View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 21 Dec 2012, 20:20

6 parts to 'Was It Only A Paper Moon?'





This one is very interesting at 7:55 -- people who think NASA personnel are not in on the scam in the past and present can observe 'Alan Nadell's' 'Adele's' (sp?) behaviour, and the Frank Hughes character referenced throughout. There is some further footage somewhere where Alan gives Jim the bum's rush for asking about the hatch measurement. See also 11:54 and the problem with hypergolic fuel but no dark red smoke from the lunar lander.






The bum's rush footage is here also at the very end of the doco, at 11:29:
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 22 Dec 2012, 07:43, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 21 Dec 2012, 20:37

BELOW: This next NASA fake comes courtesy of Apollo 15. In most movie sets, the crew will take a picture of the set to try and frame it correctly before they start shooting with film. The same thing here. It's just that some absent minded photographer forgot and left the polaroids on the leg of the lunar module.......dohhhh!

Image

By the way, if you think the photos left on the lunar lander are just weird reflections from the gold Reynolds Wrap, photo expert Jack White shows you how you can tell the difference:

Image

BELOW: We think the photographers for Apollo 16 need to frame their phony pictures better. You can clearly see 6 studio lights at the top of this "Lights Camera, Action" picture.

Image

BELOW: Every one of these pictures is of Buzz Aldrin from Apollo 11. Apparently he can't figure out how he wants to dress. In some pictures his moon suit is tucked into his moon boots, in some they are not. In some pictures his gloves are white, in some they're grey. Some pictures he has an antenna...and some he doesn't. One picture shows him wearing a black arm band...and it disappears in others.

Image
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 28 Dec 2012, 19:51, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby The23rdman » 21 Dec 2012, 22:45

Regarding there being diffused light on the moon: I can't see anything other than harsh light in any published photo. Show me one with diffused light, please.
Last edited by The23rdman on 21 Dec 2012, 22:51, edited 1 time in total.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Dec 2012, 07:17

I've removed all the extraneous posts from this topic and put them here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2645&start=0.

Now here's the thing. If you don't like the way a discussion is going, then start your own danged topic and specify the terms and conditions in the OP. If you have something of value to add in an already started topic, then by all means add it but don't whine about how others want to discuss a topic.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 22 Dec 2012, 07:21

The23rdman wrote:Regarding there being diffused light on the moon: I can't see anything other than harsh light in any published photo. Show me one with diffused light, please.

The combination photo I published of the 'bear rock' is a good example in fact. It's in B&W although they had colour cameras with them which were readily available at the time, because it's easier to fake effects in B&W, hide rock colours, black out the sky, etc etc. They use a bizarre mixture of colour and B&W videos and stills throughout the mission, which is inexplicable. Why use B&W at all? (Except to facilitate fakery.)

The picture foreground of the bear rock looks like it's been shot in strong daylight in the desert somewhere. The middle ground and background have much more diffuse and softer light IN THE SAME PHOTO. i.e. the soil around the rock in the fg is extremely bright and reflective in the harsh sun, but the rest of the lunar landscape 'soil' or 'moondust' is very muted, implying the use of sets or front projection techniques or other photo fakery. The entire photo should be absolutely brilliant like the fg. This is not the only photo showing this effect in existence, of course, there are plenty more.

The very existence of tons of moondust in Apollo records is geologically in itself also very suspicious, as Jim Collier points out in his 'Was it only a paper moon' work -- without the earth's weathering agents of rain, rivers, wind, etc, how do you break down so much rock to make so much 'moondust'? Although I'm not a geo, I would have thought that the moon's surface would be much more rocky with much less coverage of any kind of powdered covering. The only source of such powder would be tiny micro-meteorites floating in space drawn in by the moon's gravity, or pulverised rocks from collisions of larger meteorites. Any scientific views on this out there? (That would exclude the current crop of pseudosceps and saboteurs unless they're prepared to actually do research and cites for a change.)
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 22 Dec 2012, 19:50, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Dec 2012, 07:31

SydneyPSIder wrote:By the way, do any of the pseudosceps and saboteurs want to take a crack at explaining why there's three astronauts on the moon in the pic above? Bit of a smoking gun, isn't it? There it is again, for easy reference:

Image

The lighting is quite 'muted' also.

