Buzz Aldrin seemingly admitting the moon landing did not happen

[Siphonemis]

Came across this clip today. There is a longer, full version of this video, but this one homes in on Buzz Aldrin's troubling words. He seems coherent enough to not dismiss it as a symptom of Dementia, but it is ultimately up to the viewers' discernment. I've always held that the circumstances involving the entire operation and its aftermath were murky at best, and it begs the question, was this moon endeavor a smokescreen for the simple masses to disguise the true going-ons outside our planet?

CRMFSHZ2IUg

[Sunny-side-up]

You need read this recent posting Siphonemis

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103644-Is-Buzz-Aldrin-telling-it-like-it-was-to-the-child&highlight=Buzz+Aldrin

[greybeard]

There are numerous u tube videos claiming that the astronauts were warned off the moon by aliens and pictures of alien bases on the moon abound.
Take all with a pinch of salt. A may or may not be so

ch

[Cardillac]

the only thing I can say to this (and it's logic) one sees N. Armstrong emerging from the capsule:

1: who put the camera there?

2: who photographed them from up high at various times?

3: the only source of light on the moon is the sun; an object only casts a shadow in the opposite direction from its light source- so how could so many objects be casting so many shadows in so many directions at once?

only one answer:

stage lighting-

it baffles me to no end why even seasoned Avalonians refuse to use and accept logical thinking and logical visual perception-

as Da Vinci once stated (attributed to him):

there are 3 types of people:

A) there are those who can see

B) there are those who are once shown can see

C) there are those who are once shown cannot see

Larry

[ichingcarpenter]

The Neil Armstrong's "First step on the Moon" was filmed by a camera installed on the MESA (Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly) at the side of the Apollo Lunar Module (LM) descent stage that Neil Armstrong had to pull a lanyard to unlock the pallet and make it drop open. A switch inside the LM, operated by Buzz Aldrin, then activated the TV camera which was installed there:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/n7if4.jpg


Deployed in a mock up............ it flips when deployed


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/ApolloTVCameraOnLunarModule.jpg/640px-ApolloTVCameraOnLunarModule.jpg

[Fellow Aspirant]

Well, if you'd like to see the Apollo 11 landing site today, there are several places online where one can view the equipment that they left behind. These images have been taken by telescopes, some earth based. Here's one:

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/can-we-use-telescopes-to-see-if-the-moon-landings-were-real.html

And here's the most pertinent image from the page:

38628

A deep skeptic might discount such images as simply more NASA lie-mongering. Such skeptics are free to do so.

As for myself, I like the fact that Buzz finally turned on a persistent harasser (who had followed him to several speaking engagements in order to yell at him and call him a liar) and punched him squarely in the face. No charges laid. :clapping:

Brian

[Cardillac]

@iching

if what you state is true, then who filmed them from many angles above and how can one account for the shadows cast in many directions at the same time?

who was responsible for moving the camera to film them from different directions including above?

the most advanced camera back then was a Hasselblad but because of the thickness of their helmets/lenses no-one could have filmed anything acurately-

am just wondering-

Larry

[Justplain]

I know there are anomalies in the evidence of moon landings, such as the video of stage lights falling on an 'astronaut', however there is plenty of 'independent' corroboration of the space vehicles transits to the moon, relics left behind, etc., that seem to clearly indicate that the nasa trips there actually did occur:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings


For instance, it seems extremely unlikely that the soviet union would have not raised the issue of the moon shots being fake if they had not actually occurred.

The 'theory' that seems to best explain the well documented anomalies in the moon landings filming, etc., imho, is that nasa paid for some fake moon filming in order to cover over issues that potentially could happen (such as ufo's showing up, etc.).

What really flies in the face of conspiracy theories about the moon landing is why would they return so many times and risk exposure? Why not just do it once and call it quits? Also, why the apollo 13 fiasco, why stage that?

Anyway, interesting topic, but to me just a diversion.

[ichingcarpenter]

I don't know which ones you are specifically talking about in order to discuss them properly.

I saw the apollo 17 night shot sitting across the Mosquito Lagoon in Titusville and then many Shuttle shots. If you had witnessed this apollo shot you would have no doubt it went to the moon. The Saturn is still the most powerful rocket ever to lift off. It made shuttle launches seem like a kid's bottle rocket.


The family friend was deputy director for the The US House of Representatives Committee for Science and Technology during the moon shots and I met many top people involved with the program during this time since my parents retired down there.

