NASA never landed on the Moon - Apollo Hoax

[Winston]

Do you see the white cloth canvas behind him?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 001114.jpg

Here is a zoom up of what I mean, posted by someone on ATS after I pointed it out to him.



You can see the line between the cloth layer and the dirt, suggesting that the layer was placed OVER the dirt. You can even see slight creases in it. What could be more obvious than that? Look at it again.

[Winston]

Some shocking facts that will blow you away!

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthre ... 1061221795

"Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, thousands of other people had done the same. Yet 40 years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon, not a single other person has done the same, nor attempted to do so. Does this not seem a bit strange?

Well, it only seems strange to those who cling on to the belief that the Apollo space program was entirely genuine, transparent and above board. I used to be in that camp too until I actually started to seriously examine the photographic and video record of the alleged moon landings. The sheer number of inexplicable anomalies and apparent impossibilities shown in some of these photos and videos has led me to the firm conclusion that they were not taken under the conditions that NASA has led us to believe.

Using photo and video editing software, it is often possible to detect how a photo or video was put together. Many of the NASA Apollo images and videos allegedly taken on the moon, show tell-tale signs of crude compositing and re-touching, as well as the use of studio lighting, stage backdrops, scale models, Scotchlite screens and even chroma-keying. These photographic and video anomalies alone are enough to cast serious doubt about whether they were taken on the lunar surface, but this represents only a small amount of the large body of evidence proving that Apollo moon landings, as shown in the official NASA archives, are an elaborate work of fiction.

From my observations, I have come to the conclusion that all of the 12 alleged moon walkers presented to us in the Apollo videos and photos, were actually played by the same two actors. From a production perspective, there would be no need for any more than 2 actors, as their faces would be hidden by a visor for all of the moon landing footage. They probably also used some audio and video footage of the real astronauts taken previously during training simulations. Most of the Apollo space program was real, including blast-off and splashdown. But the part about landing on the moon was fabricated."

[Winston]

Check this out.

AULIS ONLINE, a great resource site by David Percy for Apollo Moon Hoax photo analyses, has credited me for being the first to discover the white carpet layer placed over the dirt in the famous photo of the astronaut salute with the American flag.

https://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.htm

Winston Wu has pointed out in AS15-88-11863 that there is an apparent 'ledge' between the rear foreground and the near foreground area where all the activity has taken place. It looks rather like a white 'carpet' layer that was placed over the 'lunar dust'. The slightly lower near foreground carries all the tracks and footprints.

Also, Jim Fetzer, the guy who interviewed me about my Conspiracy Trilogy Report on his radio show "The Real Deal" (author of "Murder in Dealey Plaza", the best book on the JFK Assassination conspiracy which proves it beyond all doubt) recently mentioned me and my report in one of his interviews. He notes that I made some convincing points. Here is his interview. He mentions me at approximately 21:00. The whole thing is only 30 minutes so you can listen to it quickly.

http://kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_0 ... oSpirt.mp3

[Moretorque]

I have not studied this because it does not affect the here and the now, but I always wondered why Neil Armstrong was like hiding something the way he acted.

Nevertheless, I read somebody's post on here claiming that that old technology was primitive, the technology may have been primitive but the people who made it work were way more on the ball than the clowns the schools turn out today.

Those were the best and brightest minds working on that project, and the personnel at NASA now are a joke in comparison, making a Saturn 5 that works is real hard to do and most think the clowns at NASA today could not build a reliable craft to go to the moon just because the intellect and competence is inferior compared to what we used to turn out.

My step father is a retired Astrophysicist and he worked on Apollo and at Los Alamos for many a summer on the hardest physics problems this earth has ever seen and he and the boys over there used to talk about what they were turning out in the colleges and they felt that team in the 60's who put together the Apollo stuff back then could not be replaced by these new generation scientist they were turning out.

They felt the craftsmen ship to make a controlled burn like the old Saturn 5 did for as long as it did would be real hard for these new guys to pull it off.

One of the interesting things about the old moon deal was if it was a hoax the Russians would have been the first to prove it was because we were in a race to go there with them.

[Flatland]

1. The moon has about 1/6 the Earth's gravity. So how come the astronauts in the Apollo footage were moving so slowly and couldn't jump very high? Shouldn't they be moving faster than if they were on Earth and be able to jump much higher as well?

I don't know about jumping high but there are footages of them moving very fast.

2. NASA today cannot put a man safely in space above 1000 miles from the Earth's surface. So how could it have sent men 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times with no casualties? It doesn't make sense.

Where did you get that they can't and why would they need to put a man at 1000 miles over the Earth?

