View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          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 Arouet » 28 Dec 2012, 22:36

Just pick what you think is the strongest (before you mentioned radiation as a strong reason, now you apparently don't, so it's hard to tell what you prioritise) and start a thread on it.

By the way, I think I've made it clear that I've never researched any of the moon landing stuff in depth before. I decided to give it a shot here. So I don't have ready responses to any of the stuff you've posted. It may even be that you're right for all I know.

The pictures are hard for me to discuss much because I really don't have any knowledge about photography. Now, I don't about radiation either, but I can read about it. Photography knowledge is a lot more practical. i suspect you really need to have someone teach it to you, demonstrating the different effects and what causes them. But I'm willing to give it a go.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






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

Postby The23rdman » 29 Dec 2012, 02:00

SydneyPSIder wrote:
The23rdman wrote:Sydney, you are coming across really oddly here, mate. If you want to discuss this stuff - I mean really discuss it then it has to be done in a way that posts and information doesn't get lost. You claim to have a scientific nature, but all I see is slapdash posting. You have been given the opportunity to take any one topic and explore it in depth. That is the only way we can come to any useful conclusion.

I'm not seeing much other than lots of posting, paranoid attacking of Arouet for wanting to discus one thing at a time and exactly the kind of avoidance you are accusing him of. I suggest you pick a subject (seeing as you seem to have decided radiation isn't for you now) and we can all try and discuss the merits of it without accusations and silly name calling. If you don't want to do this, that's fine, but I will be blocking you because I came here to have intelligent and open-minded discussions about some topics that interest me. I've yet to see anything from you that suggests you are anything other than the pseudoskeptic you claim to be against.

I'm sorry if this appears harsh, but I am not only willing, but hoping you can prove this a wrong assessment.


You're just being silly, and not reading posts again. if you read the posts above properly, I've said 3 times we should discuss the stereoscopic analysis. Or any of the visual evidence already submitted. I have to paste in chunks of evidence to get the ball rolling in discussion, otherwise there is nothing at all to discuss, and the pseudosceps will just go on and on about nothing, which they're still attempting to do. In the past 2-3 pages, there have been submissions from me on:

- wireflashes and impossible anti-gravity due to harnesses being used
- stereoscopic analysis showing sets of depth 50 m to the 'mountains' and an analysis of the curved projection screens used
- evidence of large-scale model-making including fake lunar balls 20' across and large lunar surfaces
- light bulb artifacts in the 'sun'
- Russian lunar soil analysis disagrees markedly with Apollo samples analyses, but agrees with actual moon evidence
- fake Apollo 17 photos
- 'hand damage' to Apollo 17 astronauts fixed immediately on splashdown
- probably a couple of other things
- more to come

Which one would you like to look at in more depth? I'm happy to discuss any of those above in more detail.


Okay, mate, I'm not going to tit for tat you. All I'm really saying is that you seem to have decided the evidence is conclusive and that is not a skeptical position. The evidence seems very interesting and worthy of looking at, but I cannot see anything conclusive yet.

I'd like to look at the stereoscopic analysis as that is the area that intrigues me. I've skim read the link you provided, but am willing to give it more time.
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 SydneyPSIder » 29 Dec 2012, 07:19

Arouet wrote:Just pick what you think is the strongest (before you mentioned radiation as a strong reason, now you apparently don't, so it's hard to tell what you prioritise) and start a thread on it.

By the way, I think I've made it clear that I've never researched any of the moon landing stuff in depth before. I decided to give it a shot here. So I don't have ready responses to any of the stuff you've posted. It may even be that you're right for all I know.

The pictures are hard for me to discuss much because I really don't have any knowledge about photography. Now, I don't about radiation either, but I can read about it. Photography knowledge is a lot more practical. i suspect you really need to have someone teach it to you, demonstrating the different effects and what causes them. But I'm willing to give it a go.

Radiation is a reasonable topic in that it presents safety problems in space travel, and I think it was definitely a factor in NASA's thinking when they decided to fake the missions -- as it was for the Russians also.

