PDA

View Full Version : Moon Hoax Controversy



Starry Knight
17th April 2012, 14:09
What's good everyone.

I was just wondering if there has been any consensus reached on the issue of the moon flights (and I guess other space ventures) and whether or not they were faked. I've heard what the likes of Richard Hoagland has to say about it. I read through all of Dark Mission, where he goes into detail about how the supposed hoax was itself a hoax, a brilliant foresight of disinformation. It made sense, I guess.

But then again, I follow Michael Tsarion and his work a lot these days. I've sat through the many hours of his Origins and Oracles series of DVDs. As regards ancient history and the theory of the world having been visited by various peoples, he is still running with the idea that Earth is in quarantine and refers to "star gates" only as relates to a supposed barrier that prevents Earth inhabitants from leaving. He seems convinced that we never went to the moon, citing deadly radiation belts and whatnot as reasons why it would have been impossible. Strangely, MT has mentioned Richard Hoagland many times, even claims that he's met and dialouged with the man, but I don't think he ever described any debates that it seems reasonable to assume they would have had about this issue.

Now, I dunno if I'm just not remembering what I read, but I don't think Richard Hoagland himself addressed such points in Dark Mission, nor do I recall having heard him go into it in the many presentations he's given on UFO TV and whatnot. Did he even mention that radiation point in his interview with Kerry and Bill? I do recall him saying something about suped-up tech with regards to the cameras the astronauts used and whatnot, but nothing about how they actually survived out there. I'm trying to wrap my mind around and retain a lot these days, so maybe I just need to go back and review?

Chances seem good that someone has already addressed this issue somewhere on these forums, and I have been and am continuing to take the initiative to discover more on my own, but I would appreciate it if someone could maybe link me to where this or a similar discussion has already taken place. That, and/or some reading /video material I could get hold of. Thx

sdv
17th April 2012, 14:16
There is a critical analysis of the moon hoax theories here: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm and here http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Was_the_Apollo_moon_landing_fake%3F

Plus there is a lot more debate that you kind find on the Internet.

Read it and decide for yourself.

Bill Ryan
17th April 2012, 14:19
-------

Hi, All:

Everything you need to know about how the moon landings were faked is here:

http://jayweidner.com/index.html#KO

Jay Weidner has it 100% right. This is a must read article for all Apollo researchers. Hoagland misinterpreted the image anomalies as a glass dome on the moon... but what he'd identified was really Stanley Kubrick's backscreen.

We asked Henry Deacon back in 2007 about the moon landings:

http://projectcamelot.org/livermore_physicist_4.html

His reply was that some of the missions were real -- assisted with ET technology to get through the Van Allen belts. Here's what we reported at that time:




• We asked Henry if the Apollo astronauts had actually gone to the moon. This was a question that had not actually previously occurred to us in earlier meetings. There was a long pause before Henry replied saying: Yes, they had. But it was not a simple answer.

Most of the missions did indeed go to the moon, but some photos and film footage were fabricated for PR purposes, and - remarkably – some advanced technology was borrowed: a lightweight nano tech-skin shielding combined with a charged-field technology were utilized on some of the craft to provide very effective radiation shielding, combined with other technologies used to protect the astronauts from Gamma and other hazardous radiations and energetic particles during the journeys. Additional advanced “alien” technologies were added to land the Lunar Module and assist take-off from the moon.

Some Apollo astronauts were aware of these technologies (though only a couple were aware of the alternative space program). This accounts for some general reluctance to be interviewed or to speak openly on the subject. Their anger at those who claim they never went at all is understandable, because they did indeed reach the moon. They were very brave men... and they had some help.
• Incredibly, Henry stated that the one moon we have now is known to have been engineered into position eons ago. When we asked if this was done by our ancestors or by our creators, the answer came back "both".

sdv
17th April 2012, 14:32
A little off topic perhaps, but I don't believe the theory that the Moon was created when something crashed into Earth and blew bits out that came together to make the Moon. I have a lot of questions that the theory does not seem to answer:

If all those craters on the Moon are caused by meteorites then why do we not have such an event in recorded history? The Moon does not have the protection of a heavy atmosphere so it should be bombarded by more meteorites than Earth. I can't remember any meteroites actually been found on the Moon either, yet we have found meteorites on Earth.

The Moon is rather large (the largest known planetary satellite in our Solar System) so it would have taken something very large to have blasted that much material from Earth into orbit to then come together to form the Moon. Is there a big enough 'hole' in the Earth to support this theory? Why would the Earth even have survived such a huge impact?

Personally I think that moons are small planets that were captured into orbit around larger planets. But our Moon is intriguing to me.

KosmicKat
17th April 2012, 15:04
Bill Ryan presents his conclusion based on witness testimony. I reached mine based on nothing more substantial than reasoning: that we did send trained military men to the moon, but we weren't shown, honestly, what happened in real time.

conk
17th April 2012, 15:10
If the landings were not hoaxed, then why the huge numbers of altered photos?

An amazing assortment of doctored photo evidence here: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

sdv
17th April 2012, 15:20
Thanks for the link Conk!

ghostrider
17th April 2012, 22:49
james horak says the moon was the ship that brought humans from another system to mars and then to earth. explains the pyramids being found on both. funny gravity seems to have no affect on the moon , the same side always faces us...

gripreaper
18th April 2012, 00:12
funny gravity seems to have no affect on the moon , the same side always faces us...

yea, and all the really good stuff happens on the side we can't see. Ingo Swan did some remote viewing of the dark side, and it's teeming with life and activity.

MacStar
18th April 2012, 00:54
-------

Hi, All:

Everything you need to know about how the moon landings were faked is here:

http://jayweidner.com/index.html#KO

Jay Weidner has it 100% right. This is a must read article for all Apollo researchers. Hoagland misinterpreted the image anomalies as a glass dome on the moon... but what he'd identified was really Stanley Kubrick's backscreen.

We asked Henry Deacon back in 2007 about the moon landings:

http://projectcamelot.org/livermore_physicist_4.html

His reply was that some of the missions were real -- assisted with ET technology to get through the Van Allen belts. Here's what we reported at that time:




• We asked Henry if the Apollo astronauts had actually gone to the moon. This was a question that had not actually previously occurred to us in earlier meetings. There was a long pause before Henry replied saying: Yes, they had. But it was not a simple answer.

Most of the missions did indeed go to the moon, but some photos and film footage were fabricated for PR purposes, and - remarkably – some advanced technology was borrowed: a lightweight nano tech-skin shielding combined with a charged-field technology were utilized on some of the craft to provide very effective radiation shielding, combined with other technologies used to protect the astronauts from Gamma and other hazardous radiations and energetic particles during the journeys. Additional advanced “alien” technologies were added to land the Lunar Module and assist take-off from the moon.

Some Apollo astronauts were aware of these technologies (though only a couple were aware of the alternative space program). This accounts for some general reluctance to be interviewed or to speak openly on the subject. Their anger at those who claim they never went at all is understandable, because they did indeed reach the moon. They were very brave men... and they had some help.
• Incredibly, Henry stated that the one moon we have now is known to have been engineered into position eons ago. When we asked if this was done by our ancestors or by our creators, the answer came back "both".


Hi Bill,
Have you listened to this?
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2011/03/RIR-110306.php

Awesome Interview :thumb: ...I just couldn't stop listening.
Not so hard to imagine that in his "position" and just finishing 2001,that this would be a perfect backdrop for the photo shoots ;)

The full Movie was online at UTube and we watched it not long back, but I can't seem to find it there anymore :confused:
MIght be still in my temporary files folder though ;)
No doubt at all,there was a LOT Kubrick tried to convey in his interpretations via film, and TPTB must have really got their nuts in a knot with Eyes Wide Shut....but y'all know how that ended up right?

A few more links:
http://www.collativelearning.com/FILMS%20reviews%20BY%20ROB%20AGER.html
http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com.au/search?q=Kubrick

Operator
18th April 2012, 01:24
Some Apollo astronauts were aware of these technologies (though only a couple were aware of the alternative space program). This accounts for some general reluctance to be interviewed or to speak openly on the subject. Their anger at those who claim they never went at all is understandable, because they did indeed reach the moon. They were very brave men... and they had some help.


Well that would clarify some of their behavior indeed. Some of them may indeed have experienced it like the formal storyline tells.


(though only a couple were aware of the alternative space program)

I can't help but think that Apollo was the alternative space program ... :rolleyes:
Maybe JFK got frustrated by not being informed and started the Apollo program as alternative to find out what was going with a
program that would take place under his oversight ...

mojo
18th April 2012, 02:43
There is also the excellent research of member 1967sander.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?9295-1967sander

http://www.youtube.com/user/1967sander?ob=0&feature=results_main


and a few of my favs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgQ27tOk7g&feature=plcp&context=C46fd410VDvjVQa1PpcFNOscliFHE2h9Is1_ZwayRs 99rZDSdcsNI%3D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL9BA5IU9po&feature=plcp&context=C447b718VDvjVQa1PpcFNOscliFHE2h9uNxadfWC_7 4BpwpSp63pc%3D

Starry Knight
18th April 2012, 12:30
Much thanks for links/comments, this should move me along nicely.

sdv
18th April 2012, 12:40
Does anyone know the official reason why a landing was not done on the dark side of the moon? Just my logic - if I was heading the moon exploration programme, a landing site on the dark side would have been top priority on my list. How can you gather information to understand the moon if you ignore one half of it?

RunningDeer
18th April 2012, 13:06
Doesn't fit this thread.

jimmer
19th April 2012, 13:33
the rumors of stanley kubrick fabricating part or all of the moon landing
footage seems to come from this french mockumentary.
to discover that fact, you need to wait 'til the closing credits
where the hoax is revealed.

from archival interview footage a real whooper of a fable is expertly woven.

watch all 6 parts for some fascinating, enticing entertainment.


http://youtu.be/A-6G8N-fwHc

mountain_jim
19th April 2012, 14:07
the rumors of stanley kubrick fabricating part or all of the moon landing
footage seems to come from this french mockumentary.
to discover that fact, you need to wait 'til the closing credits
where the hoax is revealed.

from archival interview footage a real whooper of a fable is expertly woven.

watch all 6 parts for some fascinating, enticing entertainment.


http://youtu.be/A-6G8N-fwHc

No, your supposition is incorrect, that mockumentary was likely a response to quell the rumors already out there, I believe, and Bill's link to Weider's writings and videos on the subject offer a good summary of the root info.