3. How could that little LEM possibly have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and all the way back? A 747 airliner doesn't even have a fraction of the fuel that would be required, and the LEM is barely the size of two standard cars! WTF? NASA has never explained that. All it said was "The LEM had enough fuel" and the sheep take it as gospel truth and fact. So dumb. It's like NASA's words create fact and reality and authority=truth. Big major fallacy. Even if it could get to the moon by a miracle, there is no way it could ever go all the way back to Earth. Werner von Braun, former Nazi and NASA's chief rocket scientist, said in his book "Conquest of the Moon" (1953) that the rocket to the moon would have to be taller than the Empire State Building! Yet the LEM is about the size of two cars?! WTF?

Because an airliner needs continual thrust to fight against the drag of the Earth's Atmosphere. There is no air in space therefore the LEM can rely purely on momentum to get to the moon. The LEM also had a HUGE Saturn 5 rocket to get it up to speed. Anyone with a 6th grade understanding of physics would've known this. And you have the nerve to call ph_visitor an idiot? Wow just wow....

4. When the top half of the lunar module blasted off from the moon's surface (with no exhaust), how did it re-dock with the command module orbiting the moon, which was moving at about 4,000 mph? NASA has never really explained that. The chances of docking with it were astronomical. And if they missed the dock, they were dead meat. Plus, in the footage of the lunar module's ascent from the moon, the camera pans up as it ascends. Who was panning the camera on the surface? Or was it remote controlled? Very odd and conspicuous.

Uhh the same way that the Space Shuttle docks with the International Space Station, which is moving at 17,500 mph mind you. There is also no atmosphere and lower gravity on the moon which made it a whole lot easier.

5. If we had gone to the moon, there would be flights there everyday now, and moon bases as well. That's how history goes. It's simple logic. So the fact that we haven't gone in 40 years is very suspicious indeed, to any rational thinker with common sense, not the sheep who consider themselves rational but take on faith anything they are told by official sources.

Wow moon bases huh? We don't even have bases at the bottom of the ocean and we've been there plenty of times before. What a convincing argument

Of course NASA has its convenient copout explanations for not returning to the moon - too expensive, not necessary, no motivation, etc. But the problem is that the pro-Apollo believers harbor the logical fallacy that whatever NASA says MUST be the truth. This is the "authority = truth fallacy". The problem with this is that words are easy and cheap. Anyone can give any convenient excuse for anything. For example, a woman can refuse sex with her husband with the excuse that she has a headache, but that doesn't mean that it's the real reason. Likewise, a woman can turn down a date by saying that she is "busy" or "needs time to herself" as a polite excuse to mask the real reason - that she is not attracted to him. Anyone can make excuses, but that doesn't mean that the excuse is the full truth and that nothing is hidden. Those who commit this fallacy are biased. They badly WANT the moon landing to be real, so they will only see what they want to see, and be unable to examine the evidence objectively without bias.

Check out this guy. He is the ultimate debunker of the moon landings and the leading authority on it.

http://www.youtube.com/whitejarrah
http://www.moonfaker.com

You keep wanting us to watch your conspiracy videos but have you ever bothered to watch the videos that debunks all that crap? Obviously not or you wouldn't be posting the SAME CRAP that has been THOROUGHLY debunked already.

[Jester]

Persuasive, clear:

http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... of-of.html

[Jester]

Jump ahead to time: 32:02 if you do not wish to view the entire forty seven minute documentary and only view the newly discovered unedited out-takes of Neil Armstrong falsifying mission photography during the Apollo 11 flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4#at=52

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4#at=52[/youtube]

[rudder]

I too thought the faked moon landing was some ridiculous conspiracy theory until I read about Stanley Kubrick, and then looked at an analysis of the symbolism in The Shining. I forget what I read, but it also talked about the reason why Richard Hoagland thinks there is a glass structure around the moon. Apparently it was due to the screen put up in the background of the film studio. Hoagland saw what looked like a rainbow prism, so he concluded that the moon has giant glass structures on it.

My question is why? Why was the landing faked? Who cares either way? What difference does it or did it make?

[HouseMD]

I'm going to be the outlier by claiming the moon landing actually happened and the reason we haven't been back since is simply that there's no reason to go back. The moon is a dangerous place to visit, and the missions have little room for error. It is far easier (and cheaper) to send a lander or a satellite probe to find out what we are looking for. Landers have a multi-year timeline during which they can operate, while humans can only be present for a comparatively short period of time. We didn't have the technology for a good lander back in those days, nor did we have the extremely high-tech imaging satellites we now posess, so we sent people instead.

