| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| We Never Went to the Moon; It looks like we got fooled | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 12:52 PM (60,757 Views) | |
| David C | Jan 20 2008, 12:52 PM Post #1 |
|
Here's some stuff that convinced me we never went to the moon. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y (If this link doesn't work, do a YouTube search on "Apollo 15 flag waving") At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move. There's an analysis of it here. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1 (three parts) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent. At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed. http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark. http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286 It looks just like movement in earth gravity. (added October 2, 2008) -------------------------------- When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE Here it is doubled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg Evidently the slow-motion speed is different. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (added July 10, 2008) Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 (50 second mark) (edit March 14, 2010) -------------------------------------------------------------- The above video is off-line. The footage in question can be seen here. http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028ADB54169962B6961582AEC2F/apollo-xi-the-little-gem-par.aspx -------------------------------------------------------------- It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity. Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4 This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently. One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are some videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm ----- (added November 16, 2008) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0 (added January 11, 2009) http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=gubgXMced7I (this is a five video series) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (added March 7, 2008) What Happened on the Moon" (documentary) http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=What+happened+on+the+moon# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (added July 25, 2008) http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f Here are some articles. http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/ http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/ (added November 20, 2008) http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm (added January 11, 2009) http://www.reddit.com/domain/northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com (added January 24, 2009) http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/11/project-apollo-what-were-they-thinking_24.html (added January 29, 2009) http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html (added April 20, 2010) http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html (twelve parts) The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro (added March 30, 2008) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's a link to the entire conference. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1535324572487804641 This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling (Apollo 11 press conference). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561 Edited by David C, Jun 5 2010, 06:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| David C | Jan 20 2008, 01:16 PM Post #2 |
|
One thing I forgot to mention--I think that if people who don't think that 9/11 was an inside job because they think the government would never lie like that see that the government lied about Apollo, they'll be much more open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. That's one of the main reasons I want to inform people about the Apollo hoax. I don't participate much in the 9/11 debate because I can't contribute much of anything that hasn't already been said twenty times. This is a link I send to my friends when I want to convince them that 9/11 was an inside job. http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm Edited by David C, Jan 20 2008, 01:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Kaiya | Jan 20 2008, 03:30 PM Post #3 |
|
You are up to the same old things that you do on other forums. You post hours of crappy low resolution video edited by liars and morons who are selling something or have an axe to grind. Please give us your own evaluation of what is happening. Why do you think people are going to wade through hours of video to watch a few seconds or minutes of something you do not understand and therefore think it supports your hoax delusions? Do you have anything new to show us? Kaiya |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 20 2008, 04:35 PM Post #4 |
|
start a forum anywhere and it don't take long for the moonbats to arrive, does it? listen it's 2008, at this point in time it's really a moot point whether we did or didn't. don't know if you've been paying attention but there's a lot worse things currently going on other than being lied to in the 60's. |
![]() |
|
| dylan avery | Jan 20 2008, 04:52 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| mr freedom | Jan 20 2008, 07:11 PM Post #6 |
|
You guys are very critical, but what goes around comes around! |
![]() |
|
| EOR | Jan 20 2008, 08:37 PM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Actually, what was said in the 60's affects us today. The American government is pissing in our mouths and we are asking for more. If someone would say: "hey they've been pissing in our mouths since JFK, what's it all about" and maybe things would start to unravel. So, my question to you would be: What is worse than the worlds most powerful government raping the world and pissing in you eye for years and years and years and years? Start a forum, and it doesn't take long for the tin-foil folk to arrive, huh? Perhaps JREF forums would suit you better? |
![]() |
|
| alexvegas | Jan 20 2008, 09:43 PM Post #8 |
|
alex25smash
|
I'm normally very sceptical about moon fakery theories, but there is some convincing footage there! Watch this one from 2:07 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 21 2008, 01:02 AM Post #9 |
|
I think what I enjoy most is you don't even know what my opinion on the subject is. |
![]() |
|
| blarney fife | Jan 21 2008, 01:22 AM Post #10 |
|
This thread wasn't that interesting on the old forum...but sadly, there's no "Other Conspiracy" forum to bury it here. |
![]() |
|
| Nevermind | Jan 21 2008, 01:34 AM Post #11 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
That's interesting and I remember thinking that the last time I saw this video. I've never bought into the Moon Landing hoax belief but I could certainly understand the motive behind faking it if it were indeed true. America had to be top dog in the eyes of the rest of the world during the Cold War and after the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, Americans freaked at the idea that they were actually beating us in the space race. It was the launch of Sputnik that set into motion the creation of NASA the following year. I'd still have to see more evidence of faking the Moon Landing but I haven't ruled it out as a possibility. With all the lies we've been fed in the last century about our country, who the hell can accurately distinguish fact from fiction 100% of the time? |
![]() |
|
| PHARAOH1133 | Jan 21 2008, 05:53 AM Post #12 |
|
After your view, I will examine your comments/responses. Enjoy the "Gift" Video Link : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-729985813912005672&q=a+pale+horse&total=248&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Edited by PHARAOH1133, Jan 21 2008, 05:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| PHARAOH1133 | Jan 21 2008, 06:05 AM Post #13 |
|
This too, if you don't mind. Video link : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5970516724842544272&q=UFO+DISCLOSURE&total=810&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 |
![]() |
|
| NWOgre | Jan 21 2008, 08:24 AM Post #14 |
|
I wonder if we all end up in this way in 30 years: Wearing old cheap suits, talking to a small bunch of esoteric superbores, who will be the only ones who have an ear for the truth movement. I mean, we should be into politics and not into this hocus-pocus UFO-shit. Who cares if we weren't on the moon in the 70ties? It was cold war, that's over now, we got other problems. Edited by NWOgre, Jan 21 2008, 08:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| NK-44 | Jan 21 2008, 09:59 AM Post #15 |
|
Actually, there's no need to go through hours of video footage. One picture says it all. Type this number AS12-46-6806 into the search engine of the Apollo-Gallery here. Then you get this picture: ![]() Type in the same reference number into the search engine of the Lunar and Planetary Institute, then you get this: ![]() Hope that helps So maybe we can now concentrate on more important things... |
![]() |
|
| chrisfarb | Jan 21 2008, 10:41 AM Post #16 |
|
Hehehee NK-44. You never cease to amaze.