This text, from your youtube link, shows the Mockumentary was from 2002:



Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Vernon Walters, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.


Other books and info show the conspiracy existed and Kubrick was linked way before that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories



The first book about the subject, Bill Kaysing's self-published We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was released in 1974, two years after the Apollo Moon flights had ended. The Flat Earth Society was one of the first organizations to accuse NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood with Walt Disney sponsorship, based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke and directed by Stanley Kubrick.[3] Folklorist Linda Degh suggests that writer-director Peter Hyams's 1978 film Capricorn One, which depicts a hoaxed journey to Mars in a spacecraft that looks identical to the Apollo craft, may have given a boost to the hoax theory's popularity in the post-Vietnam War era. She notes that this happened during the post-Watergate era, when American citizens were inclined to distrust official accounts. Degh writes: "The mass media catapult these half-truths into a kind of twilight zone where people can make their guesses sound as truths. Mass media have a terrible impact on people who lack guidance".[4] In A Man on the Moon, published in 1994, Andrew Chaikin mentions that at the time of Apollo 8's lunar-orbit mission in December 1968, similar conspiracy ideas were already in circulation.

3. Schadewald, Robert J. (July 1980). "The Flat-out Truth: Earth Orbits? Moon Landings? A Fraud! Says This Prophet". Science Digest (New York).

jimmer
19th April 2012, 14:24
" No, your supposition is incorrect, that mockumentary was likely a response to quell the rumors already out there, I believe, and Bill's link to Weider's writings and videos on the subject offer a good summary of the root info."

from what I remember about this more recent take on the 'kubrick faked the moon landing' was that the film producers wanted to show how easy it is to manipulate the public.
did you notice the name of one of the 'insiders' who talks about nasa's hollywood production values?

jack torrence (taken from 'the shinning.')

mountain_jim
19th April 2012, 14:41
The same wiki link does credit the mockumentary as having 'fueled' the theory



There is a mockumentary based on this idea, Dark Side of the Moon, but it could have fueled the conspiracy theory


later edit: after further searching, I am unable to find the 'proving' link to info confirming the Flat Earth Society association with Kubrick in 1980. I apologize for asserting ' incorrectness' based on a wikipedia statement I cannot find the corroboration for.

I still am pretty sure the association with Kubrick was made well before this mockumentary, but will not try and prove it.

This is an interesting summary (also from Jay Weidner) to try and prove that conspiracy of Kubrick's involvement more recently.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions11.htm

jimmer
19th April 2012, 15:45
"This is an interesting summary (also from Jay Weidner) to try and prove that conspiracy of Kubrick's involvement more recently."

yes. I reviewed weidner's theory a couple of years ago. I believe it was this same link you posted.
really fantastic and impressive. I dig his idea that the monolith was symbolized by the screen shape.
but, all of this is conjecture. no hard facts or evidence.
his 'evidence' of the glass screen in apollo photos seems impressive, but before I'd buy this lock stock and barrel,
I'd like to hear a photographic expert associated with apollo to address these theories.
I know, I know, they all lie, but let's get some further facts and details and analysis before we accept
that stanley kubrick dupes us all.

jimmer
19th April 2012, 20:57
I did a little youtube digging and found a recent documentary
that debunks the debunkers.

every major hoax theory is addressed here and some I never heard about.

last year's laser tag from earth to moon measuring mirrors is included.

my conclusion after watching? we did and we're proud of it.

check it out if you have a few. I'd be interested to hear comments.


http://youtu.be/t4tk-3KeYNQ

KiwiElf
19th April 2012, 22:28
Starry Night,

There are many excellent forums here on Avalon regarding this very interesting subject, many provided by The One if you check out his posts.

Be prepared to jump down many rabbit holes in your research :). Remember, NASA = Never A Straight Answer ;)

Bill's Post #3 is bang on from my research also.

If I may, I would recommend this as "background".

Most of the movies, for and against, are on YouTube - there are several

This is a somewhat more holistical view, keep an open mind;
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?43721-Hidden-Human-History-Revised-Upgraded-Version-April-2012

Very interesting Thread from The One last year;
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?31706-White-Buildings-On-Moon-False-Back-Of-Moon--NASA-Photos

Interesting stuff
Cheers
KiwiElf

jimmer
20th April 2012, 00:17
I looked at the moon 'colony' photos, linked above.
doesn't it smack you that they are photoshopped?
the bright clustered show a level of detail and separation not found
on the photo's native resolution.
anyway, I'd like to hear from those who review the documentary.
love to hear from bill.
like it's said, keep an open mind : )

Vitalux
23rd April 2012, 20:59
This is a great topic and one that shows the gullibility of folks.
You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time
However, you can fool most of the people all the time if you condition them just right.

http://threadfiction.com/images/Moon-Hoax.jpg

Most people, don't want to know the truth, most can't handle the truth.

The American's never landed any human on the moon. < period
To think otherwise, is just naive.

I've been an advocate of this standpoint for many years, given lectures etc and even appeared on television shows debating this.:director:
In the end I have learned that people, "don't want to know" the truth.
So who am I to tell them that Santa Clause is not real, as well as The Easter Bunny, NASA landing on the moon, and The great American Dream ( which you have to be asleep to believe).:faint2:

Thanking the OP for starting this post.:thumb:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6Lg7M34rnZw

Sammy
23rd April 2012, 21:05
Now, I dunno if I'm just not remembering what I read, but I don't think Richard Hoagland himself addressed such points in Dark Mission, nor do I recall having heard him go into it in the many presentations he's given on UFO TV and whatnot. Did he even mention that radiation point in his interview with Kerry and Bill? I do recall him saying something about suped-up tech with regards to the cameras the astronauts used and whatnot, but nothing about how they actually survived out there. I'm trying to wrap my mind around and retain a lot these days, so maybe I just need to go back and review?


If I recall correctly, we obtained the technology for getting through the Van Allen radiation belt via ETs. I believe this was mentioned by Hoagland in a Camelot interview but I could be wrong.

EDIT - I should have read the responses before repeating - Bill covers this in Post 3 and in depth.

As an aside, my uncle was personal friends with Alan Bean - I recently contacted him through his website (he is now an artist). Was a very interesting conversation.

jimmer
23rd April 2012, 23:38
"This is a great topic and one that shows the gullibility of folks.
You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time
However, you can fool most of the people all the time if you condition them just right.

So who am I to tell them that Santa Clause is not real, as well as The Easter Bunny, NASA landing on he moon, and The great American Dream"

I watched the interview.
Kudos to the host.
As for the talking points: pure speculation.
I do understand the time and effort many have devoted to this subject.
I will not be rude, but after the umpteenth 'I don't think...' I wanted more.
Like some hard evidence.
Question: have you viewed the documentary, linked above?
(The Truth Behind The Moon Landings)
If not, please don't discount it until you've watched it.
Then, if you will, please feel free to discount each and every point.
For instance, how would you explain our ability to bounce earth lasers off the moon bound mirrors left behind from a previous mission?

Until then, I remain a 'believer' based on the best evidence.

Vitalux
24th April 2012, 02:44
For instance, how would you explain our ability to bounce earth lasers off the moon bound mirrors left behind from a previous mission?

Until then, I remain a 'believer' based on the best evidence.

This is easy.
We have been bouncing lasers off the moon since 1962.

Lasers will bounce off most surfaces.
Lasers are electromagnetic radiation.
Many ham operators around the world bounce their radio transmissions off the moon to reach distant places around our Earth planet.
This has been done since WW2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_%28communications%29



Anyone with a power enough laser can bounce and reflect a laser off the moon at any point.
http://www.k3pgp.org/lasereme.htm

Jimmer

I can understand you having a problem trying to comprehend and fathom that the moon landing by NASA was a hoax.
All of us, who believe wholeheartedly in the Great NASA Hoax, were once just as spell bound by the illusion as you are.
The only difference is that we did our homework, we researched, and figured out that a very strong movement has a very strong agenda in keeping this Lie of the Moon Landings alive.

I can debate this topic at every point, for years because I am extremely knowledgeable about this science.

It is a common occurrence to bounce lasers off the moon and back. It is easily done and it involves no use of needing to have a reflector on the moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz09H_qwQ-U

KiwiElf
24th April 2012, 03:04
ALL information is "evidence".

Here's what I "know":

1. Apollo Rockets DID take off... )I do NOT KNOW where ... or, with or without a crew.
2. Same astronauts are seen climbing out of scorched capsules back on Earth a few days later.
3. What they did between this, I do NOT know.

Were you "there?"

Now, what is it you think you KNOW? ;)

jimmer
24th April 2012, 13:04
well, I guess no one is interested to react to a recent documentary that included apollo astronaut buzz aldrin
defending the apollo missions to the moon. it's pretty historic stuff.
as for the any laser can bounce a beam back from the moon, there's a big difference between a 'measurable return'
and a targeted 'spike.'
honestly, watch the doc.

RMorgan
24th April 2012, 13:15
well, I guess no one is interested to react to a recent documentary that included apollo astronaut buzz aldrin
defending the apollo missions to the moon. it's pretty historic stuff.
as for the any laser can bounce a beam back from the moon, there's a big difference between a 'measurable return'
and a targeted 'spike.'
honestly, watch the doc.

I agree. I´ve seen a doc that shows a team of scientists doing the laser tests. The laser only bounces back once it´s targeted at the exact coordinates of the mirrors.

Anyway, it´s easy to do this test by yourself. Pick up your laser pointer (I´m sure most of us have one), point it to the wall and see how it behaves. Now point it at your mirror and watch the results.

I´m sure there are lots of mysteries regarding our moon expeditions indeed, but I´m also sure that we´ve been there.

Cheers,

Raf.

sdv
24th April 2012, 13:35
Answered my own question about landing on the far side of the moon. Shame on NASA for being sissies! ;)

Geologist-astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who became the last to step onto the Moon, had aggressively lobbied for his landing site to be on the far side of the Moon, targeting the lava-filled crater Tsiolkovskiy. Schmitt's ambitious proposal included a special communications satellite based on the existing TIROS satellites to be launched into a Farquhar-Lissajous halo orbit around the L2 point so as to maintain line-of-sight contact with the astronauts during their powered descent and lunar surface operations. NASA administrators rejected these plans based on added risk and lack of funding.

