NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

a reply to: stargatetravels

That makes sense !

Hype up the whole world for a live event ... Absolutely nail it !!!

( Best schist to happen since - nothing bigger - ever !)

And then fake it all later ... don't mind the Russians, or were they in on it as well ... !???

C'mon - surely our focus should be in our current climate, although I do appreciate the way it was ...

a reply to: uktorah

Just because something can be understood, doesn't make it fact. Many of us come here because we do understand what we've been told, it's just that we often question the 'facts' behind it.

So if you understand Newton's laws of gravitation and can do the calculations that can predict how long an object will take to fall a certain distance, and you drop an object and it falls in the predicted time, it is not necessarily a fact? Please explain.

Also, my comment "and off we go" is because there are a few arguments that get repeated ad nauseum on these threads, usually by exactly the same people who have seen them debunked on other threads before. It is why I have suggested a dedicated forum for this topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

People interested in making a specific argument can simply peruse the titles of the threads in the forum and join the appropriate discussion.

As for BB code, you will find useful pointers here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I usually copy-paste a comment I want to reply to, then use open-bracket-quote-close-bracket copied text open-bracket-slash-quote-open-bracket-slash-quote-close-bracket. This allows you to break the quote up into smaller portions that you can respond to directly.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: uktorah
a reply to: nerbot

WE' never went to the moon, someone else allegedly did so you have no first hand evidence to back up a claim like that and there is no question the videos are real, the question is where were they taken.

Here ?
library.nau.edu...
www.theatlantic.com...

The training areas they created at Cinder Lake are replicas of lunar orbiter photographs of one of the planned landing areas, except they didn't actually land there. There are no pre-Apollo photographs of the moon that show the features you can see in the Apollo photos, 16mm and TV footage.

If you want to do something dangerous and difficult, it's a good idea to train for it.

From www.smithsonianmag.com...
"Cinder Lake, located 12 miles from Flagstaff, Arizona, offered the Astrogeology Research Program the perfect location for a lunar analogue, a portion of Earth used to simulate lunar geology and topography. The area is covered in basaltic cinders from a volcanic explosion that took place around 1064—meaning it's covered in much of the same material as the Mare Tranquillitatis, chosen as the landing site for the Apollo 11 mission. Using satellite photographs of the Mare Tranquillitatis, engineers and scientists from the USGS's Astrogeology branch set about recreating lunar craters at Cinder Lake."

What a waste of time & money. They use deep pools now don't they?

all i know is i don't know, for 100% certain, whether or not man walked on the moon. there are endless arguments supporting both 'yes' and 'no' scenarios. maybe parts of the official history are real, others not. maybe some but not all moon footage was faked. who knows? but it's always an interesting and contentious debate.

a reply to: uktorah

So you don't think it's a good idea to see how equipment you've developed works in a similar environment to the one in which it is intended to be used? Would you think it more sensible just to set off and cross your fingers in the hope everything will be OK?

The also used large pools during Gemini and Apollo for neutral bouyancy training. Was that a waste of time and money?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: uktorah

Just because something can be understood, doesn't make it fact. Many of us come here because we do understand what we've been told, it's just that we often question the 'facts' behind it.

So if you understand Newton's laws of gravitation and can do the calculations that can predict how long an object will take to fall a certain distance, and you drop an object and it falls in the predicted time, it is not necessarily a fact? Please explain.

This is an experiment which can be tested by anyone (with the right tools), unlike landing on the moon. That's why some of us research what we can about a subject before we make our minds up. If everyone believed everything they were told (or taught), maybe Copernicus wouldn't have discovered that the sun doesn't orbit the earth.

Also, my comment "and off we go" is because there are a few arguments that get repeated ad nauseum on these threads, usually by exactly the same people who have seen them debunked on other threads before. It is why I have suggested a dedicated forum for this topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're so sick of these 'debunked' arguments that you bother joining in yet another moon thread? And if they were debunked completely, we wouldn't have this thread in the first place. The Moon Landing forum would be a good idea if you could force yourself to post there without getting nauseous.

What it boils down to is people who believe will always believe. Others will always question.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: uktorah

So you don't think it's a good idea to see how equipment you've developed works in a similar environment to the one in which it is intended to be used? Would you think it more sensible just to set off and cross your fingers in the hope everything will be OK?

