NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

a reply to: misterz

It's already been pointed out to to you, but..

I have never seen anyone claim that there is no blast crater because they are landing on solid rock. This is patent nonsense, and if you watch the 16mm descent footage on all of the landings you will see that there is dust - the astronauts comment on it. This dust disappears as soon as the engines stop. If there is dust right up to when the engines stop then quite clearly there is still dust around.

It is also a fact that the engines did have an impact on the surface in terms of discolouring and marking the ground on which they landed - again this was commented on by the crews. There is absolutely no reason why there would be a blast crater - if the descent engine was firing that hard, it wouldn't be able to land.

Finally, the dust behaves exactly as it should in a low gravity zero atmosphere environment. Dust does not produce a cloud in a vacuum. An engine firing will not produce a blast wave in a vacuum. There is a visible flame from the ascent engine, but you would not get a plume of smoke from the fuels used and in a vacuum.

By all means play a little game and imagine it was done on Earth with cranes and models, but they would not behave the way that Apollo did, because they are a) models and b) not on the moon.

originally posted by: centarix
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The "earth in the window" hoax evidence you mentioned usually tries to claim that the Apollo craft was in low earth Orbit, thus the earth would have filled the entire _ This film claims the earth was some sort of fake transparency. Another similar film named "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" claims the Earth was a stencil cut out put in the window -- i.e. to make it look as if they were far away from Earth, they made a stencil "cut out" that they put in the window that made the Earth look small (because all you could see was the small cut-out portion).

As you mentioned, this video claims that the "gotcha!" moment when they could tell it was a hoax is when the window lit up completely blue. There are a few reasons why the window would look blue, one being that there was a blue-green coating on the window that may have caught some glare from inside the capsule.

I don't agree there should be such strong shades of blue in both windows. Space is black, and the sun is a "natural" white. So why blue? I do believe the opinion of light physics experts would have to be there to provide an opinion on this either way. I doubt any simulations of this are possible at the moment but may be that is the case. I believe that the lighting in the video is consistent of a craft in low-earth orbit, but not with a craft far away from a blue atmosphere. The implied claim of a cloud can of course be questioned and I consider it a good guess that may be wrong.

And speaking of lighting, here is another interesting anomaly as defined in 36:39 of the following video:

yo5w0pm24ic
as physics expert David Grove claims there is an additional light source. It is accepted by NASA that additional lighting was not onboard the LM. If someone can show me a picture of a round object with such a line of glare simply from reflected ground light, please do show it to me. It seems as though this can be confirmed with an additional physics expert. Personally I'll plan on contacting one myself though perhaps not anytime soon.

The photo is looking at the shadow side of the LM, and the worker is in the shadow of the craft. Yet, glare can be seen on the workers boot. Full quality NASA source: www.lpi.usra.edu...

I didn't have much time today, so be continued tomorrow...

Oh snap......

Ok, I am done with this one. This stuff was exposed a long, long time ago.

At this point, I think that this argument is probably never going to stop, but that belief in the moon landing will fade in time, until it becomes a part of history nobody bothers with. Then it'll be Columbus discovers America, Lincoln freed the slaves and America went to the moon.

Peace out.

a reply to: misterz

so you just going to accept what someone says blindly??

i mean, a reflection from a curved surface and the brightest point pointed at the camera?

cant possibly be the reflection from the astronaut taking the picture in his big reflective white suit.

i mean, who would want to question what some guy says, its makes much more sense to believe them blindly because they say what i want to hear.

a reply to: misterz

It's a shame you're running away, you won't get to see my simple explanation that the 'glare' is just light reflected off the LM structure, which has lots of shiny stuff on it. It would have been good for you to realise that the while space doesn't have an atmosphere the LM and CSM did while they were filming inside it. Any colours you see inside the spacecraft are always going to be affected by that. Basic physics.

I'd also have liked to see you admit your basic failure to understand that the moon does not have an atmosphere but there you go.

'This stuff' wasn't exposed a long time ago - people have tried to discredit Apollo, usually people with either a lack of understanding of the subject or a keen interest in making money, and they have always failed. They have always failed, and will always fail, because every single aspect of Apollo forms a consistent historical narrative that will never be disproven because it is true.