Watched the video Jimmer (had seen it before). Thanks. No matter what the debunkers say, I am hooked on space exploration and can't wait for us to land on Mars!

Operator
24th April 2012, 14:35
Well it is a good advice not to believe alternative story lines immediately ... but it is equally good advice not
to believe the original story line either (quite often they are silly too).

But somehow people are entrained / programmed not to doubt official story lines ...

I've just recently read "Penetration" by Ingo Swann. The book is about the moon, a cover up, psychological aspects
and entrainment. Ingo must have a view much like an "insider" because of his abilities and hence the title Penetration.

I think it's good to keep an open mind and never fixate on an opinion. Of course you will have one after you put all your
available pieces together. But tomorrow you may have another piece that makes you adjust your conclusion.

Personally I think Apollo equipment was inadequate to fulfill the missions to the moon and there is some good material
out there that supports this thought. E.g. there is video showing that the astronauts faked being half way to the moon
timestamped on the date that they should be half way but apparently they are just in earth's orbit. Also Neil Armstrong's
accident while practicing with the lander does not reinforce confidence that they flawlessly completed several missions.

On the other hand there is material available suggesting that they saw a lot of anomalous stuff out there while on their way
to the moon. And of course there is the statement that they have been helped.

So yeah, most likely mankind has been to the moon ... but was it using the Apollo program ?
I think that's the most logical conclusion supporting truths from both sides.

But most probably there are 2 sides to keep us fighting over the pros and cons. Which distracts us from the real
interesting questions like:

- What is up there ?
- Why is it up there ?
- How did it come here ?
- Who is really managing / in control ?
- etc. etc.

jimmer
24th April 2012, 14:42
finally, independent thinkers.
thank you raf and sdv.
now, any specific comments from those who think the moon
missions were totally or particularly phony?
please react to the doc.
it addresses the major points used by those who mock the landings
and against-all-odds achievements.

and why didn't we return? that's an entirely different topic.

Vitalux
26th April 2012, 02:57
finally, independent thinkers.
thank you raf and sdv.
now, any specific comments from those who think the moon
missions were totally or particularly phony?
please react to the doc.
it addresses the major points used by those who mock the landings
and against-all-odds achievements.

and why didn't we return? that's an entirely different topic.


Jimmy this is in no way intended as disrespect to you, or those that do believe that NASA landed men on the moon.
Jimmy, all I can tell you is that, I once with the same determination believed as you do, that NASA put men on the moon.
Jimmy, for some reason information came along that forced me to alter my belief of this.
Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that NASA did not put a man on the moon.

Jimmy, I could tell you that I hold two separate University degrees :argue:
Jimmy I could tell you that I am 50 years old and have also studied for 30 years astrophysics as well as astronomy.
Jimmy I could convey a million scientific reasons why it was impossible for the Americans to place a man on the Moon with the technology that they possessed.
However it would be pointless if it falls upon a closed mind.

People only hear and see what they want to see.

You will discover whichever reality you wish in your own way and time as I have.:nod:

Best wishes my fellow Avalonian and I appreciate your views.

KiwiElf
26th April 2012, 03:07
finally, independent thinkers.
thank you raf and sdv.
now, any specific comments from those who think the moon
missions were totally or particularly phony?
please react to the doc.
it addresses the major points used by those who mock the landings
and against-all-odds achievements.

and why didn't we return? that's an entirely different topic.


Jimmy this is in no way intended as disrespect to you, or those that do believe that NASA landed men on the moon.
Jimmy, all I can tell you is that I once with the same determination believed as you did that NASA put men on the moon.
Jimmy, for some reason information came along that forced me to alter my belief system.
Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that NASA did not put a man on the moon.

Jimmy, I could tell you that I hold two separate University degrees :argue:
Jimmy I could tell you that I am 50 years old and have also studied for 30 years astrophysics as well as astronomy.
Jimmy I could convey a million scientific reasons why it was impossible for the Americans to place a man on the Moon with the technology that they possessed.
However it would be pointless if it falls upon a closed mind.

People only hear and see what they want to see.

You will discover whichever reality you wish in your own way and time as I have.:nod:

Best wishes my fellow Avalonian and I appreciate your views.

Jimmy, with all respect.... That, and it's already been discussed on Avalon earlier... ad nauseum - (as I mentioned before ;)). Your arguments are "old news" and most of the people on here have already "been-there-done-that". Perhaps inject something "new" into the discussion? :)

Vitalux
26th April 2012, 03:38
well, I guess no one is interested to react to a recent documentary that included apollo astronaut buzz aldrin
defending the apollo missions to the moon. it's pretty historic stuff.
as for the any laser can bounce a beam back from the moon, there's a big difference between a 'measurable return'
and a targeted 'spike.'
honestly, watch the doc.

I agree. I´ve seen a doc that shows a team of scientists doing the laser tests. The laser only bounces back once it´s targeted at the exact coordinates of the mirrors.

Anyway, it´s easy to do this test by yourself. Pick up your laser pointer (I´m sure most of us have one), point it to the wall and see how it behaves. Now point it at your mirror and watch the results.

I´m sure there are lots of mysteries regarding our moon expeditions indeed, but I´m also sure that we´ve been there.

Cheers,

Raf.

Raf

I understand where you are drawing your logic from, however consider this as well.

Radio waves, lasers, radar, radiation, sound waves and visible light are all the same thing. Electromagnetic radiation. However they all have different properties.

There are different types of lasers that have different characteristics in the way the bounce off objects.
There are some forms of electromagnetic radiation that is visible and able to been seen by the naked human eye.
Most of the forms of electromagnetic radiation that exists are not able to be seen with the naked eye.

Many types of lasers use forms of electromagnetic radiation that is not able to been seen with the naked eye.

Many types of lasers when they strike objects bounce their energy very much like radio signals do.

We use lasers to map the Earth surface from Earth orbiting satellites everyday. We use the same laser technology of lasers to map mars, the moon and all other terrestrial object in space which we explore with satellites.
The only difference is most people are not educated or aware that lasers interact with terrestrial objects ( ie the surface of planets or moons) the same way as radar, or radio waves.



Therefore, using a simple laser pointer to draw conclusion if lasers light bounces back off the Moon perhaps is a bit naive if one does not understand fully the science.




Article on laser mapping from airplanes of the Earth surface
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=airborne-laser-mapping
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/airborne-laser-mapping_1.jpg
MAPPING THE GLOBE IN 3-D WITH LASERS



I agree. I´ve seen a doc that shows a team of scientists doing the laser tests. The laser only bounces back once it´s targeted at the exact coordinates of the mirrors.

In conclusion, Raf, that documentary you watched where they inferred the laser light only bounces back once it has hit the target mirror, they lied.

jimmer
26th April 2012, 13:08
"In conclusion, Raf, that documentary you watched where they inferred the laser light only bounces back once it has hit the target mirror, they lied."

simple question: have you and yours reviewed the documentary in question?
that's all I've been requesting. review the documentary and comment on it.

RMorgan
26th April 2012, 16:24
well, I guess no one is interested to react to a recent documentary that included apollo astronaut buzz aldrin
defending the apollo missions to the moon. it's pretty historic stuff.
as for the any laser can bounce a beam back from the moon, there's a big difference between a 'measurable return'
and a targeted 'spike.'
honestly, watch the doc.

I agree. I´ve seen a doc that shows a team of scientists doing the laser tests. The laser only bounces back once it´s targeted at the exact coordinates of the mirrors.

Anyway, it´s easy to do this test by yourself. Pick up your laser pointer (I´m sure most of us have one), point it to the wall and see how it behaves. Now point it at your mirror and watch the results.

I´m sure there are lots of mysteries regarding our moon expeditions indeed, but I´m also sure that we´ve been there.

Cheers,

Raf.

Raf

I understand where you are drawing your logic from, however consider this as well.

Radio waves, lasers, radar, radiation, sound waves and visible light are all the same thing. Electromagnetic radiation. However they all have different properties.

There are different types of lasers that have different characteristics in the way the bounce off objects.
There are some forms of electromagnetic radiation that is visible and able to been seen by the naked human eye.
Most of the forms of electromagnetic radiation that exists are not able to be seen with the naked eye.

Many types of lasers use forms of electromagnetic radiation that is not able to been seen with the naked eye.

Many types of lasers when they strike objects bounce their energy very much like radio signals do.

We use lasers to map the Earth surface from Earth orbiting satellites everyday. We use the same laser technology of lasers to map mars, the moon and all other terrestrial object in space which we explore with satellites.
The only difference is most people are not educated or aware that lasers interact with terrestrial objects ( ie the surface of planets or moons) the same way as radar, or radio waves.



Therefore, using a simple laser pointer to draw conclusion if lasers light bounces back off the Moon perhaps is a bit naive if one does not understand fully the science.




Article on laser mapping from airplanes of the Earth surface
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=airborne-laser-mapping
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/airborne-laser-mapping_1.jpg
MAPPING THE GLOBE IN 3-D WITH LASERS



I agree. I´ve seen a doc that shows a team of scientists doing the laser tests. The laser only bounces back once it´s targeted at the exact coordinates of the mirrors.

In conclusion, Raf, that documentary you watched where they inferred the laser light only bounces back once it has hit the target mirror, they lied.

Thank´s for the demonstration, my friend.

So, you know that just like a laser can be used to map and "perceive" different terrain characteristics, it can also be used to "perceive" flat polished reflexive surfaces, like mirrors, right?

You agree that a laser beam´s computation codes can be configured to respond only when it´s reflected by a mirrored surface, right?

Cheers,

Raf.

Cidersomerset
26th April 2012, 18:34
Its official Lazer bouncing off man made artifact on moon !!!!

DRmWkSbEMp4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about that ..LOL..could not help it I was trying to find the Jay Wiedner Stanley Kubrik
vid which was on this thread I put up back along but it has been taken off u'tube by Jay I
pressume for copyright ........So asked I Sheldon instead !!

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39266-Jay-Weidner-Kubrick-s-Odyssey-Secrets-Hidden-in-the-films-of-Stanley-Kubrick

RMorgan
26th April 2012, 18:46
Hey folks,

I know some of you are not really fans of Mythbusters, but here´s the part where they demonstrate the laser thing:

0dTATMEJSuQ

Cheers,

Raf.

