Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

I'm bored of people propping up nonsense about a Dutch moon rock that never was, so here's something I've been looking at for my own site.

This is a youtube video of the 16mm ascent footage from Apollo 15's lunar module. It is 8 minutes of continuous footage.



There is more than adequate evidence of that the footage confirms features shown in LRO shots of the area as the LM shows the landing and moves on over Hadley Rille, but I want to move on to other areas visible in the footage as it moves towards an orbital reunion with the CSM.

At 3:20+ they pass south of a pair of larger craters, to the south of which is a smaller, fresher ray crater. Here they are:



Here's a perspective and contrasted adjusted view of a still from that Apollo 15 footage compared with Japan's shot of the same features. Before anyone starts whining about image manipulation I'm the one that did the adjusting - feel free to check it for yourself.



And while it's not as high a resolution, China also has an image in which the same details can be matched:



The challenge for anyone out there is to find any photograph from any source that pre-dates the Apollo 15 still that shows the same level of detail. I can save you the effort and tell you that you won't find them because they didn't have any, but you should check anyway.

Just for fun, here's a panoramic camera shot you can explore showing the same area:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

So while turbonium1 et al. get all excited about an imaginary moon rock scandal or radiation data that they just don't have, here is tangible evidence from the mission that is matched not just by LRO images (go check) but confirmed by photographs taken by Chinese and Japanese probes.

It would make sense to give it to Drees...

Drees was the most popular leader ever known in the Netherlands. The public admired him, like no other, and they still loved him long after he had retired.

The people always believed in what he said, as being the truth.

To convince him of the moon landings would convince everyone else, and that's one of the main reasons he would have been given a 'moon rock', I think.

a reply to: turbonium1

To convince him of the moon landings would convince everyone else, and that's one of the main reasons he would have been given a 'moon rock', I think.

Did Drees doubt the landing?
Did any other ranking officials? Did any of them receive personal rocks?

originally posted by: turbonium1
It would make sense to give it to Drees...

it doesnt make sense at all.. since no moon rock was ever given to an individual..

what also doesnt make sense was your belief that it was insured for "millions" and most articles say it was insured for about 308,000.. not exactly what you hyped it up to be.. i bet you feel a bit surprised by that.. the largest "moon rock" brought back from the moon by a large margin only insured for a few hundred thousand.

It was relatively simple to land a man on the moon way back then, but getting close-up images of the 40+ year-old landing sites , well, that is virtually impossible to do!!

Sure, of course...

a reply to: turbonium1

It was relatively simple to land a man on the moon way back then,

False. There was nothing easy about it.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
It would make sense to give it to Drees...

it doesnt make sense at all.. since no moon rock was ever given to an individual..

what also doesnt make sense was your belief that it was insured for "millions" and most articles say it was insured for about 308,000.. not exactly what you hyped it up to be.. i bet you feel a bit surprised by that.. the largest "moon rock" brought back from the moon by a large margin only insured for a few hundred thousand.

Why DID they insure it, though, if they didn't believe it to be valuable?

If they thought it was a 'moon rock', obviously they would have.

What else, then?


I've explained why Dress would be chosen, as well.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

It was relatively simple to land a man on the moon way back then,

False. There was nothing easy about it.

It's not even possible, as yet!

a reply to: turbonium1

It's not even possible, as yet!

Again, false.

a reply to: turbonium1

Maybe because it was displayed to the public in an art museum?? Just maybe??

The museum didn't even confirm it was a moon rock, the closest they got was that a moon rock could be in the country.

But anyway if it was a real moon rock it would probably be the best bargain moon rock in existence given its size, you still surprised that it wasn't insured for millions?? Or just want to ignore it?

a reply to: turbonium1

They did it from lunar orbit then, they have done it from lunar orbit now. I await your proof that this isn't true with the same bored resignation that I usually do.

a reply to: CB328

The moon landings were 100% fake!

However there's credible evidence to suggest that the International space station is also fake. Just do enough research and it becomes pretty obvious. Nasa is simply a black hole budget. A way to steal tax money. It's just one of hundreds of ways the tax money disappears. That's why hardly anything gets spent on real honest projects that would benefit the average people such as bridges roads affordable college educational and many other regular projects in which your seeing a real dollar per dollar value that goes back to the people, and not stollen in exchange for cheap cgi video of space BS. There stealing the money don't you get it?

originally posted by: lavatrance
a reply to: CB328

The moon landings were 100% fake!

No they weren't. Not one single claim by anyone alleging a hoax has ever been proved to have a basis in fact, whereas there is a mountain of evidence supporting the missions as historical fact.

However there's credible evidence to suggest that the International space station is also fake.

What's this then?

Just do enough research and it becomes pretty obvious.

Only if you read websites and watch youtube videos produced by the scientifically illiterate. Why not help us out and supply some credible evidence for us?

Nasa is simply a black hole budget.

That would be why it is constantly having to justify its budget in the face of repeated cuts.