I tell you what though
I was in my early 20s and drank a good bottle of single malt Scotch with this director and he told me a secret after many glasses

Within 5 years he said the public would have access to anti gravity devices on the consumer level. I asked you mean anti gravity cars? No he said just these small units to move heavy items at first then much more later. He had top secret access for sure. It hit me years later when the whole Roswell story broke open.......... access to alien technology but they never understood it.

[Fellow Aspirant]

38632
@iching

if what you state is true, then who filmed them from many angles above and how can one account for the shadows cast in many directions at the same time?

who was responsible for moving the camera to film them from different directions including above?

the most advanced camera back then was a Hasselblad but because of the thickness of their helmets/lenses no-one could have filmed anything acurately-

am just wondering-

Larry

Larry

Good questions. Wonder no more, my friend!

Lighting? They set up their own.
Camera angles? There was (as noted previously by ichingcarpenter) a camera attached to the side of the module that deployed before Armstrong descended.

Here's what I found on the internet by posing this in the search box "apollo 11 camera focusing"

from the site: "The Sterile Eye" located at: https://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/



On the Apollo 8 mission, Hasselblad 500 EL electric cameras were used for the first time. This was used on Apollo 9 and 10 too, before two were brought along for the Apollo 11 mission. The 500 EL had an electric motor that wound the film and tensioned the shutter. The camera was supplied with two lenses, a Zeiss Planar ƒ/2.8 / 80 mm normal lens and a Zeiss Sonnar ƒ/5.6 / 250 mm telephoto lens. On Apollo 11 these cameras were used to take pictures from inside the Command/Service Module and the Lunar Module. For the surface shots, however, a special version of the 500 EL was designed – the 500 EL Data Camera.

It also had a glass plate with engraved grid-aligned crosses (Reseau plate) fitted close to the film plane. These crosses was recorded on every photo as a means to measure angular distances between objects in the frame. The same method was used in aerial photography at the time.

When on the lunar surface, the camera was mounted on a bracket on the chest of the astronaut’s space suit. This both provided some support to the camera, and made it possible to manipulate the rings and levers with both hands. A trigger was fitted under the camera to make it easier to fire (see photo of Aldrin below).

All the Hasselblad cameras were medium format cameras, using 70 mm film loaded in magazines.

Exposure
The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the recommended setting, to ensure a good result.

Focus
The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the era. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being ƒ/5.6). Combined with the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field (increasing with increasing f-stops). This meant the astronauts only had to get the focusing distance approximately right to get a sharp image. Instead of an infinitely variable focus ring, it was divided into three preset positions: near, medium and far. Although not extremely accurate, it did the job. I have an old Kodak compact camera with this system myself, and it works surprisingly well.


Framing
The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut’s helmets restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission. They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming the camera.

In a passage sited on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, Apollo 12 astronauts Charles Conrad and Al Bean comments on the camera training:

Conrad – “(…) One of the things was setting the camera deal; we had the three (focus) distances. And what we did was actually take pictures to calibrate ourselves. They developed that film in training to make sure we stood the right distance.”

Bean – “We had to point that (chest-mounted) camera without a viewfinder. (But) we didn’t miss a (single) one on the Moon, I don’t think.”

Conrad – “Yeah, and it was due to the training. We really worked hard at learning to estimate by eye what the camera settings had to be.”

Bean – “The first ones (we took in training) weren’t very good. But on the Moon, they were all good. So we really had learned in training how to do it by using real film, having it developed, having it debriefed. I think that’s why the photography got better with each mission, in general. Because the photographers would impart the (experience gained on a mission) to the next crew and help them be better. So they did get better. And I thought the photography did too.”

Even though they were trained, the “sight-and-shoot” method of course resulted in a lot of sub-optimal framing. This is apparent in the original, uncropped version of one of the most famous photos from the lunar landing (below). On other, more published versions of this photo, the horizon have been corrected and more black space added above Aldrin’s head (e.g. this version).

Doncha love the interwebs?

Cheers,

Brian

[Innocent Warrior]

The videos on the other thread aren’t working anymore, here’s the full conversation so you can see what he meant with full context.

Y4UP6nRMuGs

[OopsWrongPlanet?]

Not to say that Buzz Aldrin was necessarily telling the truth here, but thanks Rachel for providing the context, which (IMO) shows up the original clip as being manipulative and misleading.