Cidersomerset
26th April 2012, 18:57
Cheers Raf ...Theres no reason the retro reflector may not be on the moon , just not nessassary left by Appollo 15....I think most of us on here agree man
has been to the moon and are up there now as part of the secret space corp !!

RMorgan
26th April 2012, 19:00
Cheers Raf ...Theres no reason the retro reflector may not be on the moon , just not nessassary left by Appollo 15....I think most of us on here agree man
has been to the moon and are up there now as part of the secret space corp !!


Hi brother,

I agree mate.

I don´t know how they did it, but they went to the moon indeed...How they did it is another story, pretty hard to uncover.

Cheers,

Raf.

Hervé
26th April 2012, 19:27
There was another stumbling block to overcome for NASA astronauts to set foot on the Moon and that's a major one but I lost the links to the observation made by two fellows.

The observation was very simple: they looked at the size of the Lunar lander hatch and at the size of an astronaut full lunar gear... the former would have prevented the latter to ever come out of the Lander... never mind getting back in.

jimmer
26th April 2012, 19:33
can some provide some hard proof, not theory, that outside influences assisted the man moon landings?
by now, some hard facts must exist if it's true.
if not, then it's just a hypothesis, not provable and not very helpful.

Vitalux
27th April 2012, 01:10
can some provide some hard proof, not theory, that outside influences assisted the man moon landings?
by now, some hard facts must exist if it's true.
if not, then it's just a hypothesis, not provable and not very helpful.

jimmer

How much proof do you need? It is right in front of your face.

Facts:
1.Photography experts have stated publicly on the record that NASA MOON Photos are Faked.
2. Video in which NASA has stated was filmed on the moon have been proven to be fraudulent by film and photography experts.
3. Moon rocks that NASA have claimed to be MOON Rocks have been found to be Fraudulent.
4. Film production of Astronauts being half way to the moon have been shown by experts to be fraudulent.
5. Mechanical and aerospace engineers have stated that the Lunar module was not capable of operating in space.
6. Top astrophysicists have stated that the shielding needed to pass through the Earth's magnetosphere (Van-Allen belts) would need to be made of lead shielding 4 feet thick.
7. Top Rocket experts have already gone on record as stating that a rocket to travel to the Moon, the way the Americans claimed to have done so, is simply a technological impossibility.
8. During conversations when NASA was in communication with the astronauts on the moon, there was no delay in the transmissions of communication.

9. Every single element of how NASA claimed to have sent men to the moon, is simply scientifically impossible with the current technology they were using.

10. This list could go on for hundreds of point.


But what is the point of me trying to tell you, you refuse to believe it, look at any of the evidence.
You simply do not wish to know the truth.
So you only cherry pick what will nurture your ignorance, and ignore the rest.

WHo am I to try and take away your fantasy.

KiwiElf
27th April 2012, 01:28
:) Jimmy, it's not our "job" to do your learning or find "your truth" and I can understand your frustration. Heh, sorry...that's your responsibility. :) But... Please, do some equally objective independent research to verify/unverify for yourself. Ask 10 people, you will probably get 10 different answers :)

ie, If you want to raise the stakes, check out the "alternative view" of the Apollo 13 mission "accident": It was allegedly carrying a nuclear device to test on the Moon... and was stopped. By a UFO! Lots of circumstantial evidence - very little "proof".

Back to the earlier topic, 3 x possible overall scenarios have been suggested(there are more):

1. The Official Version (That we went to the Moon... like in the "News"
2. Bill Ryan's Post #3 (here) - alternative composite view between the two extremes
3. And the above post - "Overall Conspiracy" view

Which one do you feel you "lean" towards and why? (No right or wrong or judgement here)
Have you done equal & unbiased research on all 3 without any predisposition to dis/favoring any one of these? Just a thought.

RMorgan
27th April 2012, 01:57
Calm down folks. Let´s be polite with each other.

We´re not here to fight.

Vitalux
28th April 2012, 03:24
:)

ie, If you want to raise the stakes, check out the "alternative view" of the Apollo 13 mission "accident": It was allegedly carrying a nuclear device to test on the Moon... and was stopped. By a UFO! Lots of circumstantial evidence - very little "proof".



I laugh at this story of Apollo 13.
It has all that fan fare of a Hollywood Movie. In fact, that is all it is.

In the Movie, Apollo 13, you may recall that they astronauts were having to deal with the space craft getting cold. As they had to shut down systems to conserve energy.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLR1QgcJn8LQqSYqWWYmjGTaT6G-HJeGWS-gJlUyTuI_U8-Dd14Q

Ironically, for a space craft in space between the Earth and Moon, the opposite is true. The problem would be trying to cool the space craft from excessive heat.

I shall explain.

Heat and Cold exist differently in space.
Because solar radiation is so intense in space, objects, such as a space craft collect and retain a large amount of solar radiation (heat energy).
In contrast, there is no atmosphere outside the space craft to draw away the heat energy.
In essence the space craft, while traveling in a vacuum operates like a thermos bottle in retaining heat.

Therefore, the inside of the spacecraft has to deal with excessive heat at all times.
Not the cold.

Had the Apollo space craft been exposed to those conditions like that in space, then, after their space craft would have splashed down, and the space capsule opened, the only thing they wouldhave found was three over cooked jive turkeys to talk about.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iwxvfbiH-xU/SjK-pffx2ZI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/oinrWtPKWNk/s400/Burned+Turkey.jpg

Also the same facts hold true whenever NASA tried to say they use to rotate a space module in space to balance the temperature between the dark side and light side. Same principal. The object will gain more heat energy at a more rapid rate, than it will loose.

kemo
28th April 2012, 07:25
For all the supposed facts I've seen about why the Moon landings were hoaxed I've seen the counterarguments. The conspiracy case is not proven - we are simply asked to believe one version over another one. For me it speaks for itself that 400,000 people worked upon Apollo for 10 years. It is inconceivable to me that this could be kept secret. Moreover Ed Mitchell, who I regard as a man of great integity, says he went to the moon. I believe him. He has spoken out about UFOs so I don't why he wouldn't have spoken out about hoaxed landings, or hinted at it, if it were true. Until he does, I remain unconvinced.

KiwiElf
28th April 2012, 12:57
:)

ie, If you want to raise the stakes, check out the "alternative view" of the Apollo 13 mission "accident": It was allegedly carrying a nuclear device to test on the Moon... and was stopped. By a UFO! Lots of circumstantial evidence - very little "proof".



I laugh at this story of Apollo 13.
It has all that fan fare of a Hollywood Movie. In fact, that is all it is.

In the Movie, Apollo 13, you may recall that they astronauts were having to deal with the space craft getting cold. As they had to shut down systems to conserve energy.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLR1QgcJn8LQqSYqWWYmjGTaT6G-HJeGWS-gJlUyTuI_U8-Dd14Q

Ironically, for a space craft in space between the Earth and Moon, the opposite is true. The problem would be trying to cool the space craft from excessive heat.

I shall explain.

Heat and Cold exist differently in space.
Because solar radiation is so intense in space, objects, such as a space craft collect and retain a large amount of solar radiation (heat energy).
In contrast, there is no atmosphere outside the space craft to draw away the heat energy.
In essence the space craft, while traveling in a vacuum operates like a thermos bottle in retaining heat.

Therefore, the inside of the spacecraft has to deal with excessive heat at all times.
Not the cold.

Had the Apollo space craft been exposed to those conditions like that in space, then, after their space craft would have splashed down, and the space capsule opened, the only thing they wouldhave found was three over cooked jive turkeys to talk about.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iwxvfbiH-xU/SjK-pffx2ZI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/oinrWtPKWNk/s400/Burned+Turkey.jpg

Also the same facts hold true whenever NASA tried to say they use to rotate a space module in space to balance the temperature between the dark side and light side. Same principal. The object will gain more heat energy at a more rapid rate, than it will loose.

LOL :) In the Movie... uhuh. That's your "research"?
I neither agree nor disagree with you. It's just "information" and thankyou for sharing ;)

jimmer
28th April 2012, 13:23
Until he does, I remain unconvinced.

I'm with you.
like the trevor martin / george zimmerman case in florida, objectivity can be twisted by self centered desires. the facts behind real events can be confused and misrepresented to achieve a selfish end.

let's face it, there exists anti-american, reverse self loathing. it's been going on for decades. lots of these moon mission myths derive from this envy and the need to denigrate those who actually achieve something. you can see it in the U.S. as the occupy movement.
and for some, this need to nix the moon missions can derive from a simple hate of nasa for it's tight lipped, secretive, national security policies.

that said, if hard, verifiable proof can be presented that the moon missions where phonied up, I remain all ears. prove it with hard facts, not hypotheses, please.

I still request that all our moon mythers review the doc. (the truth behind the moon landings) and comment on it. courage.


http://youtu.be/t4tk-3KeYNQ

ponda
28th April 2012, 13:33
Here's the latest Red Ice Radio interview with Jay Weidner discussing the Moon landings



Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings

April 26, 2012

Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar, considered to be a "modern-day Indiana Jones" for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind's spiritual destiny. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick's Odyssey. Jay presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick's film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

http://rediceradio.net/radio/2012/RIR-120426-jweidner-hr1.mp3


Or listen here: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2012/04/RIR-120426.php

KiwiElf
28th April 2012, 13:45
I still request that all our moon mythers review the doc. (the truth behind the moon landings) and comment on it. courage.


http://youtu.be/t4tk-3KeYNQ

Cool, that's the idea ;) I thought the video portrayed an excellent & well balanced interview to favor & debunk one of the possibilitys above :). I have added it to my file "Moon Stuff - Question Mark", thank you :) But prove it? I can't one way or the other.

Vitalux
Now how about this one? This is the trailer for the movie, Apollo 18; claimed to be "true" by the producers.
Have you seen the whole movie? What are your thoughts?

0F6DU6gx7-whttp:

Vitalux
28th April 2012, 21:43
Until he does, I remain unconvinced.