|
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 21 2008, 12:31 PM Post #17 |
|
You guys keep it up I'm going to start posting the pics of the alien structures on the moon that we really went there to see while showing people a bunch of bullshit videos and photos........ And then I'll break out the whole artificial moon/death star in orbit around Saturn..... ETA : lol Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Jan 21 2008, 12:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 21 2008, 01:46 PM Post #18 |
|
Uh, I hope you're not trying to imply that the detail seen at the top of the image is any kind of studio setting? This is scanned film and the same artefact appears on many of the images in this library. Certainly it's very pronounced on the image you selected but they're visible in many many photos. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6825 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6805 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6792 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6762 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6739 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6812 Of course we went to the moon, there's no way to account for the dust behaviour visible on video or the fact there are retroreflectors left on the surface of the moon that can be ranged. |
![]() |
|
| Kaiya | Jan 21 2008, 02:04 PM Post #19 |
|
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but the bottom scan looks like it was put on the scanner crooked or with a gap at the top. If anyone proposes that the Apollo landings were hoaxed and uses this scan as evidence, then they really need to raise their standards. Only a good quality, high resolution scan or the original photo is going to cut it here. Kaiya Edited to add; Opps, I did not see the replies on page 2.
Edited by Kaiya, Jan 21 2008, 02:05 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Kaiya | Jan 21 2008, 02:10 PM Post #20 |
|
I was not able to watch the entire video, it kept stopping. I think it is the same one that shows an astronaut falling then getting up with. Some people claim that it obviously shows the effect of wires attached to the astronaut. A close look at the video shows that the fallen astronaut pushes up with his hand on the lunar surface and is also helped by pushing with his other arm on his fellow astronaut. The person editing this clip is a moron or a liar. Kaiya |
![]() |
|
| NK-44 | Jan 21 2008, 02:19 PM Post #21 |
|
Of course "we" went to the moon? Didn't know that you are that old. Now, I have no time to go on into debate here (you will later see that I use my time for more usefull things ), however your ignorance doesn't come as surprise.And sorry, the pictures you posted prove nothing, though I do not say that the picture I posted is definitive proof. However, in the pictures you posted I did not see the 'same artefact' like you claim: ![]()
Fact? So proof your claim, show us the evidence for your claim. If you can't I will call you a liar, unless you retract your statement. I'm very well aware about the retroreflectors, and I bet if you want to proof your claim that this will turn out to be a great fun for me, and a great mess for you.
Interestingly, though they can precisely measure the distance in centimetres, they never give out a precise number but continue to use a number known decades before. Here's a detailed investigation into that subject, showing that your claim is based on nothing. Nothing besides claims by NASA which we are free to believe or not. I prefer to know rather than to believe. Unfortunately, the document exists only in German language, but I'm quite sure that there's a lot more in English: But even when you don't understand German, have a look at the chart you will see, that in fact NASA's laser-reflectors had no impact on the estimation of the moon distance. Why not? Because never ever a f*cking laser beam was reflected from the moon by one of the reflectors supposedly planted there. But, I could be entirely wrong, the Moon Landing is not my primary interest of research. So if you can back up your claim, then just do. My only interest on this thread was to end the debate with just one picture, because I think like others here that there are more important issues to exploit. I failed with my intention. But maybe another picture helps better. AS11-40-5926 shows LM rear footpad and contact probe ![]() Let's see what the close-up reveals: ![]() See how it is made of one of the most robust materials: styrofoam. See also how the footpad is covered by moon-dust, swirled by the landing turbine. What? Don't see any...maybe this should tell you something: styrofoam scares off all dust! |
![]() |
|
| mr freedom | Jan 21 2008, 02:40 PM Post #22 |
|
I'd say it was faked, but not because of this photo or that photo. My understanding is that this was about winning the space race, and it was important. If you assume it was possible to pull this off in the 60's, the question for me is about risk. Would it be riskier to fake it, or riskier to do it? It is a lie so huge that it would be believed. I'd say the risk of faking it were small. I cannot begin to guess what the risk of trying to pull it off would be. |
![]() |
|
| David C | Jan 21 2008, 03:00 PM Post #23 |
|
One of the reasons they had to fake it might have been space radiation. The official version is that space radiation is not too dangerous to pass though. The government lies about so many other things that their lying about space radiation shouldn't surprise anybody. I don't see how we can verify whether they are lying or not; all we have is the word of the government and the only people who can say for sure are people with government security clearances. Here's some stuff about space radiation I found. http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/ (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat. Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME two sets of radiation data http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA, unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.] Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data, one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/ (added July 25, 2008) --------------------------- http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g (added October 25 2008) --------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo --------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4 --------------------------- (added November 20, 2008) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM (this has more than 20 parts) http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_radioactivemoon.htm (added February 3, 2009)
Show us an example. I've never seen any video of dust that didn't look like it was taken on earth.