Amazing how much time can be spent just researching/following up on all sorts of claims, thus often giving our attention to negativity. Seems to me that there is A LOT of this in the exopolitics/truther movement. How far is it worth spending the time, and at what point does it become a distraction, keeping us away from more productive things?

x

M

[Bill Ryan]

[technical information about the Hasselblad cameras they used]



I don't buy it for a moment.

When did any one of us shoot hundreds of photos on vacation and not have 10% of them turn out poorly? (Or more!) Even when we could actually look carefully through the viewfinder and do our best to compose and focus properly.

There are so many photographic anomalies, whole books have been written about them. And no, they didn't take multi-angle stage lighting with them in the tiny, cramped lunar module. :)

My personal, provisional take, always open to revision in the light of new information:

Some of the missions did go to the moon, but (q.v. the excellent research of Jay Weidner, the best work he ever did) the photos and video were all streamed live as pre-created 'Plan B' backup, directed by Stanley Kubrick, in case something non-optimum or unpredictable happened.

I'm something like 98% certain of that, maybe more.

[Andyvaz]

I think he's hiding something that is troubling his conscience. Maybe not that 'we' didn't go there, just not in the sense that we understand it.

[Sunny-side-up]

Yes human kind has been there but not in the order/time line of the MSN.
As for seeing the Apollo 11 landing site today, and any equipment (Litter/Pollution) on the Moon surface, well that could be easily placed there with the real equipment/craft they have.
WHO KNOWS FOR SURE ANYMORE?

[ichingcarpenter]

Sorry Bill not gonna buy the Kubrick angle .... maybe somebody did something but it wasn't Kubrick nor his studio personal that he would trust to work with him

'''the excellent research of Jay Weidner, the best work he ever did) the photos and video were all streamed live as pre-created 'Plan B' backup, directed by Stanley Kubrick, in case something non-optimum or unpredictable happened.'''

Some of The Most excellent work of Jay

Jay vented Corey Goode
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/intel/qa-with-jay-weidner-and-corey-goode-your-questions-answered/

Jay and the three finger alien
https://ashleycowie.com/new-blog/peru-mummy

I got more on Jay but what's the use


Its like Jay didn't even know Kubrick history of being anti establishment and even being accused of espionage by the US govt because of his nuclear accuracy of Dr. Strangelove....... the government didn't like his work which is why among other reasons he went to england.


His Daughter's letter on the accusation that Stanley help fake the moon landing...... I trust her more than Jay

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmlbUzuWIAARTKP.jpg:large

[conk]

Went to the moon. Didn't go to the moon. We may never know the truth about the actual visit, however, we can be 100% certain that NASA has perpetuated countless fraudulent photographs and videos for decades. There can be no debate on this fact. It is unassailable and incontrovertible that numerous altered images were advanced by NASA as real. Why?

Why are there seemingly no images of the Earth from the Moon? All ostensibly so can easily be shown to be computer generated, CGI.

[TomKat]

Came across this clip today. There is a longer, full version of this video, but this one homes in on Buzz Aldrin's troubling words. He seems coherent enough to not dismiss it as a symptom of Dementia, but it is ultimately up to the viewers' discernment. I've always held that the circumstances involving the entire operation and its aftermath were murky at best, and it begs the question, was this moon endeavor a smokescreen for the simple masses to disguise the true going-ons outside our planet?

CRMFSHZ2IUg

Why the disingenuous post? Listen to the undoctored video. If you found this you can find that, I'm sure. Spoiler: he's talking about why we stopped going... money.

[Bill Ryan]

Listen to the undoctored video.
[...]he's talking about why we stopped going... money.
Yes, that question comes at 7:10. Aldrin often seems pretty stumbling in his answers, simply because he's trying hard (but not very well!) to 'translate' his accustomed adult language to meet the vocabulary and understanding of the young girl. So sometimes he's really not very clear to an adult ear. (And maybe not to Zoey, either. :) )

So, Rachel's correct (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103729-Buzz-Aldrin-seemingly-admitting-the-moon-landing-did-not-happen&p=1239425&viewfull=1#post1239425): the clip, which on its own certainly sounds odd, is taken right out of context.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4UP6nRMuGs

[Nobody]

I wasn't planning on this being my first official post on Project Avalon, but thought I would throw my 2 cents worth in.

I have seen two different documentaries on Australian TV, which corroborate what Bill is saying about Stanley Kubrick and the Moon landings.
I will try to find the original doco's on YouTube and post links back here as proof to what I am about to say.
These two separate documentaries were shown at least 10 years ago and definitely after Kubrick's death.
One documentary was a British production, something like Channel 4 or BBC and the other was American (may have been PBS).
I will admit that my memory of these documentaries has faded a lot, so take what I am about to say with a grain of salt.
I deeply regret not taping these shows at the time - it was before YouTube had started.