I'm with you.
like the trevor martin / george zimmerman case in florida, objectivity can be twisted by self centered desires. the facts behind real events can be confused and misrepresented to achieve a selfish end.

let's face it, there exists anti-american, reverse self loathing. it's been going on for decades. lots of these moon mission myths derive from this envy and the need to denigrate those who actually achieve something. you can see it in the U.S. as the occupy movement.
and for some, this need to nix the moon missions can derive from a simple hate of nasa for it's tight lipped, secretive, national security policies.

that said, if hard, verifiable proof can be presented that the moon missions where phonied up, I remain all ears. prove it with hard facts, not hypotheses, please.

I still request that all our moon mythers review the doc. (the truth behind the moon landings) and comment on it. courage.


http://youtu.be/t4tk-3KeYNQ

yes I did watch the video and found many things in the video quite falsely stated.

I do happen to be a photographer. I know about studio light, as I have a photography studio and work on daily based with it.

Lets discuss this from the start.

If I buy a lotto ticket. In theory, I have a chance to win a lottery. It might be small, but I have in theory a chance to win.
The more tickets I buy, the greater the probability of winning.
This no longer becomes a theory, but a probability of winning which is real and based on facts.

When evidence is put forth that someone has committed Fraud.
It is not a conspiracy theory, it is criminal probability.
Evidence that is put forth to support the accusation for Fraud only build weight to the case.
So why does society even bother to use the words "conspiracy theory" when it should be taken more seriously.
For anytime that we are lied to by the Big Brother, we should be paying serious attention.

Lets chat about the photography aspect, now that I have already dealt with the bouncing the laser off the moon and shown that your Myth Busters lied in their video.

http://extraordinaryintelligence.com/files/2010/12/moon-landing-hoax.jpg
In that video you posted the Jay Windly, an aerospace engineer, at 18:57 min in the documentary illustrates that the use of natural background lighting on the moon, would have been adequate to illuminate that front of the astronaut.
I find this to be false.

First off, on the moon, there is no atmosphere, as you are aware, and therefore the quality of light is different. Light is not diffused by an atmosphere and will not reflect in that way.
Second. Jay is doing his photography on Earth, with an atmosphere.
Third. I highly suspect that we are seeing more artifical light being used to show the front of the astronaut.

I can easily demonstrate this by asking you to do this.

Go out to a local hardware store and purchase a white coveralls.
Next wait until night time when it is absolutely black outside, and stand about 50 feet in front of a automobile with its head lights shinning on your back.
next have someone stand about 50 feet in front of you and have them take a photograph of you with a camera but tell them not to use a flash.
Ask them also how clearly they can see you.

Here is another experiment.
Turn on your headlights at night, stand in front of your car, about 50 feet away, and try and read the front license plate, or tell me about what you see. Can you tell me what color the car is?

This aerospace engineer is lying.
http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/stuarburstphotography/moon2.jpg

Christ even the Myth Busters with all their bullschit, did not try and make the front of the astronaut that brightly lit up with a light source behind the subject.
The fact that this guy screwed up so much, should make even a complete moron start to wonder.

He is simply lying, in my opinion and using more than one light.
Notice he does not give the viewer a total overview of all lighting.

One thing that you will discover, if a con artist has been telling you lies all along, at what point will you start to figure out that ...you are still being lied too.

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbAZ9kl-LZXlXwduN241i4DRQfUQqmzLxXGnpbHYTbrdF7D7kLLghttps://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSw6kgmhrRUJBdYk4MuXy2YpotbmSXdR UFBcUGK2y9jBRdROB0B
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvp_x87hl79X2M2_LBIAW78dJ2h-3YclgArWkEp4U7p4Wzl5Apag
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnssy0CQ8fOvNWNpXb5vRrCQK6KXv34 S6fe_9dIQFe_86BW0gHCwhttps://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSec-N-FzZoh0qj4OEBB7CjpnxPf5HFKFCCA57ywzw0uTqzPAas

Vitalux
28th April 2012, 22:43
I once saw on Television that a Huge Lizard was stomping all over Tokyo.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110202025306/headhuntersholosuite/images/8/8b/Godzilla_attacks_Tokyo_001.jpg

Back then, with my naive mind, I thought it was real because I saw it live on Television.

Many people suffer the same dilemma about NASA claiming to put a man on the moon. The only difference is the Moon Video had more cheesy effects that made it really hard for most educated minds to be fooled.

That is why you wont see them put the reruns on tv.

jimmer
28th April 2012, 23:46
let me conduct the automobile lighting tests this evening and I'll get back to you : )

sdv
29th April 2012, 16:48
I've seen the movie Apollo 18 and I highly recommend it. It's filmed as a mixture of a documentary and a movie and I think it is very well done. Remember that it is a movie. What I did not find believable was the rocks turning into some sort of creatures that attacked the astronauts. The rest was very well done and based on what I saw as a believable scenario.

Oh, by the way, it is inaccurate to say that there is no atmosphere on the Moon. The Moon does have an atmosphere, it's just a very thin/scanty atmosphere.Just keeping the facts straight!

sdv
29th April 2012, 16:59
Vitalux, I am not disputing what you are saying about the lighting, but ...

The Moon is rather small, and atmospheric conditions are not the same as here on Earth, plus light would be reflected from our very own blue planet. So, I do not think we can assume that if you are taking a photograph on the Moon that natural light would only be from behind you.

You sound as if you have a lot more technical understanding than I have, so how could we replicate the actual conditions on the Moon here on Earth for that photography? I don't think your headlights example is an accurate replication. Can you come up with a theoretical replication? Imagine we are standing on the Moon and you are taking a photograph of me. What should that photograph show (depending on the position of the Sun and Earth)? I'm not challenging you. I am trying to understand and you seem to have the kind of technical thinking that could give me the explanation.

jimmer
29th April 2012, 17:27
I've seen the movie Apollo 18 and I highly recommend it. It's filmed as a mixture of a documentary and a movie and I think it is very well done. Remember that it is a movie. What I did not find believable was the rocks turning into some sort of creatures that attacked the astronauts. The rest was very well done and based on what I saw as a believable scenario.

Oh, by the way, it is inaccurate to say that there is no atmosphere on the Moon. The Moon does have an atmosphere, it's just a very thin/scanty atmosphere.Just keeping the facts straight!

I watched it last night. (SPOILER ALERT)
interesting that there were a total a 5 endings shot for the film (4 are available in the 'alternate endings' bonus footage).
the focus groups chosen ending is the safest, yet ends too abruptly for me. no epilog or resolution.
I would have chose the one where the orbiter astronaut returns home with many questions; getting some answers.
the surveying must have voted for the total destruction one.
the rest of the film is a hoot.
well shot, told, funded and acted.

although, some of the moon walking footage is convincing (first exploration) and
some looked pretty wrong (earthbound).
wonder why?

sdv
29th April 2012, 17:50
I watched it last night. (SPOILER ALERT)
interesting that there were a total a 5 endings shot for the film (4 are available in the 'alternate endings' bonus footage).the focus groups chosen ending is the safest, yet ends too abruptly for me. no epilog or resolution.
I would have chose the one where the orbiter astronaut returns home with many questions; getting some answers.
the surveying must have voted for the total destruction one.
the rest of the film is a hoot.
well shot, told, funded and acted.

although, some of the moon walking footage is convincing (first exploration) and
some looked pretty wrong (earthbound).
wonder why?

I missed out on the alternative endings (not included in the DVD I rented or did I just miss it?). I'll have to double check on that.

I think the movie makers were alluding to the moon hoax controversy - is this real or isn't it.

Vitalux
29th April 2012, 18:37
Vitalux, I am not disputing what you are saying about the lighting, but ...

The Moon is rather small, and atmospheric conditions are not the same as here on Earth, plus light would be reflected from our very own blue planet. So, I do not think we can assume that if you are taking a photograph on the Moon that natural light would only be from behind you.

You sound as if you have a lot more technical understanding than I have, so how could we replicate the actual conditions on the Moon here on Earth for that photography? I don't think your headlights example is an accurate replication. Can you come up with a theoretical replication? Imagine we are standing on the Moon and you are taking a photograph of me. What should that photograph show (depending on the position of the Sun and Earth)? I'm not challenging you. I am trying to understand and you seem to have the kind of technical thinking that could give me the explanation.

Here is a very simple way to explain the theory.

When we look at a New Moon, we are seeing the Moon standing in front of the Sun. Like an astronaut would be if he was standing in front of the sun.

Go out tonight and take a look at the moon when it is at it's new Moon stage.

This will give you an excellent way to view the interaction of light on an object in space.

If light were to react, the way NASA is proclaiming in their photographs, we would never view a New Moon. We would always be able to view the dark side of the moon.
Every time there was a solar eclipse of the sun, we would see the whole moon.

http://www.moonconnection.com/images/moon_phases_diagram.jpg

Study this diagram. You see the moon is always being hit with light from the sun. However, we view the phases because those are the areas in which the direct sunlight does not reach.

Same theory if an astronaut is standing on the moon. He will be dark on the side that is facing away from the Sun. Relative to seeing the light side, the opposite side will be very dark or black.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif/200px-Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif


Therefore, if you want direct proof, just go look at the moon tonight as well as study for the next lunar month. Ask yourself, if the moon surface is allegedly so bright, than how come we have such a distinct zone between the light side and the dark side during its phases.
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRAGvE36nhbXAS7ZRXFqnRWGp1vICbEF AkFfnKF4haG3CjVY4FamQ

http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/stuarburstphotography/moon2.jpg

Can you relate how this image of the astronaut does not match the same science of how light operates in the vacuum of space etc?

This if this clown in the space suit was standing on the line between the light side of the moon and the dark side of the moon with his back to the Sun, would you see his face?

As for their being an atmosphere on the Moon surface.

In the beginning the People of the World were told by NASA that there was NO atmosphere on the moon. So at this conjunction I am using NASA's own science.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_an_atmosphere

Could you provide me with your source that indicates that there is an atmosphere on the Earth's lunar Moon.

I actually consider that there is a partial atmosphere, however it is just a theory at this point and I have never found any way to substantiate this.

Wade Frazier
29th April 2012, 18:58
Hi:

I rarely post outside of my own threads, but I saw a link to this thread from my main thread. I spent a lot of time looking into the moon landings, and I never saw any convincing evidence that they were faked, and found positive evidence that they really happened:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt

But I was never quite able to get Brian O over the hump,

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianmem.htm#moon

and am still trying to get what ended up truly being his “final word” on the subject published someplace where the Wikipedia editors stop erasing it.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#statement

The moon hoax issue is a red herring, IMO, which serves to distract the alternative crowd from the important issues.