The also used large pools during Gemini and Apollo for neutral bouyancy training. Was that a waste of time and money?

I checked the area on google map and it looks to be overgrown / built on. That's all I meant. Obviously the pools are a good idea for weightlessness (i.e. achievable space station training).

a reply to: uktorah

This is an experiment which can be tested by anyone (with the right tools), unlike landing on the moon. That's why some of us research what we can about a subject before we make our minds up. If everyone believed everything they were told (or taught), maybe Copernicus wouldn't have discovered that the sun doesn't orbit the earth.

A false analogy. The Moon landings were not an "experiment"that needs to be replicated, they were an historical event, and the rules of scientific historical investigation apply. This means evaluating the physical artifacts and documentation. The space program must be one of the best documented series of events in history. There are uncounted millions that can testify to various phases of it. The physical evidence is overwhelming as well.

Apollo Denialists put themselves in the same position as people trying to prove that D-Day was a hoax. Their arguments? It had never been done before. The films and pictures don't look right. Movie studios have costumes and prop guns matching the ones in the alleged newsreels. Hollywood directors like John Ford are known to have been involved. Steven Spielberg was able to duplicate it, proving the special effects capacity exists. All the veterans who claim to have been there are liars, have been hypnotized, or have had their lives and families threatened.

You're so sick of these 'debunked' arguments that you bother joining in yet another moon thread?

I welcome any opportunity to educate; it is only when a thread deteriorates into name calling that it gets tedious.

And if they were debunked completely, we wouldn't have this thread in the first place.

It doesn't matter how many times some arguments get debunked completely, there are going to be blind believers who refuse to accept the truth.

The Moon Landing forum would be a good idea if you could force yourself to post there without getting nauseous.

I wouldn't get nauseated if people engaged in actual dialogue.

What it boils down to is people who believe will always believe. Others will always question.

Exactly! And believers will never stop believing, even when their questions get answered!

originally posted by: uktorah
What it boils down to is people who believe will always believe. Others will always question.

The problem you have is that you are assuming that by questioning something it automatically invalidates one of the answers.

Asking questions means accepting the right answer, not ignoring the one you don't like in favour of one that is stupid and flies in the face of verifiable facts.

You also seem to be assuming that everyone who disagrees with your point of view is blindly accepting some 'official' version without ever looking at it carefully and examining all the facts. Some of us spend a lot of time and effort researching the Apollo missions and I for one have spend many years looking at evidence that proves we went, as well as collecting contemporary photographs and documents rather than rely on electronic copies.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: uktorah

This is an experiment which can be tested by anyone (with the right tools), unlike landing on the moon. That's why some of us research what we can about a subject before we make our minds up. If everyone believed everything they were told (or taught), maybe Copernicus wouldn't have discovered that the sun doesn't orbit the earth.

A false analogy. The Moon landings were not an "experiment"that needs to be replicated, they were an historical event, and the rules of scientific historical investigation apply. This means evaluating the physical artifacts and documentation. The space program must be one of the best documented series of events in history. There are uncounted millions that can testify to various phases of it. The physical evidence is overwhelming as well.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was merely stating a fact that one can be tested, the other can't.

Apollo Denialists put themselves in the same position as people trying to prove that D-Day was a hoax. Their arguments? It had never been done before. The films and pictures don't look right. Movie studios have costumes and prop guns matching the ones in the alleged newsreels. Hollywood directors like John Ford are known to have been involved. Steven Spielberg was able to duplicate it, proving the special effects capacity exists. All the veterans who claim to have been there are liars, have been hypnotized, or have had their lives and families threatened.

The moon landing videos were controlled by a single agency with a point to prove. First nation to be seen to land there would become the most powerful. At least that's one thing we can agree did happen to some degree.
Why would people who question (or want to know more about) the moon landings also believe D-Day didn't happen?
Special effects have been around since 1895 so imagine what could be done in the 60's.

You're so sick of these 'debunked' arguments that you bother joining in yet another moon thread?

I welcome any opportunity to educate; it is only when a thread deteriorates into name calling that it gets tedious.