Doco #1 was an in depth review of Kubrick's career.
If I am remembering correctly, it was Kubrick's 3rd wife Christiane that was explaining that NASA (I think?) had approached Kubrick after 2001: A Space Odyssey was released. They were very impressed with the realism of the space/moon scenes. There was also a mention that NASA had lent some custom Hasselblad cameras to Stanley and he showed NASA some special techniques for getting more out of the camera, when you used particular lenses. I also remember that Christiane seemed very switched on and was careful about what she said.

Doco #2 was very bizarre and had nothing to really do with Kubrick, except for a mention of his name. My memory of this doco is very, very clear in my mind!
I think this documentary was about the life of Robert McNamara, the eighth Secretary of Defense (USA), serving from 1961 to 1968 under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
The interesting part was when Donald Rumsfeld was being interviewed with a small group of people who all use to work together at the Whitehouse, many, many moons ago...decades before the George Bush era.
Suddenly Rumsfeld was talking about Stanley Kubrick and mentioning the Moon landings in the same sentence. A distinctive smirk came over his face and this tiny group of insiders all started chuckling together, like it was an inside joke.
I cannot remember exactly what he said, but it was along the lines of "if people knew what really happened, they probably wouldn't believe it".
The look on Rumsfeld's face and his body language, was identical to his announcement just before 911 about the missing Trillions of dollars.
I have never forgotten this interview with Rumsfeld - the one thing I remember with absolute clarity, is my jaw hitting the floor when he said what he said.

Regards
Nobody

[uzn]

http://i.imgur.com/xR8mT.jpg

makes me wonder … hmmm.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/6a/9a/7f6a9a87a423e95698d150778d45e94b.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dV2YTOtYxrk/VplR9575aiI/AAAAAAAAKVc/hIjLv5-sGV4/s1600/Langley%2BResearch%2BCenter%2BMoon%2BModel.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--4jVOpBV2--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1442238819754456905.jpg

http://www.kirkwoodwilson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/changing-with-IT.jpg

https://images.vice.com/motherboard/content-images/article/13693/1405457909626785.jpg

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SyVfdsvfhGQ/WQW09-WPWsI/AAAAAAAAAL4/qGjhT_g6F5kd_lyPs8m-9AuuHZKLemn8QCLcB/s1600/Roger-Hayward.jpg

[Foxie Loxie]

Does anyone remember the whistle blower who stumbled into a huge hanger by mistake & there was the whole "mock up" setting for the moon landings?! :confused:

[Mari]

Does anyone remember the whistle blower who stumbled into a huge hanger by mistake & there was the whole "mock up" setting for the moon landings?! :confused:

Not aware that happened - do tell!

[Sunny-side-up]

Does anyone remember the whistle blower who stumbled into a huge hanger by mistake & there was the whole "mock up" setting for the moon landings?! :confused:

Yes Foxie the post was quite recent 3 or 4 months back maybe.

Sure your find it. keep asking someone will tell.

[Valle]

Roger Hayward’s Moon (Griffith Observatory)
http://astronomy.snjr.net/blog/?p=698

[Cardillac]

then something else to ad:

Hollywood producer Ron Howard went to NASA requesting access to all moon landing films so he could do a documentary film about this and NASA stated "all films were lost"- HUH???!!!

Larry

[AutumnW]

The key word is 'seemingly'. People just have to face the fact that astronauts walked on the moon. How hard is that?:dancing:

The whole "they didn't go there," story deflects from something much more fascinating. What did they see when they got there? The evidence for alien interference and an apparent warning to stay away is much more plausible and the evidence way more compelling.

[Tintin]

The key word is 'seemingly'. People just have to face the fact that astronauts walked on the moon. How hard is that?:dancing:

The whole "they didn't go there," story deflects from something much more fascinating. What did they see when they got there? The evidence for alien interference and an apparent warning to stay away is much more plausible and the evidence way more compelling.

Along with Bill's sensible and reasoned take (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103729-Buzz-Aldrin-seemingly-admitting-the-moon-landing-did-not-happen&p=1239448&viewfull=1#post1239448), one which I had also determined some time ago as being the way to make sense of it, and would be pretty much spot on, when discussing this with anybody I also say the very same thing that you have here (emboldened above). Indeed, what did they see there - Linda Howe mentioned that she'd met either a close relative of Neil Armstrong or they were a very close friend who had alluded to pretty much the same thing in conversation with Neil: something he had said to him along these very lines.