Best,

Wade

Vitalux
29th April 2012, 21:04
Hi:


The moon hoax issue is a red herring, IMO, which serves to distract the alternative crowd from the important issues.

Best,

Wade

My belief that, the Hoax of NASA landing a man on the MOON, is far from a red herring.
It tends to blow open a huge hole into the artificial reality that the current world lives under.

1. It tends to prove that no "Cold War" actually existed between "Russia (USSR), or China or any other major world power.
This is supported by the fact that those countries media and political leaders did not opening expose the obvious Hoax.

2. It tends to prove their is a huge degree of corruption in both the media as well as the scientific community.

3. It tends to prove that we the people of the world are not exposed to truth, but to lies by those that govern us.

4. It serves as the straw that breaks the camels back. In order to comprehend what is involved in pulling off a hoax, like NASA landing a man on the moon, just how incredibly deep and far the corruption exists.


Earlier in a post someone said, that they believe NASA went to the moon because with over 400 000 people working on the Apollo Moon Missions, surely someone would have snitched or known.

This is easy to answer. The whole project was very compartmentalized. Very few people had much knowledge as to what others were doing.
For example, if I take a photo of an elephant and divide it into 400 000 pieces, it would be very difficult for anyone to know what the image was of.

As for those that knew at the time of the hoax. It is very easy to have someone keep a secrete in this world when you are the government. You control the media and you control it all.
Plus, all you would have to do is tell the person knowing the secrete that if they ever told anyone, the government would kill not just them, but their wife, their children, their mothers, etc.

Therefore, turning ones attention to the MOON Hoax, and fully understanding the scope of the criminal deception of public trust and money; goes a long way in ringing the alarm bells to let the public know the FOX HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE HEN HOUSE.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoDm1emPgMvwEi5BrrB80S0hFDq9oR7 nU4e87eqjiPzuXt0jTG

Wade Frazier
30th April 2012, 05:16
Hi Vitalux:

Nice theory, but I deal in evidence, not conjecture. The arguments that you are making are very old and are on the order of empty theory, from what I have seen. I looked pretty deeply at the evidence, at least as much as an outsider amateur could. If you have any convincing evidence of hoaxed moon landings, now is your chance. Please don’t serve up the same tired “evidence” that has been in circulation ever since Kaysing’s pamphlet:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#kaysing

from the 1970s, and other “evidence” produced by Rene, Collier, Percy, and the rest of that crew. Kubrick did not do it. I have never seen even one piece of evidence for faked moon landings that withstood rigorous scrutiny. Almost all of it quickly fell apart upon the most cursory inspection. It is a cousin to all of that “proof” that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. The fringes are filled with that kind of conspiratorial disinformation, which easily leads seekers astray, and faked moon landings is one of those areas.

Even though I satisfied myself of the reality of the moon landings in 2001, it has amazed me how long this controversy has stayed alive, generally by recycling disinformation, misrepresenting Brian’s stance on the issue, and so on. I used to get contacted regularly, and I usually sent them Jay’s way. He knows his stuff and will deal dispassionately with the evidence, and if you have anything that you think is any good, other than theory with no supporting evidence, Jay and I will be happy to see it.

Thanks,

Wade

Mad Hatter
30th April 2012, 09:35
Hmm... IIRC one plausible explanation for Kubricks legitimate involvment went along the lines of him doing his bit simply as a backup in case technical diificulties prevented the transmission of that very important speech on the day "Thats one small step.." yada yada.

Sort of beggs the question do you really think that they would do all that and spend all that and not have a plan B just in case. Might it be evidence of the unused plan B that has led to all the ruckus in the interim...?

Setras
30th April 2012, 11:36
for some proof of fake footage re-watch the mythbusters moon hoax episode. they show the experiment of the hammer and feather falling at the same rate in a vacuum...... now whilst they show the video they put next to it their own version conducted on earth in a huge vacuum chamber..... however in the video from the moon landing and the video from myhbusters all objects fell at the same speed, the objects on the moon should have fallen at an acceleration of 16.7% that of earth.... a fact they over looked

jimmer
30th April 2012, 13:39
Hi Vitalux:

Nice theory, but I deal in evidence, not conjecture. The arguments that you are making are very old and are on the order of empty theory, from what I have seen. I looked pretty deeply at the evidence, at least as much as an outsider amateur could. If you have any convincing evidence of hoaxed moon landings, now is your chance. Please don’t serve up the same tired “evidence” that has been in circulation ever since Kaysing’s pamphlet:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#kaysing

from the 1970s, and other “evidence” produced by Rene, Collier, Percy, and the rest of that crew. Kubrick did not do it. I have never seen even one piece of evidence for faked moon landings that withstood rigorous scrutiny. Almost all of it quickly fell apart upon the most cursory inspection. It is a cousin to all of that “proof” that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. The fringes are filled with that kind of conspiratorial disinformation, which easily leads seekers astray, and faked moon landings is one of those areas.

Even though I satisfied myself of the reality of the moon landings in 2001, it has amazed me how long this controversy has stayed alive, generally by recycling disinformation, misrepresenting Brian’s stance on the issue, and so on. I used to get contacted regularly, and I usually sent them Jay’s way. He knows his stuff and will deal dispassionately with the evidence, and if you have anything that you think is any good, other than theory with no supporting evidence, Jay and I will be happy to see it.

Thanks,

Wade

thanks for adding your expertise, wade.
your research and educated conclusions are thoroughly compelling and add evidential facts to
the theoretic bluster we've been bombarded with over the years.
I'm with you. there far more suspect and important issues to focus on.
as to this moon hoax subject -- we did and we're are proud.

now, the next obvious question is why didn't we return to the moon?
for me, that's the real conundrum.
lack of will, too dangerous, budgets, alien menace -- why?

Operator
30th April 2012, 14:29
Nice theory, but I deal in evidence, not conjecture.


That is of course a very good and wise approach.
My point however is what evidence do we have that the official storyline really happened as they say ?

I think in general things hardly ever happened as is officially sold to the general public.
So just because they told us ... is not evidence for me either.

I agree with you b.t.w. that fighting over this is a distraction of the real issues ... I mentioned this in a earlier post.

sdv
30th April 2012, 14:38
now, the next obvious question is why didn't we return to the moon?
for me, that's the real conundrum.
lack of will, too dangerous, budgets, alien menace -- why?

To me the question has always been 'Why did we go back so many times, and to the same side?'. Surely it only takes one trip to collect some samples, do some tests, plant the flag, take some photos? Two trips, because if we really want to understand the Moon we need to visit both sides. (I'm particularly interested in Mars and, irrationaly, think that if we had not spent all that money landing on the Moon over and over again we could have landed on Mars by now!)

I think there were 7 'landing' missions to the Moon (counting Apollo 13), and there was no convincing reason why we should keep going back to do the same thing. Also, by then the idea of a space station in space rather than a station on the Moon was the winning idea. In a way we have been back, but not with 'manned' missions.

sdv
30th April 2012, 14:58
Could you provide me with your source that indicates that there is an atmosphere on the Earth's lunar Moon.

I actually consider that there is a partial atmosphere, however it is just a theory at this point and I have never found any way to substantiate this.

My reference books are at home (and are more up-to-date than 2009), but for now I found this 2009 article about the Moon's atmosphere: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23oct_ladee/

sdv
30th April 2012, 15:03
By the way, I found the following paragraph in the article rather strange ... (I thought that by 2009 there was no reason to go back to the Moon. But maybe the options have always been open. And 'living and working on the Moon' is technically correct as astronauts slept and ate and worked while on the Moon, but still sounds strange!)


"It's important that we understand it in its pristine state before there's much perturbation," says Anthony Colaprete of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. "It's such a fragile system. It's possible that it will be hard to study once humans are once more living and working on the Moon."

Wade Frazier
1st May 2012, 04:56
Hi:

Setras, if you want to make a convincing case that the world has been seeing faked footage of that feather-and-hammer experiment for more than forty years, you can easily time the fall on the footage (they clearly fall far slower than they would on Earth), the distance, and how fast they should fall in lunar gravity, and produce your compelling argument. Many claims have been made for greater-than-one-sixth gravity on the moon (or that we are seeing Earth gravity because the footage is faked), but nothing has ever held up. When you come up with some convincing analysis, I will send it along to the people who love to analyze such evidence. They don’t suffer fools for long, so it needs to be a rigorous analysis, not, “I saw something on TV that looked fake.”

Hi Mad Hatter, even Brian O speculated that they might have not been above faking it if they had to:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#statement

and it was not entirely idle speculation, given his experiences with the USA’s military over the UFO issue:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianmem.htm#attack

but it is speculation just the same. They can fake evidence like with the JFK hit:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#wean

but they are far better at just making evidence disappear.

Hi Jimmer:

On why we did not go back yet, or why we went more than once, there are obvious answers that are not too hard to understand, although plenty is being covered up by TPTB on these issues. Going was an awesomely expensive undertaking, and it was mainly about beating the Soviets to the moon, and once that stunt was completed, it sure did not merit the effort of a half million people, and the energy expenditure was mind-boggling. There are numbers out there on it, and it was incredibly energy-intensive. Going back to mine it is probably the big lure for “white science,” going after helium 3, but free energy and antigravity technology has been around longer than I have been alive, so the entire issue of chemical rocketry is pretty ridiculous in the big picture. IMO, free energy will come out before we colonize the moon, or we wipe ourselves out.

Hi Operator:

If you begin to go deep, the evidence is overwhelming that we went. The footage is just part of it. The Apollo missions took zillions of feet of footage of the moon as the command module orbited the moon. There are lots of heavily-studied moon rocks that have been subjected to sophisticated analysis (using tools that did not exist in their present state in 1969, and many new insights into how the moon formed came from analyzing the moon rocks, whose composition is very different than is found on Earth). There are many ground-based photos taken from observatories of the craft on the way to the moon, making regular dumps into space on the way (yeah, not a very clean way to do it :) ). There are many amateur image “analysts” who have alleged fake footage from the lunar surface from the missions, but none of it has ever held up. Look at the still footage taken by Apollo 11, for instance, and you will see pictures of the moon from the craft that are not possible from Earth, as they photograph parts of the “dark side.” I could go on, but the evidence is compellingly strong, when you begin to dig into it.