It's a little like a new arrived Irish emigre in the US in 1845 deciding to trek from the east coast to the newly acquired west coast of the US in a wagon train to look for gold -- on a dangerous journey there is a probabilistic chance of any one of a number of risks getting you:

- robbed and killed by bandits
- attacked and killed by disgruntled natives
- accident or misadventure, e.g. falling down a ravine, wagons catching fire
- wagons fall apart from wear and tear
- getting lost, never to be found again
- running out of food or other resources
- heat of the desert - extremes of heat and cold
- robbed by fellow travellers
- wild animals
etc.

Any one of these could happen, and the entire risk picture might be enough to put a cautious person off. This is what happened to NASA when evaluating the chances of a successful mission:

- uncertain radiation risks that could kill astronauts slowly or quickly - e.g. how would you know they wouldn't die in 6 months? or 2 years? or 2 days?
- radiation that could knock out delicate comms equipment
- problems with the rocket technology that could fail randomly at any time on the mission (they miraculously achieved 6 full missions without a single serious technical problem or rocket failure somehow), including from expansion and contraction due to extremes of heat and cold
- dealing with extremes of heat and cold without dying
- problems with oxygen, pressure seals, etc
- micro-meteorites or larger objects striking the vessel or astronauts at high speed
- failure to rendezvous with the orbiting 'command module' after ascent
- failed docking sequence at the rendezvous
- failure to 'turn around' the module in space on the way out
- catastrophic rocket failure at launch or at any time on the mission
- general failure of communications equipment, losing contact with the craft from earth
- misadventure on the moon itself -- frequent falls, suit rupture or failure, micro-meteorite strike
- underpowered rocket can't achieve the mission
- immature technology wasn't up to puff generally - airtight seals, air-conditioning, battery technology, rocket technology, verniers, computers - witness the physics of the 'LEM' with its central large rocket and consequent centre of gravity problems - and accidents with the space shuttle since then only in low earth orbit tend to suggest a higher accident and failure rate in all likelihood than occurred with Apollo
- etc etc

To avoid the embarrassment of astronaut deaths or failure of US technology etc (and US rockets were not as technically advanced as Russian ones in terms of actually getting a payload into space reliably and without launchpad failure) they decided, on the risk profile and balance of probabilities, to fake it -- they couldn't safely get a mission into space and back home by 1969, and they needed to buy some time. In the end, they couldn't do it by 1973 either, and it was easier and cheaper to keep faking the moon's surface with different sets.

Much safer to hoon around on the earth's surface in a lunar rover with an oxygen atmosphere than on the moon.

So radiation was a factor in their decision making. It was coupled with all the other factors. Arouet cannot seem to understand this. It's the same risk assessment that any competent manager would make presented with such an array of information in terms of proceeding.

The23rdman wrote:Okay, mate, I'm not going to tit for tat you. All I'm really saying is that you seem to have decided the evidence is conclusive and that is not a skeptical position. The evidence seems very interesting and worthy of looking at, but I cannot see anything conclusive yet.

I'd like to look at the stereoscopic analysis as that is the area that intrigues me. I've skim read the link you provided, but am willing to give it more time.


To paraphrase Scatterbrain's epic 1991 magnum opus, 'hey mate, don't.call.me.mate'. No-one in an Aus or UK forum would call someone mate unless they were furious with them, or to make a very emphatic point.

The stereoscopic analysis isn't too hard a read. It is not possible for us to easily independently reproduce the findings, so the bona fides of the author need to be considered, of course.

Given the 'balance of probabilities' considerations above, it's necessary to look at a number of pieces of evidence rather than getting fixated on 'proving' the physics of one of them alone, as I think we've already established that 'radiation' is difficult to out and out prove with the data that anyone possesses -- NASA themselves apparently do not possess good data beyond van Allen's early work in the 50s, which seemed grim at the time. (We know solar flares can knock out satellites however.) Van Allen has later said, without justification in data, that it's safe. NASA in turn effectively disagree with themselves as they say they have to do much more research. NASA has never ever ever even sent up a chimp or other animal through the van Allen belts, into deeper space, allowed it to orbit the moon a few times and come back for analysis -- you would think you would have done some animal experiments before sending humans? A box of hamsters? Anything. But they were willing (supposedly) to risk 18 human lives without doing full trials, or indeed any trials.