This individual shared that story with her.

As for Stanley Kubrick, and this is extremely unlikely to be him lying, here, is a clip from what appears to be an interview he undertook, actual source not known by me at this point.

This film has been terribly titled and also incorrectly dated - it is not a 2018 film; it has been cobbled together from various other films but well worth a look.

Stanley Kubrick appears at around 02:05 into the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrujSJPLHOA

...and probably most importantly towards the end at the 33:40 mark. He prides terrific insight into the artistic mentality.

Despite the sensationalist and sloppy titling there are some interesting pieces to this film - worth a viewing.

But please do take note that the excerpts showing or providing at least mention of Nixon, Rumsfeld et al are taken from the film "Dark Side of The Moon" which its makers claimed was a mockumentary and that the participants were reading from a script. (There are amusing outtakes in that particular film.)

Still, there will be elements of truth buried in there as is nearly always the case with supposed "hoaxes".

Jay Weidner can also be heard being interviewed.

[Bill Ryan]

As for Stanley Kubrick, and this is extremely unlikely to be him lying, here, is a clip from what appears to be an interview he undertook, actual source not known. This film has been terribly titled and also incorrectly dated - it is not a 2018 film.

It has been cobbled together from various other films.

He appears at around 02:05 into the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrujSJPLHOA

and towards the end at the 33:40 mark.



The bearded "Stanley Kubrick" in that video is an actor. (Sadly! :) ) See this thread from December 2015, when it first surfaced:


[Hoaxed 'confession'] Stanley Kubrick Confesses to faking Moon Landings (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?87433-Hoaxed-confession-Stanley-Kubrick-Confesses-to-faking-Moon-Landings)

[rick]

Whe I think about the moon scenario, I think something like this:

1) US figures (whoever the high ups who were involved) concluded they absolutely could not lose and have the Apollo have some sort of accident live on TV, so they hired Kubric to product the televised moon landing everyone saw, guaranteeing a success in public.

2) They actually did go to moon, but not as described publicly...Be it in something else (pretty sure have before and since) and/or the actual Apollo itself. I was gonna say "Who Knows", but Someone does know...

Forget all the stupid actor is spacesuits on wires and other blunders of the 'landing' etc, the most obvious fact IMO is the most telling; NO STARS IN ANY PHOTOS...?.. I just cannot buy that the cameras would not pick them up at all. Its crazy. But I myself bought their "sun glare" BS nonsense for a long time. Until I started doubting the narrative of almost everything all around.

"Gee wizz Buzz, why don't you get a picture of those stars..? "Nah!, nobody wants to see that!..")

Even taking into account "sun glare" Has anyone ever seen any photos of any stars in related photos?...

[Michelle Marie]

Does anyone remember the whistle blower who stumbled into a huge hanger by mistake & there was the whole "mock up" setting for the moon landings?! :confused:

I remember hearing the story in one of Kerry Cassidy's interviews. I don't remember his name.

MM

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

the most obvious fact IMO is the most telling; NO STARS IN ANY PHOTOS...?.. I just cannot buy that the cameras would not pick them up at all. Its crazy.

As a photographer, I can tell you unequivocally the absence of stars is entirely expected. If stars had been visible in the images, that would be a dead give away they were fake. It's just not possible, not with those Hasselblad cameras, even with a shutter speed of F5.6 (I think that was their fastest setting). This can be duplicated on Earth without any problem. Shoot any illuminated foreground object at night with a SLR, hell even a camera phone, and you definitely won't see any stars.

[Carmody]

the most obvious fact IMO is the most telling; NO STARS IN ANY PHOTOS...?.. I just cannot buy that the cameras would not pick them up at all. Its crazy.

As a photographer, I can tell you unequivocally the absence of stars is entirely expected. If stars had been visible in the images, that would be a dead give away they were fake. It's just not possible, not with those Hasselblad cameras, even with a shutter speed of F5.6 (I think that was their fastest setting). This can be duplicated on Earth without any problem. Shoot any illuminated foreground object at night with a SLR, hell even a camera phone, and you definitely won't see any stars.

The maximum contrast ratio of a good lens is about 500-550 to 1 (550:1), and the human eye is considered to be about the same, and some calculate it to b e at about 350:1. this means the best we can do, is where the darkest part of an image vs the brightest..is about 350 multiples of difference. one lumen per sq ft in the dark part of the image, vs 350 lumen per sq ft in the bright.

