Faked images from our trip to the moon?

reply to post by cheftim59

Sorry folks your just gonna have to take my word for it. For me the whole thing is mind blowing because the entire program was built on a lie.

You know that's just not gonna happen on ATS..
Proof or it didn't happen is our motto..

Originally posted by IllustronicI can't see a gnat's ass in that image and it is not from light years away.

I didn't say that, I said newsprint.
Like I said though, you're still wrong. I'm just sayin.

reply to post by backinblack


ha ha yes i know...but at least it cleared things up for me...its a shame i couldnt snag the photos..maybe if i hit him over the head with a bottle and take off quickly

it would have cost almost if not the same amount of money to fake it. why do it?

Originally posted by trevordbs
it would have cost almost if not the same amount of money to fake it. why do it?

Because they couldn't do the real thing???

reply to post by TKDRL


I too believe that the entire moon landing was a fake. As a matter of fact, I just happened to come across a site some of you may have heard of called "How Stuff Works". I believe it can also be found on the Discovery Channel. Well, anywho....here's the link: science.howstuffworks.com...

Yeah, about that....it's a "Discovery Company" website. They seem to try to discredit the non-believers, but nothing they say can be verified.

Also, wasn't there some kind of "photo" which was left by stage-hands in the scene prior to they "official" pictures taken?

Originally posted by grizzle2
...You must have missed the post in this thread with the link where reporters with Media Bypass tracked Van Allen down in '97. He did not have a prepared spiel and cracked out of turn badly. Regarding how at first he said it was deadly, then it was okey dokey. "It's not rocket surgery." - Lexx
Look it up yourself. I'm just sayin.

Neither I nor Dr. Van Allen ever said it wasn't potentially deadly. However, AS I SAID IN MY POST, Dr, Van Allen said that the short amount of time the astronauts spent flying through the Van Allen Belts would not give them a deadly dose of radiation.

I do understand the different types of radiation.

Then you understand that the fibrous insulation of the command module would be enough to stop the major type of radiation that is of concern out there between the Earth and Moon. Not 100% stop it, but stop it enough to make the increased lifetime cancer risk manageable. The fibrous material of the spacesuits would do the same, but less so -- however, the astronauts were not in their spacesuits on the Moon's surface for extended periods of time.

And you probably also understand that the fibrous insulation not only was adequate to do the job, but is actually better than using lead shielding due to the phenomenon of Bremsstrahlung. Therefore, you should not have an issue with the radiation exposure the astronauts would have endured on their Moon missions.

The Astronauts sure got their lifetime's allotment (and then some) of radiation exposure, but not necessarily deadly doses, or even a dose that would necessarily lead to future health problems. Also, you have to remember that the Astronauts were almost all test pilots, so the increased radiation exposure is just one more in a long line of risks they have taken their entire careers.

reply to post by TKDRL


Note the large humanoid figure next to the flag. That thing is capable of moving its arms. In fact the flag was poked into the ground by one of those.

If you read the transcripts (available online) you'll probably hear Huston saying something like "can you just move that flag around so we can get a better shot from the camera". Actually, that astronaut thingy probably took it upon himself to move the flag around so his buddy could get a better shot of him next to the flag.

I spent way too long trying to debunk very serious academic arguments about supposed faked moon landing photos. And those very serious academics accepted that the flags waved around because astronauts had been moving them, not because of the nearly non-existant atmosphere on the moon moving them (actually, for reasons I can't be bothered going into, the moon sometimes has a suspended "atmosphere" of dust particles -- though this is probably not so relevant to flags, but to other so-called "anomalies").

The fact is there is terabytes of data from the moon missions, including documents on the construction of the craft, planning documents, photos from orbit, tens of thousands of Hasselblad photos taken on the surface, testimony of ham radio operators, signal station operators, telemetry data, including astronaut vitals, transcripts and recordings of conversations between astronauts and ground control and between astronauts, photos from other styles of cameras, including video cameras mounted variously inside the descent stage, in orbit, on the ground, in the moon buggy, rocks returned from the moon and studied by scientists all over the world, and much, much, much more. Few other events in all of recorded human history have been recorded so prodigiously. And I've probably pored over a great percentage of it.

To not believe we went to the moon is sheer lunacy (pun intended).

I've personally witnessed laser ranging experiments in operation, measuring the precise distance to reflectors set on the moon by astronauts. And I don't mean on the discovery channel. I have seen them in real life. I've also seen many beautiful still photos before the era of photoshop. And I don't mean I've seen these moon photos which were taken before photoshop was invented. I mean I saw them before photoshop was invented. I've personally listened to the testimony of hams who listened to conversations between earth and the moon. And again, I don't mean in a recording. I mean in real life.

We absolutely went to the moon. Get over it (pun intended).

Okay, I am 100% on board with the moon landing being fake. I believe that there is way too much evidence that points towards it being faked. However, I would like to point out the most obvious mistake that is being reported in the OP as the Canadian Researcher's reason for questioning the moon landing, which is the alleged change in direction of the flag. Now correct me if I am wrong, but the guy even states that the picture with the flag turned around is being taken from the lander as it is taking off. Now in the first picture, the lander is behind the flag and it is pointed with the stripes facing the lander. In the picture with the alleged change in direction, the flag is still pointing the same way, the only difference is that the man taking the picture is now in the lander that was behind the flag in the first place. The real difference is that the perspective changed from the front of the flag to the back of the flag.

I don't know why someone hasn't stated this already and stopped this thread. Discrepancies like this are responsible for people like us not being taken seriously. I believe that moon landings were faked, and with that being said I think we should concentrate on attacking valid evidence that makes sense instead of trying to make crap like this make the sense that we want it to make. So I think we can at least say that the opening argument of this thread is debunked. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

reply to post by XtraTL


Oh look, debunked on page 1 of the thread. The flag was actually rotated 120 degrees by a test of one of the rocket engines. Totally mundane explanation. Case closed.

And in other cases we know for sure the flags were moved about by astronauts. We have photos and film of them doing it even.

The whole thing is so ridiculous. We have a board on which UFOs are discussed, often backed up by one single blurry photo, which is debated for pages. The moon landing is backed up with tens of thousands of high resolution well-focused images, videos, and huge, cataclysmic volumes of other data and eyewitness testimony. And somehow, people expect us to believe that is a hoax!

Sheesh.

The prevalence of conspiracy theories is astounding. Almost every historical event or observable phenomenon seems to have at least one conspiracy theory associated with it. Authors have proposed several reasons why people are so drawn to conspiracy theories.

To account for variations in observation. Anyone who studies history seriously knows that there is rarely a completely reliable, authoritative version of the facts surrounding any notable occurrence. The tidbits of inconsistency upon which most conspiracy theories rely occur constantly in connection with any activity we undertake. It's only when important activities are closely scrutinized that these details receive close attention. In other words, it's natural for people to believe that there should be no inconsistency in legitimate activities. So if we observe an inconsistency, we take that alone as evidence that the intuitive explanation must be flawed and we should search for a more complicated answer.

As entertainment. Real life is boring. We constantly seek to embellish it, whether formally through media such as motion pictures or fictional literature, or informally through the exaggeration of our personal experiences. It's more exciting to believe that strange lights in the sky are visiting aliens and not an airliner's landing lights. As astounding as the moon landings were, it's even more astounding to suppose that the entire thing was falsified.

To seem intelligent. Conspiracy theories are often much more elaborate than what's commonly believed about something. And they usually require the listener to expand his understanding to accept the possibility of a conspiracy. Those who casually examine photographs of the lunar landings are impressed when they are led to discover discrepancies. This inflates the ego and gives one the impression that he is smarter than the dozens who look at the same photographs and see nothing special.

To be "on the inside." The conspiracist fancies himself to be elite, to be privy to secret information that few others have.

To express distrust for authority. Americans especially take delight in distrusting authority, particularly governments.

Yeah, I'm sure some guy surfing this forum in his basement thought of something that thousands of scientist didn't even consider.

We never went, all faked. Unmanned missions certainly have landed, and left behind mirrors etc. But no man. And no aliens there either. All a big test to see how they could fool people. Next test was 9/11. Hugely successful. I am waiting for test #3.

Not only to fool people, but to defraud the American slave taxpayer. The moon fakes, the Cold War and 9/11 are three reasons (among many) why the American middle class is on its way to extinction.

Why did we even bother getting into a space race with Russia if all we had to do is make a fake moon set? Not only that but do you think Russia, who were competing with the US to become the superpower would allow America to simply fake their landing and claim dominance?

The USSR was in on the scam. What was it $30 Billion for the Apollo mission or missions? A cut of that $30B can buy a lot of vodka, you know. The Cold War was also a scam - both countries were working together to once again defraud their citizens. Ask yourself who made the big bucks on these fake arm races?

Not every shot taken were good shots, NASA selected the best of them to release.

I don't know - two guys took an awful lot of pictures for such a short time on the surface of the moon. In between planting flags, collecting rock samples, driving around on the buggy, conducting tests and even playing a round of golf, one wonders where they found the time to take all these pictures. Must have been really good at multi-tasking.

At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it.

Half a million people to create such a crappy movie with such cheap props? Sheesh...talk about going over budget. On that note, I highly doubt a professional filmmaking perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick would have associated himself with such an amateur production. Hence, all the amateur mistakes.

Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or documents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.

Aaahhh yes...the dreaded death bed confession and safety deposit box evidence. Yeah, really surprising that the people who pulled off this scam had absolutely no conscience whatsoever.

These engineers are not dummies.

Agreed. The people who engineered this scam are not dummies; the people who believe it are the dummies.

also what are you doing out of the 911 threads?

My guess is moonlighting or reassigned; take your pick.

Originally posted by Ali3nAlly
Yeah, I'm sure some guy surfing this forum in his basement thought of something that thousands of scientist didn't even consider.

It's actually very tempting to make a thread about things which scientists did actually look at (ones who did believe NASA did some fakery). But these arguments are technical and in the end quite convincing unless you have specialised expertise to debunk them.

In some cases, to debunk them properly requires expensive acquisitions of equipment or many, many hundreds of hours of painstaking work and possibly even highly esoteric knowledge. The thread would be long closed before such things could happen.

It's not that people don't exist on ATS with those expertise and with sufficient money to do these things. They definitely do. It's just that none of the arguments made by academics, that I know of, ultimately held water. It would be a fantastic waste of many people's time to post them and have them revisited.

One certainly shouldn't think that scientists have it all worked out though. Many very interesting anomalies do occur in the moon data, for which no satisfactory scientific explanation has been found. Some people use these anomalies to try and prove a conspiracy. But this is untenable in the presence of so much high quality data proving the obvious. Instead, they are genuine mysteries of science.

Of course that is how science works. Every question answered sees ten more asked. And tax dollars are required to answer every one. The Apollo program just happens to be one of the huge, expensive programs that actually did get off the ground to find some answers. Unfortunately, we can't afford another at the moment. So we are left with more questions than we can answer.

Originally posted by XtraTL
reply to post by XtraTL

 

Oh look, debunked on page 1 of the thread. The flag was actually rotated 120 degrees by a test of one of the rocket engines. Totally mundane explanation. Case closed....

Not only is it debunked on page 1, but the explanation is given in the OP's article itself.
I suppose the OP only read half of the article and never got to the part that all was explained to be for mundane reasons.

The prevalence of conspiracy theories is astounding. Almost every historical event or observable phenomenon seems to have at least one conspiracy theory associated with it. Authors have proposed several reasons why people are so drawn to conspiracy theories.

Aaahhh yes...when all else fails let's resort to the old tried and tested pseudo psychology angle to marginalize conspiracy theorists. Sorry, but I'm not interested in getting suckered into your little school yard games. I prefer to analyze and discuss the issues at hand using common sense, instead of stereotyping and insulting others. Maybe if I get bored enough with my life (as you suggest), I'll consider playing. Until then, don't hold your breath.

Originally posted by Illustronicseveral reasons why people are so drawn to conspiracy theories

I just always wanted to know what was going on, and why it seemed something was terribly sideways about the world. You can't make all these facts disappear by dismissing things out of hand.

One reason why people are drawn to your POV - Mine is too frightening.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
I don't know - two guys took an awful lot of pictures for such a short time on the surface of the moon. In between planting flags, collecting rock samples, driving around on the buggy, conducting tests and even playing a round of golf, one wonders where they found the time to take all these pictures. Must have been really good at multi-tasking.

[me: rolls on the floor laughing] "Two guys" took all those photos huh!?

I sure hope you are joking.

Hint: look up how many people walked on the moon, and how many man hours total were spent on the surface. Then look up the minute-by-minute surface logs (available online), including every single thing they did on the moon, where and when they took pictures, from where and of what, and which photo numbers they correspond to (all available online in high-res scans).

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleHowever, AS I SAID IN MY POST, Dr, Van Allen said that the short amount of time the astronauts spent flying through the Van Allen Belts would not give them a deadly dose of radiation.

That's what he said LATER. Not so when he first accurately measured the belts with the help of the Army and rocket probes. Radiation measurement tecchnology was already sufficient at the time of the first measurements. I'm not doing the work again to re-show you a link. It's in the thread, go find it.

Originally posted by SphinxMontrealwhen all else fails let's resort to the old tried and tested pseudo psychology angle to marginalize conspiracy theorists.

Come now, remember your Agenda 21 scripture: Reality is best defined by those characterized by authorities as experts. If they say black is white, it's white.