Moon Hoax Controversy

[Cidersomerset]

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]

Posted by Cidersomerset (here)
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]

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]

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]

Posted by jimmer (here)
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]

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]

Calm down folks. Let´s be polite with each other.

We´re not here to fight.

[Vitalux]

Posted by KiwiElf (here)


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.



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.


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]

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]

Posted by Vitalux (here)

Posted by KiwiElf (here)


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.



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.


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]

Posted by kemo (here)
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]

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.

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

[KiwiElf]

Posted by jimmer (here)

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?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0F6DU6gx7-w

http:

[Vitalux]

Posted by jimmer (here)

Posted by kemo (here)
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.


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.
[IMG][/IMG]

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.

[Vitalux]

I once saw on Television that a Huge Lizard was stomping all over Tokyo.


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]

let me conduct the automobile lighting tests this evening and I'll get back to you : )

[sdv]

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]

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]

Posted by sdv (here)
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]

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.