The contrast ratio that film itself can capture, is notably higher, but must also be captured in it's native range of chemical sensitivity, meaning ---enough light to make it chemically react. (photochemical reactions)

Our' eye's iris..opens and closes, in order to take this native max of about 350:1 in a given set scene... and moves it up and down a range total, of about 1,000,000:1.

The sun, in broad daylight, at noon, on the equator, during the point when it is directly overhead, in normal atmospheric conditions, is about 9100 lumen per sq ft of brightness.

the sun's reflections, on the moon with no atmosphere, is considerably brighter. I think the unguarded or unmolested solar output in space, at the distance of the moon, is about 14,000 lumen per sq ft.

The earth's atmosphere absorbs some of the light, mostly the UV, which is where we get to about 9500-10,000 lumen per sq ft of surface at the equator, at high noon.approx 30% is absorbed, on average.

From Wikipedia, regarding the difference in light vs dark, or the sun's power as a reflection on the surface of the moon, vs the stars of the heavens:


The Sun is by far the brightest object in the Earth's sky, with an apparent magnitude of −26.74.[45][46] This is about 13 billion times brighter than the next brightest star, Sirius, which has an apparent magnitude of −1.46.

The ratio between the two numbers, in space, remains the same, at thirteen billion to 1. Even though the Wikipedia excerpt is about how things look from the surface of the earth. When the luminosity drops to nearly zero, ie the sun is on the opposite side of the earth, then our eye opens up all the way, and we can see the brightest stars. Same for the dark side of the moon (which varies), it would give you a fantastic starscape to look at. No atmospheric interference.

As you can see, neither the eye, nor the camera nor the lenses, could ever get a light filled moon surface in the same shot with images of the stars. One would have to be in total darkness and go for long extended exposures, in order to capture the image of stars.

If one was to put a camera on the ISS (international space station) pointed away from the sun and with no reflections into the lens from the station itself ..and had a long enough exposure, then you could see stars. Night time images from the ISS tend to show some stars but the residual light is strong enough to interfere most times, as remember, the difference from sunlight: 13 billion to 1. Those stars are mighty dim.

Any normal level of light exposure for 30 frames per second, which is what is required to make motional film or digital motion picture capture...is too fast or too short an exposure time to pick up any imaging from those very dim stars, except when night time shots are taken and the camera iris is open far enough. Then we see a few stars.

The full explanation is a bit more complex than this simple explanation, but this might be enough to get the gist of it.

[Retief]

I'm still up in the air on this topic. I've read Dark Moon, seen "Whatever Happened On The Way To The Moon" several times along with probably most of the youtubes out there. I was 10 years old during Apollo 11 and I still have vivid memories of watching it on TV. I wanted to be an astronaut. So I do not want to believe it wasn't real.

I'm not in any way a photographer but the non-parallel shadows argument makes sense to me. What makes me question it the most is that they'd have us believe that a human piloted the LEM down to the surface. Think about it, you have a rocket engine with a single thrust vector and some very much smaller thrusters (forget what they were called) for pitch, roll, yaw correction. A mans weight was significant so if you say, stepped 1 foot to the left it would throw the whole thing off. There was no automation, it was all under manual control. There's a video of Neil Armstrong piloting a jet powered simulator of this exercise and he almost died, ejected just in time. I don't see this happening flawlessly 6 times.

If they did make it this way to the surface of the moon, the engine they had to rely on in the ascent stage used hypergolic fuel and could never be tested before use. I just don't see us sending men to the moon and flipping a coin as to whether they could even achieve orbit again, much less dock with the command module.

Also, I have not done the calculations (I will someday if I think about it again but life always intervenes) but I don't see how they stored enough electrical energy on board in batteries to run the mission, especially the later missions which lasted longer. Batteries are heavy.

There are many other problems I see with the scenario we have been presented with. As I said to begin, I want to believe this, but I just can't given the information available. Maybe they went with alternate tech and sold us the chemical rocket story. There's no doubt the Saturn V launched and made it to at least LOE. That was a beast machine and an object of study of mine for many years now, kind of a hobby. Whatever, my 2 cents.

As an edit, I welcome discussion on this topic and my minds open, I want to be proved wrong.

[Star Tsar]

Mr Lewis shares his thoughts on this matter & I in turn share with you!