Truth is kubrik made the the films or created the televised editions...
ok he didn't do Apollo 12 the credit for that goes to someone else...
But 12 sucked anyway...
This does not mean man has not been to the moon...
It means we were not permitted to see the truth of the surface of the moon...
It does however mean we did not go there by rocket and we didn't do it alone...
This is common knowledge...
All kinds of clues...
Room 217 the shining book
Moon Room 237 movie
237000 miles to the moon...
No real images of the moons surface have ever been publicly released...
The new Chinese ones are fake too...

Funny how people always want to hear the truth...
But when the truth is fed to them they disbelieve that too...
Ever wonder why we are not constantly still going to the moon and seeing all kinds of new videos of it?
Funny how that stopped real quick when the technology for video and satellites progressed...
Also funny how we know of all kinds of element rich mining opportunities on the moon...
The moon has been being mined for longer than the moon missions...
You don't know that though because the technology to get there was of alien origin and is still black...
And that's the truth...
And there is a whole lot more truths of the moon that are hidden from us...

It's OK not to know things I guess after all we are lied to constantly through our lives to keep us down we are pushed down and kept down through deception...
Most of what you think you know about things that matter most are lies...
Take gravity well that's a big observation seeing as there are several types of gravity...
But let's take the major force of gravity here on earth that keeps things down...
I'm sure you think that comes from the center of the earth and it pulls you down...
The truth is this force is generated by space as we move through and it is pushing us down just like those whom feed us the lies...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Truth is kubrik made the the films or created the televised editions...

No he didn't.

ok he didn't do Apollo 12 the credit for that goes to someone else...
But 12 sucked anyway...
This does not mean man has not been to the moon...
It means we were not permitted to see the truth of the surface of the moon...
It does however mean we did not go there by rocket and we didn't do it alone...
This is common knowledge...

No -it's what you believe.

All kinds of clues...
Room 217 the shining book
Moon Room 237 movie
237000 miles to the moon...

The distance to the moon varies by quite a bit. 237000 miles is one value that will be correct for a brief moment in its orbit.

No real images of the moons surface have ever been publicly released...
The new Chinese ones are fake too...

There are thousands of images freely available taken by Japan, India, China, Europe, the USSR and the USA taken over 5 decades. What evidence do you have that they aren't real?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Funny how people always want to hear the truth...
But when the truth is fed to them they disbelieve that too...
Ever wonder why we are not constantly still going to the moon and seeing all kinds of new videos of it?
Funny how that stopped real quick when the technology for video and satellites progressed...

Nope - we've been sending probes for 50 years.

Also funny how we know of all kinds of element rich mining opportunities on the moon...
The moon has been being mined for longer than the moon missions...
You don't know that though because the technology to get there was of alien origin and is still black...
And that's the truth...
And there is a whole lot more truths of the moon that are hidden from us...

If it's hidden how come you know about it?

There are many elements that can be mined on the moon, just no cheap way of mining it that will return a profit.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: misterz

In order to exist you need to be conceived. The existence of one is proof of the other.

Not if someone is fabricated or cloned.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

But he did you can believe the lie that's your choice...
I should have said 237000 average miles to the moon...
Thanks for pointing out my error...
That was true when he faked the lunar missions as well as the shining...
Now it is not as accurate the average distance is now over 238000 miles...
This number will continue to grow as time passes...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Ever wonder why we are not constantly still going to the moon and seeing all kinds of new videos of it?
Funny how that stopped real quick when the technology for video and satellites progressed...

You need to think about that yourself. If the lunar missions were faked, they would not be as expensive as the real program and there would be no need to cut them to balance the budget. As special effects technology improved, the videos would become better and more "realistic." If people wondered why NASA didn't use Saturn V rockets any more, they could make up some rubbish about anti-gravity drives.

a reply to: DJW001

OK I have thought about it more...
and the fact remains that people would be able to make out the sound stage much easier then the grainy feed we were fed then with new advanced clearer video...
My mind is made up...
That reminds me he also used sound stage 237...
Balance the budget you say...
how convenient an excuse to feed you to prolong the lie and satisfy your doubts and or questions...
You are a puppet...
Tell me how the budget got balanced...
Tell me what your current deficit is...
Tell me the average yearly black budget amount...
Does that crap make sense to you?
Think about it.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

But he did you can believe the lie that's your choice...

And you can provide proof of this?

That was true when he faked the lunar missions as well as the shining...

