Buzz Aldrin seemingly admitting the moon landing did not happen

[uzn]

makes me wonder … hmmm.

[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?!

[Mari]

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
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?!

Not aware that happened - do tell!

[Sunny-side-up]

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
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?!

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?

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]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
The key word is 'seemingly'. People just have to face the fact that astronauts walked on the moon. How hard is that?

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, 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:

Source: https://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]

Posted by Tintin (here)
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:

Source: https://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

[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]

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
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?!

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

MM

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by rick (here)
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]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by rick (here)
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!

Posted by Star Tsar (here)
Ground Zero Media



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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=T543bdSz6pQ

[Star Tsar]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
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?!

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...

Posted by Star Tsar (here)
Fresh out of the Countess of Conspiracy's oven...

Project Camelot



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/201...s-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)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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........


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

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Retief (here)
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:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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, 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...t_memories.mp3

Also see this episode of Richplanet, 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).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wfTapJhp_Qw

[uzn]

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




some other interesting pics


Hires:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/l...nt/2162_h3.jpg



Hires:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/l...nt/3213_h1.jpg



Hires:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/l...t/5191_med.jpg

[Sunny-side-up]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
The key word is 'seemingly'. People just have to face the fact that astronauts walked on the moon. How hard is that?

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.