Ground Zero Media

https://i1.sndcdn.com/avatars-000043701662-2njahn-t500x500.jpg

Moonshines : One Giant Misstep For A Man

Published 6th July 2018

Just like Buzz Aldrin the astronaut, whose misconducted reply to a little girls inquiry about why we never went back to the moon in fifty years, has restarted an even older conspiracy theory about ever landing on the moon in the first place. It appears old age is a better excuse to explain Aldrin's misstep about the moon than NASA's excuse as to why we have to wait & wait & wait before we ever get to go back.

In this broadcast Mr Lewis tals about Moonshines : One Giant Misstep For A Man.

T543bdSz6pQ

[Star Tsar]

Does anyone remember the whistle blower who stumbled into a huge hanger by mistake & there was the whole "mock up" setting for the moon landings?! :confused:

Yes Foxie the post was quite recent 3 or 4 months back maybe.

Sure your find it. keep asking someone will tell.

That was a whistleblower that came via Ms Cassidy...


Fresh out of the Countess of Conspiracy's oven...

Project Camelot

https://projectcamelotportal.com/wp-content/uploads/logo39090.jpg

Found. Hangar Where Moon Landing Was Staged & The Man Who Lived To Tell The Tale

Published 15th November 2017

FRED, a 90 year old former technical inspector in Aviation working for an Airline back in the 60's recalls how he stumbled on a hangar in Minnesota that appeared to be at least one staging hangar for the faked part of the Apollo Moon Landings. NOTE: We went to the moon but we had help. Fred agrees. The landings filmed by Stanley Kubrick were staged to cover what they really encountered on the moon: reptilians, bases etc. For more on this see Kerry's interview with WILLIAM TOMPKINS. They discuss that experience and other UFO sightings from pilots in the airline industry including a story about Admiral John D. Price...

Supporting Links: https://projectcamelotportal.com/2017/11/15/found-hanger-where-moon-landings-were-staged/ & https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=Sb18kkVlRh4 & https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=oPMOjV9SMOo (Mr William Thompkins Interviews with Kerry)

U78Hl2-5Kn8

[ichingcarpenter]

About the Kerry / Fred interview


Kerry : Who were you employed by when you saw 'Stan'' filming the moon hoax

Fred: I was working for Republic Airlines back then (see wikipedia for Republic airlines or even Republic airways holdings when they were even formed)

Kerry : What base did you see this at in Minnesota? ( Bases In The State of Minnesota
MINNESOTA Duluth International Airport Air Force and
Minneapolis-Saint Paul Joint Air Reserve Station Air Force)

Fred: It was a secure USAF base ( I guess the other USAF base was not secure?)

Fred : I lost the tape where LBJ demanded we go to the moon and was told we couldn't do it but I have thousands of tapes

Yeah he sounds legit......I liked the Sally Ride story and GHW Bush........ :pop2::pop2:


OH and Comments are disabled for this video.........thanks Kerry

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Also, I have not done the calculations (I will someday if I think about it again but life always intervenes) but I don't see how they stored enough electrical energy on board in batteries to run the mission, especially the later missions which lasted longer. Batteries are heavy.

There are many other problems I see with the scenario we have been presented with. As I said to begin, I want to believe this, but I just can't given the information available. Maybe they went with alternate tech and sold us the chemical rocket story.

Yes, that's the most glaring problem of all. If the Apollo missions were real, how did they do it, considering that mainstream rocket technology is not up to the task? That's reasonably self-evident, as we cannot do today what they did 50 years ago. No one's been back for all that time. No one's even attempted to go back. It's because they can't, they don't know how! NASA astronaut Don Pettit kind of confirms it:

ojRyREhfrGs

In every field of scientific and technological endeavour we see progress, development, advancement. All except rocketry it seems. It either stands still, or goes backward! This is highly illogical. In fact, it's impossible.

How is it possible that the technological prowess of NASA in the 1960s, deployed to such great success with Apollo (6 out of 7 perfect missions), cannot today even be replicated? They had the technology, but "destroyed it"? It all got thrown in a dumpster? That's a ridiculous excuse.

The most likely explanation for Apollo is that, with conventional technology falling short of the task, they resorted to exotic solutions. Probably everything we saw from the launch of the Saturn 5 into low orbit was conventional, but thereafter something else was used to get them to the moon. Something top secret. Whatever that was, NASA no longer have access to it. Maybe it went deep into the black world as soon as Apollo was over.