Unmanned craft that have reflectors attached to the sides can be soft-landed. Edited by David C, Sep 4 2009, 05:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| David C | Jan 21 2008, 03:41 PM Post #24 |
|
All it can do is help to expose the moon hoax. It's better if people see the big picture. I post stuff about other important issues on other forums so I feel like I'm doing my part although I post about Apollo too. Here are some threads I started on other forums. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1167835067 http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1167834368 http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1167919003 http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1168881171 http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1167837322 After a while of debating on these threads at Clavius, I started to have "Technical problems" and I couldn't stay logged in. I had to open a new account with another name to be able to keep posting. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1170100055 The place to post stuff like this is where you're not welcome. I see places where there are only patriotic rednecks and disinfo agents posting and I wonder whether they've ever seen anything at all from the truth movement. http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/49821-The-CIA-and-cocaine-smuggling http://macteens.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9305 http://www.thescienceforum.com/American-Imperialism-9545t.php http://patriotdebate.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=bbad746f31a19e5f2fd24fe5426d5b56&topic=5792.0 http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/19724-american-imperialism.html http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=445030 I've been living in Spain since 93. Most Spaniards still think that Arabians really hijacked those planes. A lot of them have never even seen any of the proof. I show them the versions of the videos with Spanish subtitles. Some of them still don't believe it. http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=3819618435698830727 What's it like in the states now? Have most people seen the evidence? What percentage of Americans believe it was an inside job? If there are still a lot of them that have seen the evidence and don't take it seriously, I think showing them the proof that Apollo was a hoax will help wake them up. Edited by David C, Aug 12 2010, 11:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 21 2008, 03:44 PM Post #25 |
|
The term 'we' means humanity, not me personally or any group I am affiliated with. I know you are German (I think?) so I do try and pick my words carefully. Apologies if I created a misunderstanding.
It's ironic you should say this because the fact you believe in a completely ludicrous conspiracy theory is no surprise to me either. ![]()
Ok, I took the sample pictures from the same magazine (Y) but this artefact is visible on many of the magazines recorded. Here's a crop of samples from the Y magazine: ![]() Here are some samples from the V magazine: ![]() In this series, all but the last comparison (the first is the image you posted) were extracted by taking a 35x35 pixel area from 25 pixels in on the x axis. It is unlikely that these artefacts could simply spontaneously occur in exactly the same place on many different photos. It is most likely a scanning problem as the high resolution versions of these pictures show no such thing.
I tried to read the PDF you provided but my german is absolutely awful, you say that no details can be found about the actual distance to the moon. This is clearly not true, for example even linked off the Wikipedia article about it there is a PDF with a plethora of information regarding the range to the moon. You claim that there's never been a reflected laser beam so please let me know exactly what I would have to provide to prove you wrong.
This is indicative of another great misunderstanding of moon landing CTers. Dust does not swirl without an atmosphere! For example, take this youtube video. The rover clearly kicks up dust from its wheels but the dust simply raises into the air and then falls, it does not form any sort of cloud or swirl or anything. Then take for example this video quite clearly filmed on earth. This isn't even a perfect example as the surface of the moon was extremely fine dust but it serves the point. Dust on the earth forms vortexes due to the atmosphere, dust on the moon does not. By your logic, considering that the LEM must have been moved there in the first place by whomever faked it, did they clean it afterwards and why? How did they manage to place it and then the dust, or the dust and then it, without dirtying it at all?
Actually any private company with a satellite at certain altitudes would be able to tell you, but I guess anyone who is remotely involved with the government can't be trusted in your opinion. Regardless it's not 'space radiation' it is van allen belt radiation and is stopped by a millimetre or so of aluminium. Solar flares were and are a serious concern to space travellers, but they do not occur constantly, there was quite a large flare during one of the lunar missions and it was frankly just luck that saved their lives. As you've said that retroreflectors can be placed by unmanned craft, it would appear there's no level of proof that would satisfy you. Tell me, what evidence would you expect to see if humanity had visited the moon?
15 of the 19 were Saudi, and of course they did! Edited by exponent, Jan 21 2008, 03:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |

















9:23 AM Jul 11