had to film it from a TV screen! This is very suspicious to me, very controlling.
www.apfn.org...

5. There are no flaws in the moon pictures. Going through radiation, heat and subzero temperatures yet the film all made it back in pristine condition? There aren't even some blurry pictures that you might expect. Extremely suspicious.

www.apfn.org...

6. Dangerous stunts on the moon. Golfing, running, jumping on the moon? If you traveled to one of the deadliest places in the universe and the only thing keeping you alive was some layers of cloth and a helmet would you risk instant death by cavorting around like a 12 year old? Or a slower death by using up your oxygen? Not to mention most of the astronauts were ex military people who would be more serious and methodical than acting like buffoons.

7. Astronauts differing accounts of viewing stars from the moon.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

8. Strange moon pictures. I am not a photographic expert, but it sure looks to me like the background and foreground on many of the pictures are two different pictures spliced together, or made with a backdrop, like Stanley Kubric is famous for using in 2001 a Space Odessey. In this picture you have the foreground, then you have a mountain in the background that looks like it was filmed from 50 or 100 miles away. Maybe it was, filmed from a probe and then that photo used as a backdrop in a studio?

www.google.com... korea.co.kr%2Farticle%2F2295%2Fspace-exploration-korean-government-aiming-launch-its-own-space-vehicles-2020&ei=td28Ve33INC2ogSQw7qYBQ&bvm=bv.99261572 ,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNERhRjC09ETpFNfWigoV14p4z0W3w&ust=1438527290960423

9. Disney has a giant moon surface set that the descent could have been filmed with. The capsule descent footage sure looks like a model to me. I can't find a link to this but I saw a video once of the huge moonscape with a camera boom in front of it for filming moon footage.

10. How did they travel at thousands of miles an hour to reach the moon, then slow down enough so that they could descend and land without flipping over, then after redocking speed back up to get back to earth in the same amount of time as the trip out when they had a giant Saturn rocket to get the up to speed?

11. My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick’s Widow. You have to admit that the scene where they go to the moon to see the obelisk looks alot like the moon landing pictures.

______beforeitsnews/alternative/2013/12/my-husband-directed-the-fake-moon-landing-says-stanley-kubricks-widow-2838414.html

So...how do you explain the flag and rover and all the stuff still sitting on the moon that have been photographed by amateurs with high power camera equipment over the years?

These "we didn't land on the moon" threads are hilarious sometimes.

Anywho, if you research a bit, and not use before it's news as one of your research sites, your questions may all be answered.

I will state a few of the obvious....moonrocks disappear because people, by nature, want what they can't have....they were likely stolen over the years.

Why would one or two pics be messed up out off all the pics if they were all transported back in the same manner?

The traveled fast in stages then started orbiting the moon, then used a lander to come down. They didn't need a Saturn rocket to leave orbit as they didn't have the gravitational issues they have on earth....this one is an eye roller to me....please research this for yourself.

I wouldn't call their "stunts" dangerous at all. Do military officers not play golf or run or jump ever? Please....silly at best.

Anywho...simple research on REAL sites will answer your questions.

Why would one or two pics be messed up out off all the pics if they were all transported back in the same manner?

Maybe you're not old enough to have experience with film, but just about every roll has some messed up pictures in it. If nothing else because the film usually doesn't fit exactly into a discrete number of pictures, so you get pictures cut in half or two thirds.

How could you take a picture of a foot or two wide tire track 500,000 miles away through our atmosphere? I'm pretty sure that's impossible. Just to shoot a laser through the atmosphere requires very high tech adaptive optics because of atmospheric distortion, so I don't buy it that an expensive camera could do that.

So, apparently the capsule was going about 2100 miles per hour when they got to the moon (3800 feet per second).

history.nasa.gov...

How can you slow the lander down from two thousand miles an hour with no atmosphere so that you don't crash, and then get it back up to 2100 mph after take off for docking? If you don't reach 2100 mph again then you'll be obliterated when redocking. Even at 1/6 gravity that would still take a hell of a lot of fuel which I seriously doubt they could fit in that lander.

originally posted by: CB328

Why would one or two pics be messed up out off all the pics if they were all transported back in the same manner?

Maybe you're not old enough to have experience with film, but just about every roll has some messed up pictures in it. If nothing else because the film usually doesn't fit exactly into a discrete number of pictures, so you get pictures cut in half or two thirds.

How could you take a picture of a foot or two wide tire track 500,000 miles away through our atmosphere? I'm pretty sure that's impossible. Just to shoot a laser through the atmosphere requires very high tech adaptive optics because of atmospheric distortion, so I don't buy it that an expensive camera could do that.

500,000 thousand miles away? Whose moon are you talking about?

Oops, a quarter of a million miles. At any rate, way to far for a closeup shot.

So, not only are NASA fraudulent, but the amateur astronomical photography field are in on it too?

a reply to: CB328

There ARE recent pictures of the various landing sites from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, though.

I just looked up the escape velocity of the moon and if my math is right 2.4 kilometers per second equals about 5000 miles per hour that the lander would have to get up to to escape the moon en.wikipedia.org...

Then they would have to fire more fuel to slow down to 2000 miles per hour for redocking with the capsule in orbit. Add that to the fuel they used to slow down and position for landing and that's probably to much fuel for that lander to carry.

a reply to: CB328

I've seen a theory posted that the landing was real but the pictures and transmissions were faked due to what was found. Who knows. I suspect if any of the conspiracies are true we would never know anyway.