I'm siding with that theory, but the other possibility is they never went to the moon at all. They remained in orbit circling the Earth for the entire duration of each mission. All the pictures and the film were fake. The video was shot in advance on a stage and broadcast as if in real time. Knowing 'they' could not risk each and every Astronaut keeping their mouth shut, they used mind-control and maybe even a fake memory overlay to convince them that they really did go to the moon. (I'm convinced they do have that capability at their disposal).

There's also this great nugget to consider [posted by Bill here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100303-Have-we-ever-been-on-the-Moon&p=1189108&viewfull=1#post1189108), and well worth reading that whole thread]. It's a clip of Jay Weidner on the Art Bell show. What is relayed is clear evidence that Aldrin, and Edgar Mitchell, had their memories messed with.

http://projectavalon.net/Jay_Weidner_on_Art_Bell_4_August_2015_Apollo_astronauts_lost_memories.mp3

Also see this episode of Richplanet (https://www.richplanet.net/index.php), where statement analyst Peter Hyatt forensically dissects an old Neil Armstrong interview - and finds multiple signs of deception. Analysis starts at 7:40 (but preamble recommended).

wfTapJhp_Qw

[uzn]

Rare pic of the Moons atmosphere !
with the happy face crater ;)

https://www.msss.com/education/happy_face/happy_face.gif


some other interesting pics

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/2162_h3.jpg
Hires:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/print/2162_h3.jpg


https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/3213_h1.jpg
Hires:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/print/3213_h1.jpg


https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/5191_med.jpg
Hires:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/print/5191_med.jpg

[Sunny-side-up]

The key word is 'seemingly'. People just have to face the fact that astronauts walked on the moon. How hard is that?:dancing:

The whole "they didn't go there," story deflects from something much more fascinating. What did they see when they got there? The evidence for alien interference and an apparent warning to stay away is much more plausible and the evidence way more compelling.

So true.
This a widely held view and very interesting:
They had other wordy alien and or black budget technical help, not the standard tin can craft.

[uzn]

The Humboldt Crater

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Humboldt_crater_4027_h1.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Vallis_Alpes_5102_med.jpg

[Fellow Aspirant]

I don't buy it for a moment.

When did any one of us shoot hundreds of photos on vacation and not have 10% of them turn out poorly? (Or more!) Even when we could actually look carefully through the viewfinder and do our best to compose and focus properly.

There are so many photographic anomalies, whole books have been written about them. And no, they didn't take multi-angle stage lighting with them in the tiny, cramped lunar module. :)

My personal, provisional take, always open to revision in the light of new information:

Some of the missions did go to the moon, but (q.v. the excellent research of Jay Weidner, the best work he ever did) the photos and video were all streamed live as pre-created 'Plan B' backup, directed by Stanley Kubrick, in case something non-optimum or unpredictable happened.

I'm something like 98% certain of that, maybe more.




But, but Bill, I've seen pictures of the banks of lights. Here's one, for example:

38679

It was taken, apparently, when Buzz & Neil had a few of their buddies up for a wee party to celebrate a discovery, and they ... wait ... oops. My bad.
Seems I was remembering something from a movie. :blushing:
At least it was done by Mr. Kubrick.

So, I'll own the mental overreach on the lights. But the rest if the official Apollo 11 story stands up. The info wrt the design of the cameras, especially in regard to their triple f-stop limitations, rings true. Hasselblad knows too much about lenses and drives to have botched the design to create what were, essentially "point and shoot" devices. The mission was too important to have equipped the crew with anything that was not foolproof. And many hours were spent in practicing how to use them. Few of us, including myself, have ever had formal photographic training. When I travel, I take 300-400 pics a day, relying mostly on my autofocus to do the figuring for me. Consequently, my only "failures" are some action-blurred (when I knew better, but did them anyway just to try out the effects) results, amounting to 3-4 per batch. When I'm standing still and the subject is also stationary, I have zero defective photos. And I'm not a professional. So, shooting "posed" images, without worrying about focus, is something that should give 100% usable pics.

As for shadows being at disparate angles, the phenomenon is easily understood by allowing for the possibility of them falling onto ground features that are not at the same angle as the main landscape. Our eyes "cue" for the horizontal using the main part of the picture's area.

And, of course, there's no wondering about the multiple shadows that come from artificial lights (the sun was the single point source) as there are no multiple shadows. Although some shadows' angles differ from others (explained already) every object that casts a shadow casts only ONE shadow.

Apollo 11 photos taken by Armstrong and Aldrin are entirely consistent with what the technology of the time was capable of.