'...to educate.' Strange choice of words. It suggests you believe what you're typing in this thread is the unquestionable truth. Without unquestionable facts, you're not going to educate anyone.

And if they were debunked completely, we wouldn't have this thread in the first place.

It doesn't matter how many times some arguments get debunked completely, there are going to be blind believers who refuse to accept the truth.

You're the one that believes in the moon landings. I'm the one (with a few million others) arguing that what we're told isn't always the truth. Your version of the 'truth' is just an un-proven opinion.

The Moon Landing forum would be a good idea if you could force yourself to post there without getting nauseous.

I wouldn't get nauseated if people engaged in actual dialogue.

From the Oxford English Dictionary : Dialogue. A discussion between two or more people or groups, especially one directed toward exploration of a particular subject or resolution of a problem.

What it boils down to is people who believe will always believe. Others will always question.

Exactly! And believers will never stop believing, even when their questions get answered!

When my (and the others who think there's something not right with the moon landing videos) questions have been answered, then I'll start believing. So far, the answers just create more questions.

a reply to: uktorah

I wasn't making an analogy. I was merely stating a fact that one can be tested, the other can't.

But the other can be confirmed or falsified by future discoveries. As it is, there is a great deal of evidence from non-NASA space probes that the historical record is accurate. You are ignoring my point that one is a physical law, the other an historical event, and the standards for confirmation are different.

The moon landing videos were controlled by a single agency with a point to prove. First nation to be seen to land there would become the most powerful. At least that's one thing we can agree did happen to some degree.

Why do you keep emphasizing the videos? There were actual physical spacecraft that were launched in front of millions of witnesses. The spacecraft were tracked all the way to the Moon by many nations. The videos were actually received by an Australian facility! Remember, there was a Cold War going on. It was in the Soviet Union's best interest to reveal the hoax if they could. Even if they somehow agreed not to, there were many dissident groups in the United States and Europe, including academics like the Union of Concerned Scientists who would have exposed it for their own ends.

Why would people who question (or want to know more about) the moon landings also believe D-Day didn't happen?

Because the arguments are identical. If you are going to question everything, question everything. If you think the Moon Landings were faked, you have to admit that D-Day could have been faked, too, for exactly the same reasons. Why reject one and accept the other?

Special effects have been around since 1895 so imagine what could be done in the 60's.

I don't have to imagine; I was around at the time. They were primitive.

'...to educate.' Strange choice of words. It suggests you believe what you're typing in this thread is the unquestionable truth. Without unquestionable facts, you're not going to educate anyone.

Just because you question something does not mean it's not true. For example, you can question whether or not the sky is blue.

You're the one that believes in the moon landings.

I'm the one who understands how historical inquiry leads to the establishment of historical facts. The evidence is overwhelming.

I'm the one (with a few million others) arguing that what we're told isn't always the truth.

Believe me, I know that what we are told is not always truth; that is why I use critical thinking and investigative techniques to establish facts and probabilities, rather than wrapping myself in ignorance and claiming that everything is just a matter of opinion.

Your version of the 'truth' is just an un-proven opinion.

Like that. Educate yourself if you refuse to listen to people who want to help you.

From the Oxford English Dictionary : Dialogue. A discussion between two or more people or groups, especially one directed toward exploration of a particular subject or resolution of a problem.

Correct. Just repeating "that's just your opinion" doesn't make for sparkling dialogue, does it?

When my (and the others who think there's something not right with the moon landing videos) questions have been answered, then I'll start believing. So far, the answers just create more questions.

Good, now be more specific, keep an open mind, and pay attention to the answers, please.

originally posted by: uktorah
You're the one that believes in the moon landings. I'm the one (with a few million others) arguing that what we're told isn't always the truth. Your version of the 'truth' is just an un-proven opinion.

I think I may also speak for others when I say that believe in the Moon landings not because I was told to believe in them, but rather because I have used critical thought and my understanding of nature, technology, and science to be able to accept the evidence that we really did go to the Moon.

"Blindly believing" can go both ways. There are probably people who believe we did NOT go to the moon because they read some hoax theory or saw some video on the subject, and they blindly believed what they were told without actually trying to confirm (by using critical thought and an understanding of nature, technology, and science) if the hoax evidence presented by the hoax theorists holds up under scrutiny.

