Operation Avalanche - Faking the 1969 Apollo Moon Landing Mockumentary

Has man REALLY walked on the Moon? I'm sure there are a few members who have doubts. This is one topic in the realm of conspiracy theories that I have found quite intriguing. I'm pretty sure we've been there, but, the reasons for having a contingency plan (fake footage in case of disaster or failure) seem sound to my few remaining brain-cells. There was just too much at stake, and perhaps some of the footage was staged, rehearsed, or downright fabricated JUST IN CASE. The 2016 American-Canadian movie, "Operation Avalanche", tells the story of an attempt to fake the 1969 Apollo Moon Landing.

Plot:

Two CIA agents infiltrate NASA to expose a potential mole. There, they find that NASA has kept their inability to reach the 1969 deadline for the Apollo 11 Moon landing a secret. They subsequently become involved in a plot to fake it.

I don't care much for the mockumentary format, but it worked OK for this film. The acting was not spectacular, but it wasn't wretched, either. There were minimal special effects, but they were good enough for what was needed to tell the story. There were a number of "Easter Eggs" hidden in plain sight for those of us who have researched the "Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory", such as references to, "Rock A & Rock B" (but no mention of the "C" Rock, unless I missed it). The story wasn't mind-blowing, but it did have some twists that caught me off guard. It contained some humor, but not nearly as much as the 2015 movie along similar lines, "Moonwalkers".

I enjoyed both "Operation Avalanche" and "Moonwalkers", mainly because they included so much content that is usually reserved for places like ATS, and possibly because it has been a long time since the 1977 film, "Capricorn One" (yes I know that's about faking a Mars mission, but similar idea).

Operation Avalanche was directed by: Matt Johnson
and starred: Matt Johnson, Owen Williams, and Josh Boles

I would be interested in hearing what other members thought of this movie as well as any other "Easter Eggs" that they may have noticed. If you haven't seen it yet, I would recommend it for anyone that has an interest in the "Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory". It won't leave you thrilled or stunned, but it won't feel like a huge waste of time, either. I wish there were more of these types of movies, however, perhaps there are reasons why they are so few and far between?

a reply to: seattlerat

Dis look like a good movie. I think dat der is strong truth somethin is not all right with da official story.

a reply to: seattlerat

I will watch this soon, thanks for sharing

If use common sense and deduction, works great

a reply to: seattlerat
This looks really fun!

originally posted by: seattlerat

I would be interested in hearing what other members thought of this movie as well as any other "Easter Eggs" that they may have noticed. If you haven't seen it yet, I would recommend it for anyone that has an interest in the "Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory". It won't leave you thrilled or stunned, but it won't feel like a huge waste of time, either. I wish there were more of these types of movies, however, perhaps there are reasons why they are so few and far between?

The format might be good for a lot of events, but out of time for the Moon landing/s now and back a long time. I don't see the point, it's well proven that Apollo 11 was in deep space, never mind that Apollo 10 was in Lunar orbit, something of which is not disputed particularly if at all, against the 'glossier' actual Moon landing of Apollo 11.
Thing is, all the dickheads want people to focus on Apollo 11 as if nothing else existed when it wasn't like that, and nit pick on the pictorial archive of Apollo 11. So if Apollo 11 never happened, nothing else did is the ultimate goal.
It didn't work like that since the Apollo 11 crew took pictures of the whole observable hemisphere of Earth on their journey, pictures that match up with LEO satellite that was in orbit at the time, as per my signature, including a hurricane weather system ongoing or in fact fading out. There is no way the the Apollo 11 crew could have faked their deep space pictures of Earth, that would match up with a LEO satellite bearing grainy BW pictures, in such a timescale if they themselves were actually in LEO.

originally posted by: T0rMenT0R
a reply to: seattlerat

Dis look like a good movie. I think dat der is strong truth somethin is not all right with da official story.

It is not, in my opinion, a good movie. It is poorly scripted; the dialogue is downright cringeworthy at times, and the acting is less than convincing. Do not get me wrong, I am all for a good conspiracy movie or mockumentary, but this fails as both.

I like the premise though, and the camerawork is not too bad. But still, I would not recommend it to anyone.

a reply to: DupontDeux

Mon I get what you say. We all have our opinion on dis matter. Other peoples here like it but I like da admiration you have for da opposite. It is Kool with me.

a reply to: smurfy

Please note that this movie is a work of fiction and not reality, they are not actually claiming that the moonlanding was faked.

I watched it and I thought it was pretty cool. Saying whether it's a good movie or not or judging on the acting seems irrelevant to me. I viewed it as a documentary, possibly based on truth, possibly not. A documentary doesn't need good acting and doesn't have to be a good movie. It simply has to tell the story or present the "facts" in a way that is understandable and convincing. Regardless of whether the story is true or not, it did what it was required to do. I enjoyed it for what it is.

a reply to: smurfy

Thanks for your response...

With regards to your statement, "So if Apollo 11 never happened, nothing else did is the ultimate goal"...

I'm not sure I agree with you, but I hear what you're saying. Some theorists believe that we did, in fact, make it to the Moon in the 70's with the later Apollo missions, but were unable to meet Kennedy's deadline of December 31, 1969. Rather than admit that we just weren't up to the task, these theorists think that it is possible (or even likely) that to save face and allow more time for development, the Apollo 11 mission was either completely or partially faked. I don't know what to believe, but I'm pretty sure that the US government, including NASA, wouldn't think twice about lying to the entire population of the Earth in order to beat the Russians in the Space Race. The propaganda value alone would justify any sins, in my opinion.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts ALLEGEDLY staging footage that depicts them being halfway to the Moon, when apparently they are just in LEO? If you haven't viewed it yet, I will post it here for your convenience.

originally posted by: seattlerat
Some theorists believe that we did, in fact, make it to the Moon in the 70's with the later Apollo missions, but were unable to meet Kennedy's deadline of December 31, 1969. Rather than admit that we just weren't up to the task, these theorists think that it is possible (or even likely) that to save face and allow more time for development, the Apollo 11 mission was either completely or partially faked.

What about Apollo 12?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Gee.. not too sure, Apollo 12 may have been faked, too, at least according to some CTs. Then Apollo 13 came along as another distraction and to allow more time to work on the tech, and then possibly 14,15,16, & 17 actually made it. I'm not saying this based on my own beliefs, just from information gleaned from many documentaries and podcasts created by Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theorists. I don't know what to believe... The notion that because it was seen on TV, or that there were too many people involved means that it couldn't have been faked just doesn't convince me one way or another. Also, the fact that there are some artifacts that are apparently visible on the lunar surface doesn't do it for me either. Sure, we could have sent robotic spacecraft, but the question is... did Neil & Buzz actually do what has been claimed? Many people just DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE that it could have been faked, because the alternative is just too disappointing.

I'm undecided now, but I used to believe...

originally posted by: seattlerat
Also, the fact that there are some artifacts that are apparently visible on the lunar surface doesn't do it for me either.

So they were able to fake the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites that we can see now but the remaining missions actually got there?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, that is the speculation - robotic devices could have been placed on the surface in the locations where the first missions supposedly landed.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union had the tech to put autonomous machines on the lunar surface, but the ability to safely land humans may have been too far out of reach...

List of Robotic Moon Probe Missions

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: smurfy

Please note that this movie is a work of fiction and not reality, they are not actually claiming that the moonlanding was faked.

Getaway!

originally posted by: seattlerat
Yes, that is the speculation...

I have to say that I think that speculation is pretty dopey considering the logistics involved.

This movie is to be look at as it is happening but in different outcome of reality and still continue in its parallel dimension as we are experiencing our reality outcome without Tesla as the winner.

originally posted by: seattlerat

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts ALLEGEDLY staging footage that depicts them being halfway to the Moon, when apparently they are just in LEO? If you haven't viewed it yet, I will post it here for your convenience.

Frankly, that is the finest example of what is a mocumentary, except that the guy who funded it was serious.
Thing is Apollo 11 took a stack of 35m still pictures including the whole hemisphere once they were able to, about 50-60 thousand miles out. The GIF below show a section of a whole hemisphere of earth matched in perfectly with a B/W satellite picture that was in LEO, and taken at the same time. Use the link for more observing.


files.abovetopsecret.com...

Notice then, (1) how they match up on surface detail (2) how much detail there is on the Apollo picture, sea, land, cloud etc, a vast area, and compare it to the LEO satellite whole picture's scope, which is just a tiny portion...because it was so close to earth, that's all that picture could see. In turn the Apollo section is showing just a fraction of the whole Earth hemisphere picture that was taken.
The subject matter is actually that of a hurricane on it's way out.
The guy that made the documentary shot himself in the foot by making that claim, he hadn't the wit to work out how much detail differences there are between deep space, and a close-up. The posh confident voice of the narrator is just that, she was a paid actress, and obviously knew as much as the man in the Moon did.

a reply to: smurfy

Did you even watch the video I supplied? It is NOT a documentary/mockumentary, there is NO POSH VOICE narrating.

The infamous Brother Bart Sibrel claims that this footage was sent to him by mistake (or perhaps it was intentional) when he was requesting footage for the documentary you are probably referring to.

Why are we able to see an astronaut's arm? in front of the supposed image of the Earth when the camera is flush against the exterior window?