Yes the Shining was not real...the lunar missions were...not really a good comparison.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Do you have proof he did not?
The statement was made because of the clues he put in his films because he was so proud of his fraud but could not lay claim to it at the time... even when he first admitted it in 1999 on camera an agreement was made that it would not be released for 15 years..
So it wasn't really a comparison...
Also you may find it hard to believe but I'm sorry to say the shining is not real... it too is a work of fiction but was not faked so as to cause you to believe it was real...
But somehow he fooled you twice it would seem...
Lol

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Do you have proof he did not?

It's your burden to prove he did...not mine to prove he didn't, but...

The statement was made because of the clues he put in his films because he was so proud of his fraud but could not lay claim to it at the time... even when he first admitted it in 1999 on camera an agreement was made that it would not be released for 15 years..

Except it wasn't Stanley Kubrick...

This is him supposedly admitting to it...



Well imagine this, his ex wife has said it wasn't him and is a fraudulent admission...

But just to be sure, we reached out to his former wife, Christiane Kubrick. A spokesman responded with the following: “The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent & untrue.”

blackbag.gawker.com...

And she would know if it were him.

Also you may find it hard to believe but I'm sorry to say the shining is not real... it too is a work of fiction but was not faked so as to cause you to believe it was real...

Are you serious?

Where did I even hint to the Shining being real...it's fiction meaning it isn't real. Unlike the moon landings which were real.

But somehow he fooled you twice it would seem...
Lol

No it seems you were the one being fooled believing Kubrick faked the moon landings and put hints into the shining...now that really is deserving of a LOL.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Oh his ex wife toba that hates him and was well paid to discredit his statements?
She knew full well how proud he was of said efforts and the torment it was for him to not be able to take credit for what he deemed his greatest artistic achievement....
Where's her proof?
As for your your lunar desent photos well they are excellent HD fakes...
No man landed a lunar mod on the moon propelled from Earth by rocket, and he sure as hell didn't do it standing up in a tin can while over shooting the landing site by miles for dramatic effect...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Better yet the video you think portrays him admitting to this was done 2 months after he died...good trick but dead men tell no lies.

The interview was supposedly done in May 1999, but Kubrick died in March of 1999. Unless this man is magic you can't interview a dead body.

Just see what he says on his site...

WINTER

COMING SOON TO
A HDTV OR THEATER
NEAR YOU





________________________________________________________




sadly all
geniuses die...

but film of them lives forever



______________________________________________________



an independent film studios production of
a t patrick murray film

SHOOTING STANLEY KUBRICK


this film has not yet been rated by the MPAA



IN MAY 1999
AN UNKNOWN FILMMAKER
SECURED AN INTERVIEW
WITH THE RECLUSIVE GENIUS
STANLEY KUBRICK

THERE WAS
ONE GROUND RULE

THE FILM COULD NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL

15 YEARS
AFTER THE DEATH OF KUBRICK

webhdtv.wix.com...

So this interview happened two months after his death...can't get around that.

As for your your lunar desent photos well they are excellent HD fakes...
No man landed a lunar mod on the moon propelled from Earth by rocket, and he sure as hell didn't do it standing up in a tin can while over shooting the landing site by miles for dramatic effect...

So as of yet you have provided nothing to back your claim...why is that?

Prove what has been shown as wrong if you can...but I have a feeling you can't or you would have.

Just saying that he faked it doesn't really work...where is the evidence.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Oh his ex wife that hates him and was well paid to discredit his statements?
She knew full well how proud he was of said efforts and the torment it was for him to not be able to take credit for what he deemed his greatest artistic achievement....
Where's her proof?

Where's yours? Where is your proof that he regarded Apollo as his greatest achievement? Where did he say that? When? Where is your proof that his wife was paid to discredit him?

As for your your lunar desent photos well they are excellent HD fakes...

Care to tell us how they did it? Where it was done? Who did it? How they managed to show video footage of craters no-one knew about until they re-photographed them with modern probes?

Where's your proof?

No man landed a lunar mod on the moon propelled from Earth by rocket, and he sure as hell didn't do it standing up in a tin can while over shooting the landing site by miles for dramatic effect...

Again, where's your proof? Why should I take your word for it when I have examined every inch of the photographs and footage myself and they are exactly as they should be? When I have compared Indian and Soviet and Chinese images with Apollo ones and they all match? What makes your opinion right and my personal research wrong?

m.youtube.com...

I didn't know videos had actually been released I read about this confession years ago...