We brought back a large amount of lunar regolith, which is impossible to form under conditions on Earth. The only way for the quantity we obtained to have been harvested at that time was by hand, as the most advanced robotics in the world at the time could only recover less than a kilogram of material, far short of our 22 kilograms on Apollo 11. It has been extensively studied in hundreds of laboratories around the world and correlates to no known substance present on Earth. The technology it is often claimed was used to fake the landing didn't even exist back when the landing occured, as is demonstrated by this video: http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon ... tive-proof

We have images showing the landing sites from space, and no nation has ever contested that we visited the moon, be it friend or foe.

One day, we will go back, no doubt. But asteroids are the big issue right now, as they contain something the moon doesn't- resources that could be used for monetary gain. One asteroid can contain literally trillions of dollars worth of precious metals, while the moon has virtually zero known resources worth harvesting (until helium 3 fusion becomes a viable option). There's around 1,500 asteroids that require less energy to reach and return from than the moon, so it isn't like they're these impossible things to go out and grab. And then there's Mars- why spend billions sending some people back to the moon, when we could be the first to land on Mars and bring back Martian soil and regolith? If we're going to piss away money, we need to at least piss away money doing something new. The only viable reason to go back to the moon is if we prove that we can travel beyond the moon safely, in which case establishing a base there would make a modicum of sense, rather than being a huge waste of money.

I'll tell you what's weird about people that believe in conspiracies- they never seem to believe in just one. It's either nothing is a conspiracy, or everything seems to be. Believe it or not, buying into this stuff doesn't make anyone crazy, and there's research about it, but you know, that's probably just another conspiracy: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magaz ... d=all&_r=0

[Jester]

Jump ahead to time: 32:02 if you do not wish to view the entire forty seven minute documentary and only view the newly discovered unedited out-takes of Neil Armstrong falsifying mission photography during the Apollo 11 flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4#at=52

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4#at=52[/youtube]

HouseMD, take a look at this.

[Jester]

I'll tell you what's weird about people that believe in conspiracies- they never seem to believe in just one.

So Harvey Oswald killed Jack Kennedy, all by himself?

And then patriotic strip-club owner Jack Ruby loved JFK so much, and got so outraged, that he shot Oswald in front of police and reporters, before Oswald could tell his story?

And the North Vietnamese really attacked the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin?

Wow.

[Moretorque]

I'll tell you what's weird about people that believe in conspiracies- they never seem to believe in just one. It's either nothing is a conspiracy, or everything seems to be. Believe it or not, buying into this stuff doesn't make anyone crazy, and there's research about it, but you know, that's probably just another conspiracy: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magaz ... d=all&_r=0

The history of man is nothing but one conspiracy after another, people are always gaming the system for their benefit. Just open and read a real history book. I have never studied the moon landings in detail but Russia never did contest it and if it was faked they would have let the whole world know about it.

[rudder]

My question is why? Why was the landing faked? Who cares either way? What difference does it or did it make?

???

[Jester]

I have never studied the moon landings in detail but Russia never did contest it and if it was faked they would have let the whole world know about it.

Other way around. Once you look at the video and see that it WAS faked, then the interesting question arises about why Russia didn't rat us out. A question worth asking.

But first you need to look at the video and see the fakery.

[Jester]

My question is why? Why was the landing faked? Who cares either way? What difference does it or did it make?

???

Some thoughts...

--- Russians were way ahead in space, from Sputnik to Gagarin and beyond. We "needed" to "top" them. In the 1960 election, Kennedy had run to the right of Nixon on missiles, was a serious cold war hawk.

--- Werner von Braun no doubt knew better, but accepted Apollo as a cover program for the defeat of the Soviet Union through military dominance in space. This did take place.

--- The Pentagon saw Apollo as a piggy bank to fund all kinds of "black" programs. Like those pallet loads of cash - billions - that went missing in Iraq -- remember that? No, the Pentagon isn't stupid. One place $ went besides space weapons, NSA, and HAARP could be the D.U.M.B. tunnels. That shit cost some money! But it sure never came for public debate in Congress, did it?

--- When elected, being a reckless member of a reckless family, Kennedy then made a reckless promise. Maybe he would have altered the timeline, had he lived, and we could have spent the decades needd to overcome the technical issues and do a REAL moon landing. But after he was assassinated, he very simply became a god. It was then easier to adhere to his promised timeline than to admit defeat.

-- America at the time was involved in an unpopular war and also civil rights issue. Space program was the only thing uniting us. I well remember, it was the only thing that avuncular old commie Walter Cronkite and I agreed on. Hippies, commies, right-wing, Black, White -- everyone was proud. Bread and circuses, keep the masses happy.

--- It's not like governments have never lied to look good. Like Soviet factories faking production figures to meet outlandish quotas set by state planners under Stalin etc.