Hi sdv:

NASA picked the near side to land on so that they could communicate with Earth. They could not have done it with a far side mission, or it would not have been economical, with communication satellites put into orbit first, for relaying the signals (which would have been quite a feat back then). It would have been quite a logistical feat to do a mission on the far side, but what were they really going to find vastly different than this side (other than alien bases :) )?

Yes, the moon has a very thin atmosphere, which will get degraded, and quickly, if chemical rockets landed and took off with regularity.

In finishing, nobody has ever adduced compelling evidence of faked landings, and there is a mountain of evidence to consider. There is a lot of theorizing and conjecture, but I have never seen any of it amount to anything. Spending all that time looking into the evidence was educational for me, and it helped me in looking into other areas. But faked moon landings comprise a huge red herring that serves to distract and discredit fringe researchers. I would not say that the months that I spent looking into it were wasted, but there are way better things to do with our time.

Best,

Wade

jimmer
1st May 2012, 13:01
wade,
for one, I thank you for the time you spent researching and putting the pieces together.
your contributions to this subject is why this forum continues to be a destination.
your research proves that, while it's easy to speculate and postulate, hard work, analysis and good detective work
gets to the truth and wins the argument.
considering that this subject has been kicked around for some long, quieting the chorus is quite a feat.
thanks again. I've bookmarked your website for future references and to use as a "friendly persuader"
if this moon hoax topic ever arises again.

sdv
4th May 2012, 14:13
A bit off the original topic, but I was astonished to find out the extent to which NASA and other space agencies are still investigating Moon.

Missions to the Moon
Current and Past Missions
•GRAIL - NASA lunar orbiter mission (2011)
•Chang'e 2 - CNSA lunar orbiter mission (2010)
•Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - NASA Lunar Orbiter Mission (2009)
•LCROSS - NASA Lunar Impactor Mission (2009)
•Chandrayaan-1 - ISRO (India) Lunar Orbiter Mission (2008)
•Chang'e 1 - CAST (China) Lunar Orbiter Mission
•Kaguya (SELENE) - JAXA Lunar Orbiter Mission
•SMART 1 - ESA Lunar Orbiter Mission
•Lunar Prospector - NASA Lunar Discovery Mission
•AsiaSat 3/HGS-1 - Commercial Telecommunications Satellite
•Clementine - DoD/NASA Lunar Mapping Mission
•Hiten - ISAS Lunar Flyby and Orbiter
•Galileo - NASA Mission to Jupiter - Lunar Flyby
•Apollo - NASA Lunar Manned Missions
•Lunar Orbiter - NASA Lunar Mapping Missions
•Surveyor - NASA Lunar Lander Missions
•Ranger - NASA Lunar Impact Missions
•Luna and Zond - Soviet Lunar Missions
•Lunar Timeline - Chronology of all Lunar Missions
Future Missions
•LADEE - NASA lunar orbiter dust environment mission (March 2013)
•Moonrise - NASA New Frontiers sample return mission (under study)
•Lunar-A - JAXA (Japan) Lunar Orbiter and Penetrator Mission (Cancelled)

Wade Frazier
4th May 2012, 14:18
Hi:

Again, if anybody has robust evidence and analysis to produce, I’ll be waiting. There are people who have spent long years with the evidence, and are ready to entertain evidence of hoaxed moon landings. Nothing has ever passed muster yet.

Hi sdv:

Over the years, more evidence like this pops up.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

And with all those unmanned missions going to the moon, more will.

I won’t name names, but after I found Armstrong’s Leap:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt

one of the household names of anomalies in space, on Mars, etc., invited me to be an image analyzer on his team. I knew that I only knew enough about image analysis to be dangerous (it is a profession, not something that any amateur can pick up in a few weeks), and I let his recruiter know it. I was assured how easy image analysis was. Well, that was a big red flag to me about their operation, which has been confirmed to me many times since then. There is a ton of chaff out there.

Best,

Wade

conk
4th May 2012, 15:51
Wade, what do you make of the many manipulated photos presented by NASA? There can be no doubt about their attempt at deception after scrutiny of these phony images. What is their motive for presenting the fake photos?

Unified Serenity
4th May 2012, 15:56
Well, they either set up a fake moon on a studio to get pictures to sell and use as propaganda or they did not go. How did they get past the van allen belt without suffering from radiation? How come the lunar buggy was too big to fit into the compartment on the lunar lander? They did not have lots of lighting equipment so how did this happen?

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/StarChild/space_level2/aldrin_lem_big.gif

This shot requires back lighting. They did not carry it on their mission. This is what happens when there is not extra equipment to put light on your subject when the sun is behind them:

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PAD5596.jpg

jimmer
4th May 2012, 16:12
Wade, what do you make of the many manipulated photos presented by NASA? There can be no doubt about their attempt at deception after scrutiny of these phony images. What is their motive for presenting the fake photos?

and what about the 'smudged' moon structure photos?

Vitalux
5th May 2012, 02:39
Wade, what do you make of the many manipulated photos presented by NASA? There can be no doubt about their attempt at deception after scrutiny of these phony images. What is their motive for presenting the fake photos?

and what about the 'smudged' moon structure photos?

Perhaps you could expand on this and enlighten us with why NASA had to air brush "smudge" the moon photos?

Plus, if you are convinced NASA sent a Man to the Moon in 1969, why do you think they chose to fake all the videos and photos here on Earth? Would it not have been much easier for NASA to just go to the Moon to fake the photos, and videos from there?:whistle:

Plus explain this if you can jimmer?


THE COSMIC DUST ON THE MOON PROBLEM

All objects in outer space collect (gain) matter over time.

Our Earth collects dust that falls from outer space. This is known as cosmic dust.


Assuming that cosmic dust must also fall on the moon than we can estimate how much dust should have accumulated on the moon over a given time period.
Lets assume the moon was created around the same time as our Earth, 4 Billion years.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/30_06/cosmicdust.html
Assuming the Moons gravity is one sixth of Earth ( 1/6) therefore 1/6 x 40 000 tons = 6666.66667 tons a year.

Now lets see how much dust you would expect to encounter in about a Billion years of accumulating on the Moon.

1 000 000 000 x 6666.66667 = 6,666,666,700,000 tons of Dust on the Moon = 1 Billion Years, 6 Trillion 666 Billion Tons of cosmic Dust.


In 4 Billion Years

6 666 700 000 000 tons of Dust on the Moon x 4 (Billion Years) = 26,666,666,800,000 = 26 Trillion 666 Billion Tons of Cosmic Dust on the Moon.


Now lets look at how much space that dust occupies because NASA gives us the density of Cosmic Dust.


Most of the influx of extraterrestrial matter that falls onto the Earth is dominated by meteoroids with diameters in the range 50 to 500 micrometers, of average density 2.0 g/cm³ (with porosity about 40%). The densities of most IDPs captured in the Earth's stratosphere range between 1 and 3 g/cm³, with an average density at about 2.0 g/cm³.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust

2.0 g/ cm3

Lets covert that to the equivalent of how many feet thick across the Moon surface a Billion years of precipitation of Moon dust would do.

1 cubic foot = 28 316.8466 cubic centimeter
1 short ton = 907 184.74 grams

907,184.74g /2g = 453,592.37cm^3 (converting to One short ton per cm cubed)
1 short ton/16.01 feet^3 (converting cm cubed to feet cubed)

16.004 cubic feet/short ton (rounded to three digets)


Therefore each Short Ton of Cosmic Dust will occupy 16 cubic feet of space on the moon surface.

Now lets look at the dust from just Billion year to determine the volume of dust on the Moon surface.

16 cubic feet/ ton x = 6 666 666 700 000 tons of Moon Dust = 106 666 667 000 000 cubic feet. (724.647765 Miles^3 )


The diameter of the Moon is about 2159 miles or (3478 kilometers).


Now we get to the exciting part::rolleyes:

How deep would that much dust from one billion years be on the Moon surface?
V1 = 13,644,068,600 miles^3 (Current Moon Volume)
V2 = 13,644,069,324 (+724. miles^3 Dust after 1 Billion Years)

V2=(4/3)(Pie)(R2^3)
Or
Root Cubed (V2/(4/3)/(Pie)) = R2
Root Cubed (13,644,069,324 /(4/3)/(3.14)) = R2
Root Cubed (18192092432/3.14) = R2
Root Cubed (5793660010) = R2
1796.0468811908(rounded at 10 digets) = R2

R1 = Root Cubed (V1/(4/3)/(Pie))
R1 = Root Cubed (13,644,068,600/(4/3)/(3.14))
R1 = Root Cubed (18192091500/3.14)
R1 = Root Cubed (5793659700)
1796.0468491573(rounded at 10 digets) = R1

Now to calculate how much deep the dust would be after 4 billion years
Depth of Dust = R2 - R1
D = 1796.0468605240 - 1796.0468491573
D = 0.000128134 Miles Deep (multiplied by 4 for 4 billion years)
OR
D = 0.67654752 Feet Deep ( multiplied by 4)
OR
D = 8.11857024 Inches Deep ( ect )



= 8.11857024 Inches


Perhaps you can explain jimmy why when the NASA astronauts went to the moon the Moon dust was about half an inch deep instead of about 8 inches deep?
( that is of course only figuring the dust for four Billion years :rolleyes:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/jscfeatures/photos/Apollo_then/as11_40_5880.jpg


You see the links, you see my math

Wade Frazier
5th May 2012, 04:52
Hi:

I don’t expect to make many posts on this thread, unless people start raising their games. Recycled disinformation, shoot-from-the-hip analysis, cartoons, and name-calling is not going to cut it.