I have no idea but I found that pic to be VERY INTERESTING.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 22 Dec 2012, 15:30

Can anyone enlarge the astronaut's face plate on this photograph? SydenyPSIder, did you pick this up on your own or did you find this in another researcher's research? Also, could this photo be taken from a tripod to be clear? Did the astronauts at any time take pictures not using their chest cameras? Let's be sure and cover all bases.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 22 Dec 2012, 19:55

Misha wrote:Can anyone enlarge the astronaut's face plate on this photograph? SydenyPSIder, did you pick this up on your own or did you find this in another researcher's research? Also, could this photo be taken from a tripod to be clear? Did the astronauts at any time take pictures not using their chest cameras? Let's be sure and cover all bases.

punked! 3 astronauts in the pic might be a bit obvious even by NASA's standards. joke done by David Harland, author of many spaceflight related books, among them "Exploring the Moon". we can write that one off then...

Ditto goes for the provenance of the other pics, although many have the NASA ref no on them and can presumably be verified, although that's not completely certain if NASA takes them down or alters them. There was a point where one researcher downloaded every pic and reference number available on NASA's website for analysis, then came back to find NASA had completely renumbered all the pics 'for some reason'.

model making pics to come...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 22 Dec 2012, 21:51

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Misha wrote:Can anyone enlarge the astronaut's face plate on this photograph? SydenyPSIder, did you pick this up on your own or did you find this in another researcher's research? Also, could this photo be taken from a tripod to be clear? Did the astronauts at any time take pictures not using their chest cameras? Let's be sure and cover all bases.

punked! 3 astronauts in the pic might be a bit obvious even by NASA's standards. joke done by David Harland, author of many spaceflight related books, among them "Exploring the Moon". we can write that one off then...

Ditto goes for the provenance of the other pics, although many have the NASA ref no on them and can presumably be verified, although that's not completely certain if NASA takes them down or alters them. There was a point where one researcher downloaded every pic and reference number available on NASA's website for analysis, then came back to find NASA had completely renumbered all the pics 'for some reason'.

model making pics to come...


Now tell me you didn't use me to make a point? Frankly, I have seen this still many times but was giving you the gentleman's benefit of the doubt to explain. If I am correct this is Apollo 11 with Armstrong taking a picture of Buzz Aldrin. Now Sydney, what do you mean by "punked?"

Addendum: Correction, Conrad. As pointed out by ProfWag.
Last edited by Misha on 22 Dec 2012, 22:29, edited 2 times in total.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 22 Dec 2012, 21:56

SydneyPSIder wrote:Image
NASA wrote:Scientist-Astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt is photographed standing next to a huge, split boulder during the third Apollo 17 extravehicular activity (EVA-3) at the Taurus-Littrow landing site on the Moon.


Apparently they sent one wacked-out stoner geo on the final 'mission', Apollo 17, Harrison Schmitt, who stumbled across this unusual rock, colloquially called the 'bear rock' by them I believe.

It's actually called "Split Rock," Syd.

SydneyPsider wrote:The only problem geologically with this picture is that split boulders such as the one shown are either caused by a boulder falling from a rocky crag, or ingress of moisture which later freezes and expands. Neither of these are possible on the Moon at that location.

It was actually formed as a result of thrown rock from a meteor, Syd.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 22 Dec 2012, 22:08

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Look at this photo! (BELOW) It’s once again Pete Conrad from Apollo 12. Look in his visor. There are two astronauts reflected. How is that possible? That means there must be THREE astronauts on the surface of the moon! There should be only two, while the third remained in orbit.

Image

http://mountzion144.ning.com/profiles/b ... share_post

That is actually a faked photo, Syd. Please note the photo towards the bottom of this referenced webpage to see that the "3rd" astronaut was cropped from a completely different photo.
http://www.angelfire.com/home/clavius/photofake.html

It appears, Syd, that you have been "punked" by your own conspiracy believer friends.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 22 Dec 2012, 22:21

Thanks, ProfWag. My confusion. Actually, I think Syd was doing the "punking" which I look forward to his reply.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infoc ... 297170.jpg
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby The23rdman » 22 Dec 2012, 22:29

Thanks Prof. Yes, I had found the same evidence for photoshopping. ;)
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 22 Dec 2012, 23:30

Since everyone is throwing around the word "punked" or "punking" I thought it best to find out what you fellas mean by this. I'm from New York and it means only one thing:

1. punking

1. a male prison inmate blank another male prison inmate in the ass
2. succesfully playing a practical joke on someone

Originally, the word "punk" was prison slang, meaning the first defintion. the second comes from the idea that blank someone in the ass is a sign of disrespect (such as male dogs humping one another to show dominance, instead of sexual attraction, which could very well be the motive behind prison rape as well)
"here come' bubba, you 'bout to get f'd in the a' ok?"

Now I haven't been to prison and I also don't find the same sex attractive. What gives?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 22 Dec 2012, 23:56

Misha: its the practical joke version, made popular by Ashton Kutcher's MTV show:

http://www.mtv.com/shows/punkd/series.jhtml
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests