Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Batousai
One thing is for sure, the videos and pictures nashuh released are fake they only convince those that want them to be real.

"Nashuh" also say that Earth revolves around the sun..

those dirty government types.. everybody on earth can see clearly during the day that the sun moves in the sky so clearly, those guberment peoples must be lying when they try to tell us that the earth revolves around the sun..

so for sure, the photos and images showing the earth revolving around the sun are all faked to convince those that want them to be realz.

It's threads like this that could cause me to set a new policy to disallow new topics on this subject... in the same way we disallow new topics that suggest there were no planes on 9/11. This thread, collectively, makes ATS appear more stupid.

a reply to: Batousai

I don't get it. You obviously have strong devotion to your faith that the moon landings were faked, but you honestly can't expect us to take your word on it just because you have a strong feeling. There are mountains of evidence that contradict your beliefs but surely you have evidence that has lead you to believe what you believe. Would you mine sharing this evidence with the forum so it can be discussed?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
It's threads like this that could cause me to set a new policy to disallow new topics on this subject... in the same way we disallow new topics that suggest there were no planes on 9/11. This thread, collectively, makes ATS appear more stupid.

Oh that would certainly make my day!

To me it would mean the collective IQ of ATS would jump up.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
It's threads like this that could cause me to set a new policy to disallow new topics on this subject... in the same way we disallow new topics that suggest there were no planes on 9/11. This thread, collectively, makes ATS appear more stupid.

I don't like the idea of making a topic "off limits," but I do think you should consider certain ground rules. For example, rather than allow people to offer a simple opinion, they must back their opinion up with specific facts, and link to a source for those fact to be verified. For example:

"They just look fake. Don't tell me they're real. Everything was faked." Would not be allowed because it is not specific and offers no support. On the other hand, something like:

"During the in-flight interview on Apollo 15 (Youtube link) at 5:15 you can clearly see...." Would be allowed because everyone could examine the material the poster finds suspicious and offer technical explanations if necessary.

Needless to say, T&C concerning decorum should be vigorously enforced.

a reply to: DJW001

While I understand SkepticOverlord's point I am with you in this.

There is a breed of what I call 'knee jerk denialist' adherents that seems to think that all they need to do is go "Yeah you're stupid it's all fake" on whatever subject, demand that you provide evidence to support your point of view but offer nothing but "Yeah right, whatever" in response. It's annoying, it's counter=productive and deters people from joining in the discussion. "You're wrong because..." is acceptable. "You're wrong" is not.

I think threads on any topic should be allowed, but perhaps restricted to specific claims that can be discussed, rather than the broader free ranging ones that end up going round in circles, and where people can hide from providing answers by burying posts that are inconvenient to their point of view with waffle, diversion, goalpost moving and obfuscation.

Once a point has been proven either way, the topic should be done with and not be allowed to degenerate into 'he said she said' mudslinging.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
It's threads like this that could cause me to set a new policy to disallow new topics on this subject... in the same way we disallow new topics that suggest there were no planes on 9/11. This thread, collectively, makes ATS appear more stupid.

Let´s say : I'm very sceptic about this writing overlord ?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Batousai

some of these guys on here are upset that there are people in the world not sharing in their science fiction government induced fantasy

Nope... some of us are asking ourselves how educational system can fail so badly that there are people out there who don't know basic physics. You, on the other hand, seem determined to ridicule anyone who does not share in your ignorance. Why is that? Religion?

And you likewise ridicule anyone that does not share in your star wars fantasy.

a reply to: Batousai

Where do I ridicule you? If anything, I have expressed pity for your ignorance.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Batousai

Where do I ridicule you? If anything, I have expressed pity for your ignorance.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The Japaneses are 100% convinced with their SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected. They were able to recreate the lunar terrain in the photographs to within 10m with the same angles and advantage point of where the pictures were taken. What this means is the lunar lander was there on the moon and not on some Hollywood set.

Here is NASA's picture below

Here is the Japanese SELENE terrain camera picture.

There is no way NASA would have created that back ground without it actually being the real moon.

China and India have also confirmed the landings with their orbiters, and it is not too hard to see the tracks made in all decent pictures, though as you say, close ups of the equipment is not there other than visual marks, maybe with China's 1.3m, but they do not typically release their stuff.

You must realize that I'm referring to the Apollo 15 LM, right?

Avoiding it won't work, so let's try and deal with it, okay?...

I'm referring to the specific claim that the Apollo 15 LM created an area of disturbed soil on the lunar surface when it landed, matching to the exact spot shown in all the images taken later on, from lunar orbit (ie: LRO, SELENE)...

It is NOT SEEN IN ANY OF THE APOLLO SURFACE IMAGES, in fact!

Such a disturbance is so distinct from the surrounding area, it can even be identified from 50 km above the ground, in orbit...

The area does not exist in any Apollo surface images, which proves the Apollo images were faked.

If not, then LRO, SELENE were faked....and shows that they are utter morons....

They were not utter morons, of course...


So, this would mean it is a genuine physical feature, on the lunar surface...

This feature is located at the exact same spot where the Apollo 15 LM landed, which caused the disturbance of soil...

That disturbance would be MORE obvious to see from the surface... not become totally invisible!!

If it was too large an area to identify from close range, then you'd have a point about not being seen at ground level, while seeing it from 50 km up, in orbit.

But this is not the case here, as we know...the area is small, and we can clearly see the outlying area, beyond it, in many Apollo images. The surface is unchanged, from close range (1-2 feet away from the LM), going out for hundreds of feet, it never changes at any point...


The area described is a real, physical feature, on the lunar surface. It is distinct from the surface beyond it, which is surrounding it.

Apollo images all show a very uniform surface, which proves it was done on a 'moon stage set'..











.

a reply to: turbonium1

You missed out India:

www.currentscience.ac.in...

If you read the paper carefully you see that the halo from the engine burn covers an area a couple of hundred metres wide.

Why would you think this would be visible in photographs taken from ground level?

Please explain your reasoning with maths and examples.

You can also make out in one of the images the disturbed ground around the LM.

And just in case you're doubting that it's the same area, here is an image from that paper compare with the same spot on Google Moon, over which I have overlain an Apollo 15 LRO shot.



Do feel free to replicate the exercise, or provide any kind of proof that either the LRO or Indian image is somehow incorrect.

I hadn't spotted that area of disturbed ground until you turbonium's post made me look again, so now India's mapping camera has confirmed disturbed ground from human activity on Apollo 14, 15 and 16.

...and what is even more interesting is if you look at Kaguya's data about the engine burn halo.

Here's the same image I posted above, this time with Japan's data alongside it



Not only can you make out the same area of disturbed ground around the LM, but you can also make out the trail north-west towards the ALSEP

Japan's image is from this paper:

global.jaxa.jp...

originally posted by: CB328
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.

The moon missions weren't faked. Not even one of them was.
One of the big dishes in Australia was homed and locked on it and tracking it as sky based all the way there as were others. Radio communications confirmed the location of the craft all the way there and back, and those radio signals were shown to be coming from the moon, not from some bounce at Disney studios.
Even Just radio astronomy stations could see that, and they reported about it on all the TV channels. And even in documentaries refuting moon hoax theories, just that alone squashes a hoax scenario into the dust.

Some of those hoax documentaries sound really convincing, and what they said was all plausible in theory, but in truth it just didn't match up with all the facts.

And in answer to number 10:
The moons gravity is 1/6 of earth? So it didn't need all that Saturn 5 fuel for a return trip.

I remember during I think Apollo 14 when the module in the moons orbit was passing over an area, there was a chimney like stack protruding a mile above the moons surface which EVERYONE saw on television including the Russians, and that pipe or whatever let out a puff of smoke just as the module was getting nearer and you could see the vapor cloud that came out and drifted away on national television.

Everyone saw it. I saw it live TV. Then they tried to play it off . That is the only hoax I saw, was trying to say that was not a smoke stack by NASA, but everyone knew exactly then that there was other activity on the moon.
It has never been legitimately debunked.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

The Soviet Union, bitter enemies of the US, monitored the communications coming from the moon, and confirmed the success of the Apollo 11 mission.

The USSR and the US were bitter enemies at the time.

But, the USSR realized their bitter enemy had actually landed a man on the moon before them. And, because the USSR knew their bitter enemy landed a man on the moon first, they wanted to confirm the success of their bitter enemy, and they did so.

This is quite common, among bitter enemies..of course..

First, one side will see if an enemy is lying about some great triumph, and if they can prove to the world their enemy is lying about it, they will immediately expose them to the world, as liars.

However, if they do not find their bitter enemy is lying about their great triumph, they will confirm the success of their evil nemesis.

This is how the USSR waged a war of propaganda against their arch-enemy, America. The Soviets investigated the triumphs in their 'Cold War', being claimed by the enemy. If the USSR found the facts checked out, they confirmed it was a success, of their evil foe, to the world.


Sheesh, are you joking?

Apollo 17 LEM take off.

The LEM is swaying! Exactly like a heavy object might sway slightly when, for instance, it's being hoisted aloft at speed on an invisible wire?

Dunno guys, just throwing it out there.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

You missed out India:

www.currentscience.ac.in...

If you read the paper carefully you see that the halo from the engine burn covers an area a couple of hundred metres wide.

Why would you think this would be visible in photographs taken from ground level?

Please explain your reasoning with maths and examples.

You can also make out in one of the images the disturbed ground around the LM.

The reason I knew the approximate size of this 'halo' was about 50 meters long, and maybe 30 to 40 meters wide, is because they later added a scale - a '150 meter' line - along the bottom of this image....

So their image showed that the Apollo 15 LM 'halo' was about 50 meters by 30-40 meters, in size.

And the Apollo-ites had to make up ridiculous excuses for why it isn't found anywhere in Apollo surface images. It was 'subtle and diffuse'. You accused me of making that all up, and I proved you wrong.

I am not making any of this up, but you can check out the link I gave you earlier, if you wish...


Since that time, I can see that they have obviously changed their story, which fits in with the Apollo images, showing no disturbance at all...


They made a claim, and even included a scale, to measure the approximate size of the LM's 'halo'.

A few years later, they change their claim, the halo is massive in size, not at all small, and the scale we put in is totally worthless pseudo-science.

So why would anyone believe them, now?


Because you can use it as an excuse, and happily go on, reassured in your storybook tale, which is only found within the magical Apollo-land.

a reply to: turbonium1

Can you see the pattern of a crop circle when you are standing in it? Or do you just see flattened grass?

Apollo is built on a house of cards, and it falls apart, and built up again, replacing all the old, dead cards, and sometimes adding newborn cards, if the need be...

The flag was only waving when it was twisted, and that's the excuse, for all of the waving flags...

But then a flag waved when nobody held it, or touched it.

Well, that is due to static electricity, caused by that passing astronaut!!

This can only happen because they are on the moon, not here on Earth. So you'll just have to take our word for it.

And that (somehow!) is proclaimed as being 'thoroughly refuted', while the Apollo fantasy is all fine and dandy, once again...