I know that the evidence that we DID go to the moon holds up under critical scrutiny, but I can't say the same for the so-called evidence claimed by hoax believers.


You are making it sound as if the people who believe we went to the Moon are just blindly accepting that fact due to "TPTB" telling them to -- while conversely the hoax believers are the only ones who applied critical thought to the question of "did we go?". In reality, your assessment of many of the people who believe we DID go to the Moon as just being 'blind believers who toe the party line" is simply untrue.

a reply to: stargatetravels

Just because there is stuff on the moon left by astronauts etc does not mean it was left at the time we are told it was left.

And yet it was...unless you can prove otherwise.

There are theories we went to the moon earlier than we're told and we certainly could have gone there later.

Exactly just theories.

Do you think it could have happened with no other country knowing we went their before and even after the Apollo programs ended?

You don't just launch a rocket in those days without other countries knowing...especially Russia at the time.

We could have faked the footage in case of encounters or accidents or whatever, played the fake footage as if it were real and the gone to the moon months or years later.

And yet we didn't.

I'm not saying I actually think this just that because there are remains and artefacts on the moon, doesn't mean it happened how and when we are told.

And yet there is nothing to prove we didn't do it when we said.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: centarix
You can't take an Apollo style trajectory and get to anywhere in space. If they're going on the asteroid mission that NASA has planned they have to take a trajectory that points them towards the asteroid. They can't start out towards the moon and suddenly turn after they're through the belts. They couldn't carry enough fuel to do it.

What is your source for the Apollo trajectory? I found Popular Science and another website have posted this as the Apollo trajectory:

Is the curve in the above image what you accept to be the Apollo trajectory?

a reply to: centarix



Van Allen Belts:

a reply to: centarix

That's pretty close. Well out of the equatorial region where the highest flux levels are. And the transit time was short.
Here's a 3D look. Makes it easier to visualize.



www.braeunig.us...

The moon landing is real because you saw it on TV.

You talked about it with your friends and family.

It was your culture, your identity, your national pride, the honey sweet sugar in your American Pie and then... someone told you it never happened.

Then you derped, and you've been derping ever since.

Objectivity is a luxury you cannot afford.

a reply to: misterz

The Moon landing is not real because you are hundreds of times smarter than every scientist and engineer on Earth. Let us know when you have a working warp drive.

a reply to: centarix

ADDITION TO OP:
Summary of points I found most interesting from the following Youtube Video:


0:11:03 Apollo 16 TV footage shows a "jumping salute" to the American flag with a triangle flap that is quite "bouncy" moving from a state of up to down without a good explanation in the laws of physics outside of being suspended by a wire attached to the triangle flap. See NASA source: www.hq.nasa.gov... and NASA source: www.hq.nasa.gov... to see the flap bouncing around in a questionable pattern where the still photo seems to show a much higher flap than can be seen on the TV camera footage. Certainly a simulation can be designed that could A) prove or disprove that there is a contradiction in the triangle flap between video and still photo and B) prove or disprove conclusively that the flap couldn't have been behaving in such a way without something connected to the flap to be moving it around.

0:13:30. In Apollo 11 footage, after showing a dark space background with the planet Earth, the window thereafter becomes a brilliant blue source of light. "Your seeing Earth as we see it out of the left-hand window" is the comment the Apollo worker makes. However, shortly thereafter the video implies an Earth cloud can be seen in the other window at 0:16:30. I was unable to find this same video on the NASA website though it does seem like genuine footage of the Apollo workers.

1:18:41 The documentary "Conquest: A History of Space Achievements from V-1 to the Shuttle" contains a clip that includes a camera that pans to the view to see the Surveyor III equipment, as the LM descends to the moon. The camera on the LM did not have panning capabilitiy. While this is a fake video, and the video implies its moon landing footage is sourced from NASA by saying "including original NASA film", no such video can be found on the NASA website on the Apollo 12 video website located at www.hq.nasa.gov... I believe that is an easily provably fake video but it cannot be attributed to NASA that I know of, even though it may have came from them.

To be continued...

a reply to: DJW001

Nice.