A way to steal tax money. It's just one of hundreds of ways the tax money disappears.

Every dollar is accounted for.

That's why hardly anything gets spent on real honest projects that would benefit the average people such as bridges roads affordable college educational and many other regular projects in which your seeing a real dollar per dollar value that goes back to the people,

I guess all the money spent on research by NASA, and the students it funds, and the people who are employed in their programmes either directly or indirectly aren't average? Doesn't their salary get spent in stores? Don't they pay bills?

Why not produce some figures about your government's expenditure (local, federal and national) on infrastructure and compare it with NASA's budget? Let us know how that goes.

and not stollen in exchange for cheap cgi video of space BS. There stealing the money don't you get it?

You do realise that the US isn't the only country that contributes to the ISS right?

originally posted by: lavatrance
there's credible evidence to suggest that the International space station is also fake. Just do enough research and it becomes pretty obvious.

Actually, the more you research it the more evidence you can gather to prove it is real.

For example, two or more amateur skywatchers (you and a couple of friends) on the ground a few dozens of miles or so apart who are all observing the ISS in the sky can then triangulate the altitude of the ISS. They don't need NASA, the Russian Space agency, or ESA to tell them it is 200 miles up, they can calculate it themselves just by studying where it was visible from each location.

So it has been proven that something is up there 200 miles up, and when amateur astronomers and professional and amateur photographers aim their telescopic cameras at that thing, they can see what it is. And what they see is the ISS.

Nasa is simply a black hole budget. A way to steal tax money. It's just one of hundreds of ways the tax money disappears.

There are hundreds of private companies that supply the hardware, software, and technician manpower to build the rockets, space probes, satellites, and other things NASA does. Those companies build actual things (using actual people) for which they get reimbursed by NASA.

Much of NASA's work goes to contractors -- and those contractors expect to get paid.

Are you telling me that when Boeing or Rocketdyne or Malin Space Systems provides a multi-million dollar rocket stage, camera, or other pieces of hardware that they built to NASA, NASA does not use their appropriated funds to pay them back?

Have they paid Orbital Sciences Corp the money contracted to them for the re-supply missions to the ISS? The people working at Orbital Sciences probably count on the tax money appropriated to NASA to keep Orbital Sciences Corp running. They can't build and send a multi-million dollar spacecraft to the ISS without NASA paying them for it if they want to stay in business.

Lunar Shelter: Moon Caves Could Protect Astronauts......Radiation from the sun, galactic cosmic rays and constantly falling micrometeorites all present a threat to human explorers.....

www.space.com...

How come this wasn't a problem fifty years ago ?

originally posted by: Ove38
Lunar Shelter: Moon Caves Could Protect Astronauts......Radiation from the sun, galactic cosmic rays and constantly falling micrometeorites all present a threat to human explorers.....

www.space.com...

How come this wasn't a problem fifty years ago ?

Gee do you think this might just be for long stay missions, or permanent habitation, rather than the few days the Apollo missions were there?

Do you think you might just be deliberately misrepresenting the intent of the article to make a feeble point?

big muley is proof

100% proof

it's too big to pick up with a probe, it must have been a human

big muley

Lunar Sample 61016, better known as "Big Muley", is a lunar sample discovered and collected on the Apollo 16 mission in 1972 in the Descartes Highlands, on the rim of Plum crater, near Flag crater. It is the largest sample returned from the Moon as part of the Apollo program. The rock, an 11.7 kg (26 lb)[1] breccia consisting mainly of shocked anorthosite attached to a fragment of troctolitic "melt rock", is named after Bill Muehlberger, the Apollo 16 field geology team leader.[2][3] Big Muley is currently stored at the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. Description Big Muley was discovered on the eastern rim of Plum Crater (Station 1) in the Descartes highlands of the Moon. The rock's cosmic ray exposure age was discovered to be about 1.8 million years, linking it to ejecta, or debris, from the impact that formed South Ray crater, to the south of the Apollo 16 landing site.[2] The rock's age has been estimated since 1980 to be approximately 3.97 ± 0.25 billion years. The rock was highly shocked at some point in its history, as indicated by the fact that most of the rock's plagioclase content was converted to maskelynite and/or plagioclase glass.[2]

its quite simple really

the icing on the cake are the Baysinger and Kamiksy observations

link to 3rd party evidence

Apollo 11 Main article: Apollo 11 The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[15] A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–359. At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[16] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[17] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[18] Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[19] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[15][20]

how is this still a thing ?

originally posted by: syrinx high priest


how is this still a thing ?

Because despite all of our advances in science and technology, there's still no cure for stupid.

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
big muley is proof

100% proof

it's too big to pick up with a probe, it must have been a human

big muley

You don't think it could be from Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa ?

new.meteoris.de...

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
big muley is proof

100% proof

it's too big to pick up with a probe, it must have been a human

big muley

You don't think it could be from Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa ?

new.meteoris.de...

because all the detail put into HERE show that it lost mass as it was scorched travelling through earths atmosphere.