I deal with the “light in the shadows” anomaly in my essay, here:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#illuminated

But I would like to discuss it a little further. I hike in the mountains a lot, and one of the joys of the higher elevations is the optical effects. It is brighter up high, and the sky looks different, and that is because there is less atmosphere to penetrate for the sun’s light. The atmosphere gets progressively denser as you get closer to the ground. Only 55% of the sun’s light that hits Earth’s atmosphere makes it to the ground. 45% is either reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds and never makes it to the ground. Since the moon has no effective atmosphere and no clouds, the sun is nearly twice as bright on the moon’s surface as it is seen from the ground on Earth. In that image you posted, Unified Serenity, look at the moon’s surface in the background. It almost looks like a snowfield. The moon’s surface is highly reflective, almost like a snowfield. So, the sun from the moon’s surface is almost twice as bright to start with, and it is reflecting off the surface like a snowfield. Anything that has a line of sight to the moon’s surface is going to be hit with reflected light from the surface; a lot of it, and the astronauts were always in the line of sight to the lit lunar surface, even more so while standing on a ladder. This “lit while standing in the shadows” canard should have gone away many years ago, but like Jason in the Halloween movies, it never seems to die.

The lunar buggy fit just fine (I clearly remember watching them remove the rover from the LM, live, way back when), and the Van Allen belt definitely presented a hazard, but because the astronauts were only in the belt for a short time as they passed through it, the dose was low, on the order of one rem:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#vanallen

You would not want to get a rem a day, but two per space mission from the Van Allen belt was a price they were willing to pay.

One of the things that becomes evident with the prominent moon hoax theorists is that they have no understanding of what they are looking at, and leap to ludicrous conclusions with their first gut reaction to “evidence” that quickly falls apart upon inspection.

James Collier did it, when he misidentified a rock holder as the lunar rover:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#collier

Bart Sibrel did it when he saw footage of shooting the Earth through the hatch window, and concluding that they were faking footage of Earth by creating a false limb. It did not take long for a thinking person to see the impossibility of that logic.

Vitalux, with that logic, the dust on Mars should be that thick too, but it isn’t. Or Mercury. If you want, I can submit your analysis to the people who look at it, and you can see what they say. It probably won’t be very supportive of your theory.

Again, people, those chasing after the moon hoax stuff are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to begin to understand what is happening with humans and space, the Disclosure Project is a good place to start. NASA was advised to hide evidence of ET life more than fifty years ago:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#brookings

and I have no doubt that things have been covered up. It is far easier to cover things up than it is to fabricate evidence. Photos have been altered. One of the Disclosure witnesses from NASA testified to it, but it was to hide stuff, not fabricate stuff. A lot of what people fixate on are a lot more innocent than it seems, like the C-rock that René:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#reticle

made so much of. Or the reticles that the images bled over, especially in second-generation and later prints, and they usually bled over white, which is where you would expect it to bleed over. Most, if not all, of the so-called image analysis of the moon and Mars by the conspiracy crowd is invalid. My inside sources, and they are way better than what gets bandied about at Avalon, say that there are bases on Mars and the megalomaniacs that run the show want to terraform Mars if/when they wreck Earth, such are their grandiose delusions. But that does not mean that the amateur and even professional image analyzers are onto much with their analyses. A lot of it is shockingly bad.

Smudged photos can be reproduction errors, or it can be airbrushing out what they don’t want us to see. It happens. My father had a top-secret security clearance when he worked in the Mission Control Room:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paths.htm#oleary

The Space Race was a Cold War, quasi-military effort. That is partly why Brian O did not mesh with NASA very well in his astronaut days. I could never get Brian over the hump on the moon landings, to my disappointment, but I respected his position and am currently trying to get his “final word” on the subject published where the moon hoax crowd can’t keep erasing it at Wikipedia:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#statement

That this moon hoax issue stays alive is a pretty damning indictment of the conspiracy crowd. Logic, evidence, facts – these seem lost on the moon hoax crowd. It is like those “analysts” who published all of that “evidence” that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. One prominent analyst published more than thirty lines of evidence, and not one of them survived scrutiny. That is not how you go about the business of proving skullduggery in high places.

One of the reasons why Brian O would not spend the time to get to the bottom of the moon landings was that he knew the end of his life was near, and he had far better things to do with his time. I understood.

Signing off for tonight.

Best,

Wade

Vitalux
5th May 2012, 09:47
Hi:

I don’t expect to make many posts on this thread, unless people start raising their games. Recycled disinformation, shoot-from-the-hip analysis, cartoons, and name-calling is not going to cut it.

I deal with the “light in the shadows” anomaly in my essay, here:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#illuminated

But I would like to discuss it a little further. I hike in the mountains a lot, and one of the joys of the higher elevations is the optical effects. It is brighter up high, and the sky looks different, and that is because there is less atmosphere to penetrate for the sun’s light. The atmosphere gets progressively denser as you get closer to the ground. Only 55% of the sun’s light that hits Earth’s atmosphere makes it to the ground. 45% is either reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds and never makes it to the ground. Since the moon has no effective atmosphere and no clouds, the sun is nearly twice as bright on the moon’s surface as it is seen from the ground on Earth. In that image you posted, Unified Serenity, look at the moon’s surface in the background. It almost looks like a snowfield. The moon’s surface is highly reflective, almost like a snowfield. So, the sun from the moon’s surface is almost twice as bright to start with, and it is reflecting off the surface like a snowfield. Anything that has a line of sight to the moon’s surface is going to be hit with reflected light from the surface; a lot of it, and the astronauts were always in the line of sight to the lit lunar surface, even more so while standing on a ladder. This “lit while standing in the shadows” canard should have gone away many years ago, but like Jason in the Halloween movies, it never seems to die.



I am going to address your points one by one, as I find your statements riddled with contradictions from even the base of the scientific community.
In essence you are standing on a soap box defending NASA's putting a man on the moon, and contradicting even NASA's own data of moon research.

Points of Contradiction from your statement:



WADE The moon’s surface is highly reflective, almost like a snowfield. So, the sun from the moon’s surface is almost twice as bright to start with, and it is reflecting off the surface like a snowfield

Opps not sure where you are getting your facts but according to NASA


The surface of the Moon is about as reflective as an asphalt road--rather dark but not totally black
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970314b2.html

and

The Moon's albedo is 0.07, meaning that only 7% of the energy that gets to it is reflected.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/albedo.html



Wade it appears that snow reflects about 80 % - 90% of the sunlight that hits it.
While NASA says the moon surface reflects between 7% - 12%.

Busted!



Wade

Next your Link: and your obvious plagurism and fraud of facts.

The anomaly where astronauts standing in shadows are illuminated.

The theory regarding this anomaly is that in the vacuum of space (the moon has precious little atmosphere), there is no atmospheric diffusion, and a shadow on the moon should be pitch black. That should be true, except for two facts. The first is that a reflection of light from the earth can put some light into the shadows, similar to moonshine except far more pronounced, because the earth is much larger. But the sun is 100,000 times brighter than the earth from the moon. That illumination would not be seen for the same reason that stars are rarely seen in the Apollo moon photographs. The second is that if there were any illuminated surfaces with a line of sight to the shadow, they would shine scattered light onto it. That second instance explains every existing lit-in-the-shadows anomaly. Shadows that look gray have always had, as far as the examples I have seen, something illuminated that had a line-of sight to it, usually close-by. Much has been made of astronauts standing in the shadow of the LM (Landing Module, also called Lunar Module), being lit up, or having a “hot spot” on their suits, which supposedly shows a secondary light source, not the sun. Again, the scattering “backward” of light from the surface onto an astronaut above the moon’s surface can explain every instance of the astronaut being “lit up” while in shadow, and it is surprising that this “anomaly” has had such a long life among the conspiracy theorists. The “hot spots” may have a similar explanation.


Plagiarized from here??:confused::


http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970314b2.html
(ttp://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970314b2.html)
The Question
(Submitted March 14, 1997)

Why does the Moon sometimes come out during the day?

The Answer
You can see the Moon in the daytime because it is big and brightly lit by the Sun. The surface of the Moon is about as reflective as an asphalt road--rather dark but not totally black. When you look at the Moon, you are seeing the light which reflects off it. This is not nearly as bright as the Sun, but it is up to 100,000 times as bright as the brightest nighttime star.

During the day, the brightness of the sky washes out the light from the stars: a region of the sky including a bright star is only very slightly brighter than a region of the sky without a bright star, so your eye cannot notice the difference. However, the region of the sky containing the Moon is much brighter, so you can see it. You can also sometimes see Venus during the day if the conditions are right and you know exactly where to look, but anything dimmer is lost.

It might be useful to think of the Sun as a large light bulb, and the moon as a large mirror. There are situations where we can't see the light bulb, but we can see the light from the bulb reflected in the mirror. This is the situation when the moon is out at night. We can't see the Sun directly because the earth is blocking our view of it, but we can see its light reflected from the moon. However, there are also situations where we can see both the light bulb and the mirror, and this is what is happening when we see the moon during the day. You can explore this for yourself with a light and a hand mirror. Depending on which way you face (away from the light or sideways to the light) you can see either just the mirror, or both the light and the mirror.

I hope this helps!

David Palmer and Tim Kallman
for the Ask an Astrophysicist team


Busted!! Better read and understand information Wade before you preach.



WADE

The lunar buggy fit just fine, and the Van Allen belt definitely presented a hazard, but because the astronauts were only in the belt for a short time as they passed through it, the dose was low, on the order of one rem:


. Could you please provide us with what source of information you can substantiate your claim of the Lunar buggy? Or should we just take your word for it?


=== to be continued=== This is going to be fun':rolleyes:

sdv
5th May 2012, 10:29
Wade it appears that snow reflects about 80 % - 90% of the sunlight that hits it.
While NASA says the moon surface reflects between 7% - 12%.

Busted!

Yes, and because Moon has miniscule atmosphere, that 7%-12% of sunlight reflected from her surface is dazzling.


The first is that a reflection of light from the earth can put some light into the shadows, similar to moonshine except far more pronounced, because the earth is much larger.

Wade touches on something here that we tend to forget. Earth is a shining jewel in our solar system and seen from Moon it is huge. Earth is not as reflective as Moon but it is much much bigger so we have to consider that all lighting on Moon comes from Sun and reflections from Earth. Photography on Moon is nothing like photography on Earth, and we can never replicate those conditions here on Earth.

PS Perhaps I am displaying a lot of foolish courage in participating in this discussion, but since I am here can I make a point about the human element? The astronauts who went to Moon have been subjected to so much personal attack that is just not nice. We do know for a fact that they got into a rocket and were blasted up into space, and risked their lives to do so. The way they have been treated by the debunkers is awful. Can we keep this discussion respectful of each other please and enjoy exercising our intellectual muscles.:kiss::thank_you2: