Lunar Landings are fake

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by spy66

 

And the moon dust that the rover spins up does not have a perfect ballistic trajectory in a vacuum with 1,662g.

Could you please illustrate this word salad for us? A diagram, anything?

Yes i will make something for you that explains what i mean. Maybe you can correct me after words.

reply to post by spy66


Which one ? Did you watch it all ? Many persons were interviewed. Is it Alan Bean, the man in blue ?

There are some inconsistencies in regards to the Van Allen radiation belt indeed.
I don't want to dissect every face the interviewees make, i don't qualify for that and I think it's a bit vain. I didn't find anything of note in the expressions. I only have a general impression from the video.

reply to post by solid007


I think I've seen this video before. This is the one where Sebrell gets hit right? I don't know about the Moon Hoax argument anymore. Its really kind of silly arguing about it one way or the other. Mankind needs to focus on future space exploration and not whatever it is we've done in the past...because its in the past. It doesn't help us at all to keep dwelling on this one feat...we need to go further. Dreams need to become a reality. Wake me when we get to the future.

Originally posted by DJW001
If the lunar landing was a hoax, all of the film, video and photographs would need to be staged. This would involve a large facility and produce a great number of "out-takes."

A large facility? Hmmm lemme see what I can dig up on that...

Langley Research Center complex



Let's start with the Moon prop... one blank moon and one curved surface with camera track



Then we need some NASA 'scientists' with airbrushes working from Lunar Orbiter images to paint the moon... OH wait! They didn't have air brushes back then... so lets use regular brushes and plaster for relief







Adjust the lighting...



Now add the camera... and don't forget the spacecraft window...



And lets add some of that sickly greenish color...



Then for the final product we run it through a TV monitor



Lets go to the outdoor sets now...

here is the big crane for the LEM landings...





[/img]

now back inside at Building 9 at the Manned Spacecraft Center... remember all those anomalies everyone finds in Apollo images? Like this one?


AS14-66-9295

here is a close up.. really odd object eh?



well here are more of them in this photo..



so lets turn on the lights...



Okay back to the outdoor set... we need some place to run those rovers...

Cinder Lake
Sunset Crater, northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona

NASA calls in the USGS to make some craters...





So what ever happened to that Apollo movie set?

Continued...

Not sure if this has been answered? but if we didn't go to the Moon, why did we not go to the Moon so many times and why on one occasion did we not go to the Moon at all?

(Obviously we all know we went to the Moon - whether humans landed there and some of the footage purported fimed there is genuine may be a different matter)

The other point is that even if we didn't go to the Moon in the 60s and 70s we must have been to the Moon more recently (in secret) in order to plant the fake lunar landers etc so that when the Chinese go to the Moon they won't discover the Americans were lying.....

However you look at it, we've been to the Moon.

Back at Building 9 fast forward to 2005 and the remake of the Apollo Mission for the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D

Set is still there after all those years...


Overhead shot of the re-created lunar surface showing the green screen for adding those lunar hills























So they used the same set and techniques to create a high quality 3D Imax version of the Apollo landing

So yeah they could have hoaxed it real easy...

Originally posted by Essan
Not sure if this has been answered? but if we didn't go to the Moon, why did we not go to the Moon so many times and why on one occasion did we not go to the Moon at all?

Money?

You charge the marks for seven jobs and only do enough to convince people you did them and you get paid for actually doing seven jobs.

Use two Saturns to fake it, leaving 'evidence' in the intended landing sites then spend the rest secretly weaponizing space and stuff.

Originally posted by Essan
whether humans landed there and some of the footage purported fimed there is genuine may be a different matter

it IS a different matter... but an important one. I know we went in secret Just the Apollo stuff is questionable on many fronts. USGS has a highly accurate mining map collection of the moon. The one for Copernicus is dated 1967 and was made by HH Schmitt and Shoemaker

The other point is that even if we didn't go to the Moon in the 60s and 70s we must have been to the Moon more recently (in secret) in order to plant the fake lunar landers etc so that when the Chinese go to the Moon they won't discover the Americans were lying.....

Well I am sticking with Project Horizon having been completed (under Brig. General Trudeau and Werner von Braun) That called for a base on farside by 1962 but that is another story and yeah we do have that secret space corps

But I must say I am surprised to see you on that band wagon

As to the Chinese... I wouldn't worry about them... they have a deal with NASA though we did kinda screw with them on that Chang-E1 image they borrowed for there first moon probe



And here is what Buzz Aldrin says about them... (BTW Buzz is partners in Gravwave LLC, a company working with the Chinese on anti gravity)

www.revver.com...

However you look at it, we've been to the Moon.

I agree

Originally posted by Essan
Not sure if this has been answered? but if we didn't go to the Moon, why did we not go to the Moon so many times and why on one occasion did we not go to the Moon at all?

Several reasons...

...one mission would not have been enough to convince people they were serious. Besides Hollywood likes sequels and the news sells until people get bored.

The Apollo 13 accident.. come on now you KNOW that 13 had to have trouble... its in our nature (Friday 13th et al) so what an perfect and obvious choice? Can't have all missions be perfect, need to have some drama and danger to boost the ratings. But by 17 the public was definitely getting bored, so they could scrub the rest

logic

And yes... they had the means

The blue screen and traveling matte method were developed in the 1930s at RKO Radio Pictures and other studios, and were used to create special effects for The Thief of Bagdad (1940).

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by zorgon

A large facility? Hmmm lemme see what I can dig up on that...

Langley Research Center complex

Surely you jest. The Langley Facilities were for training purposes. Why would they need to construct an outside gantry to simulate the landing? After all, there couldn't be any footage of the landing taken from the Moon, right? So why build it? Unless, of course, they actually needed to practice landing on the Moon. Besides, does this look like the surface of the Moon to you?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0eeca3e565e.jpg[/atsimg]

As for creating a lunar surface environment in the desert, it seems to me that it would make sense if they needed to test things like the lunar rover. On the other hand, have Moon Hoax theorists ever succeeded in matching the terrain on the freely available USGS map of the area with any of the topography seen in the lunar photos? I won't hold my breath

I've got to admit I have no idea what that blue flaw on the photo is; film has many shortcomings. If I had to guess, I'd say it might be caused by a stray cosmic ray of unusually high energy, but don't hold me to that. The real question is, if everything was done on a closed set using the highest SFX technology of the time, what is it? Why didn't NASA just airbrush it out?

I won't even dignify that YouTube footage with a detailed analysis, it's a confessed hoax.

Finally, since I know you're not an idiot, I will allow you to salvage a little face by explaining this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f715ef3dacae.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79334106c02b.jpg[/atsimg]

Notice how the shadows on the pictures taken on Earth get fuzzier and less distinct the further they get from the object throwing them? The photos taken on the Moon always have uniformly crisp shadows. Perhaps you would care to explain to the uninitiated why the best 21st century special effects technology cannot reproduce these characteristically crisp Apollo shadows?

Originally posted by DJW001 The Langley Facilities were for training purposes.

Oh yes... that is the skeptic fallback... the skeptic screams for evidence of a facility that COULD have filmed the hoax... then when you show the skeptic the facility, the skeptic says "Oh yeah but that was just for training"



Can't win

Besides, does this look like the surface of the Moon to you?

No that is a mock up. They didn't need high detail on that one because they already had that on the inside mode. You forget how little footage they actually released and that was very poor quality. Then they go and lose all those tapes to boot, even the BBC versions were accidentally erased

Just one screw up after another... so much so that even Gordon Cooper saus they are getting lost in their own lies

"It started in World War 2, when the government didn't want people to know about UFO reports in case they panicked," said Cooper. "They would have been fearful it was superior enemy technology that we had no defense against.

"Then it got worse in the Cold War for the same reason.

"So they told one untruth, they had to tell another to cover that one, then another, then another...it just snowballed.

"And right now I'm convinced a lot of very embarrassed government officials are sitting there in Washington trying to figure a way to bring the truth out. They know it's got to come out one day, and I'm sure it will. "

Leroy Gordon Cooper, Jr. (Colonel, USAF, Ret.)

The real question is, if everything was done on a closed set using the highest SFX technology of the time, what is it? Why didn't NASA just airbrush it out?

No need to. NASA images are full of litle stuff that was missed. No airbrush in those days and no one expected every Tom Dick or Mary to have computers better than the shuttle had with graphic editing software. Besides as you say, the stuff left in them is inconclusive at best so why worry?

Also NASA has a vested interest in keeping the anomaly hunters and hoax believers active. Why? because the rest of the fickle public has a short attention span. Its the conspiracy nuts that keep NASA alive

You should see my email list of contacts made to me from NASA addresses including one John Phillips (during the McMoon tapes incident)

Finally, since I know you're not an idiot, I will allow you to salvage a little face by explaining this:

Thanks ( I think) cut I have no face that needs saving... my real world contacts that came from my posts here are all I need To bad IgnoreTheFacts got the axe just before coming out of the closet


I wonder if NASA had a huge vacuum chamber they could use for images? You know to simulate the conditions on the Moon?

Oh wait... they do

deleted because the micro mind conspiracy believers would not understand

reply to post by zorgon


Dude, you have a cartoon character as your avatar. How pubescent is that? Why should we believe anything you type? Because you are representing a cartoon character? You are so deep into pseudo-science it's laughable. You even look non-real.

reply to post by zorgon

I wonder if NASA had a huge vacuum chamber they could use for images? You know to simulate the conditions on the Moon?

Nice dodge. So, why the big outdoor facilities? Why the big crane? And, you realize Coop was talking about UFO's, right?

reply to post by Illustronic

Dude, you have a cartoon character as your avatar.

Be fair; so do I. Zorgon is actually very notable and respected and even comes down on the side of reality from time to time.

So why are the hills in the Lunar Orbiter photos all jagged with sharp peaks, craigs and rocks all over that cast long pointy shadows like this...



Yet when we see the same hills a few years later in Apollo they are all smooth and eroded?



Full size

I mean just look at those horizon lines they look so obviously pasted

Also can you explain why two different Apollo Missions show the SAME hill being used?





Scientific approach to prove whether man landed on the moon. Gyandotcom Revealed
gyandotcom.wordpress.com...

I have better copies and the video but have to find where I stuck them since my crash

Maybe you or some other ATSer could try the challenge

By applying photogrammetric rectification, you can verify whether the astronauts really were on the correct latitude (where the Sea of Tranquility is located) or any of the other locations they said they were on subsequent landings. In fact, using photogrammetric rectification with a few other parameters that are also available, it is even possible to calculate the longitude.

I submit this challenge to the scientific community. I urge anyone who is capable of carrying out this challenge to do so as soon as possible. If the results indicate that the moon landing was a hoax, the three old astronauts (Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins) may still be alive to answer to these results.

For those of you with the ability and courage to carry this out and have your results published in a reputable scientific publication, we salute you as one of the greatest scientists/thinkers of our time. I say, Go For It!.

gyandotcom.wordpress.com...

yup

ol big muley gets ignored again

very inconvenient for the hoax crowd

reply to post by zorgon


What are you trying to say here? Put it in your own words, don't make me do research for you. That is dodging the question, the question was, what specific problem do you have with the Apollo moon landings?

Originally posted by Illustronic
Dude, you have a cartoon character as your avatar. How pubescent is that?

Really? I thought BFFT did a really nice job of representing me with that Avatar... though I have aged a tad from that image. I do usually wear the blue but the red Tudor coat is nice too





You might call it pseudo science... that is fine... but heck this site doesn't always just look at the mainstream opinions So do you work for NASA? If so can you get me a copy of the ORIGINAL footage of the tether incident? If not ... why not? Surely its in public domain? Jim Oberg always stalls us on that one