A true sceptic, of course, would look at the video portrayals of puppets on a string doing the impossible, and with wire flashes, and look at the other indirect analyses and probabilities that have been raised here over and over again, and draw the sensible sceptical conclusion that something was up, but of course the pseudosceptics here turn the true definition of scepticism on its head, that's the whole point of creating the forum.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby The23rdman » 29 Dec 2012, 22:10

SydPSI wrote:
To paraphrase Scatterbrain's epic 1991 magnum opus, 'hey mate, don't.call.me.mate'. No-one in an Aus or UK forum would call someone mate unless they were furious with them, or to make a very emphatic point.

The stereoscopic analysis isn't too hard a read. It is not possible for us to easily independently reproduce the findings, so the bona fides of the author need to be considered, of course.

Given the 'balance of probabilities' considerations above, it's necessary to look at a number of pieces of evidence rather than getting fixated on 'proving' the physics of one of them alone, as I think we've already established that 'radiation' is difficult to out and out prove with the data that anyone possesses -- NASA themselves apparently do not possess good data beyond van Allen's early work in the 50s, which seemed grim at the time. (We know solar flares can knock out satellites however.) Van Allen has later said, without justification in data, that it's safe. NASA in turn effectively disagree with themselves as they say they have to do much more research. NASA has never ever ever even sent up a chimp or other animal through the van Allen belts, into deeper space, allowed it to orbit the moon a few times and come back for analysis -- you would think you would have done some animal experiments before sending humans? A box of hamsters? Anything. But they were willing (supposedly) to risk 18 human lives without doing full trials, or indeed any trials.

A true sceptic, of course, would look at the video portrayals of puppets on a string doing the impossible, and with wire flashes, and look at the other indirect analyses and probabilities that have been raised here over and over again, and draw the sensible sceptical conclusion that something was up, but of course the pseudosceptics here turn the true definition of scepticism on its head, that's the whole point of creating the forum.

Quote box inserted by Moderator- as the blue font thingy confused the heck out of the Moderator

No one in a UK or Aus forum uses the word mate unless they're furious or wish to make a point? What planet are you on?? I'm very much in the UK and use the term mate as a term of endearment. I suggest you stop jumping to stupid conclusions and stick to the task at hand.

Now, I'm over an hour into the Dark Mission video and I find the evidence presented to be quite compelling from a photographic point of view. There is no doubt at all in my mind that these photos have been faked. Shadows simply do not do the things they are doing here and neither does natural light.
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 Arouet » 29 Dec 2012, 23:13

I've put it on while I make breakfast. I'm at least encouraged that its presented in a serious manner rather than with dramatic music, etc.

I think the photos will be an interesting topic. I still think there should be a new thread started. this thread can be the holding ground for all the topics, with specific elements discussed in their own threads. Syd: this is the best way to avoid topics being buried.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 Dec 2012, 19:34

Cool bananas.

I'm on vacation over new year, currently posting via a slow Edge connection in the boondocks. Should have broadband by tomorrow, but won't necessarily be posting. I have rediscovered a whole shedload of further pics and videos and websites that I will be posting when I get back. More convincing stuff around fake backgrounds, and a raft of other things.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby The23rdman » 30 Dec 2012, 20:24

Definitely evidence of light sources being used. No question in my mind at all.
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 ProfWag » 30 Dec 2012, 21:18

SydneyPSIder wrote:Cool bananas.

I'm on vacation over new year, currently posting via a slow Edge connection in the boondocks. Should have broadband by tomorrow, but won't necessarily be posting. I have rediscovered a whole shedload of further pics and videos and websites that I will be posting when I get back. More convincing stuff around fake backgrounds, and a raft of other things.

Could you remind us again how your picture evidence has anything at all to do with us going to the moon?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby The23rdman » 30 Dec 2012, 21:43

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Cool bananas.

I'm on vacation over new year, currently posting via a slow Edge connection in the boondocks. Should have broadband by tomorrow, but won't necessarily be posting. I have rediscovered a whole shedload of further pics and videos and websites that I will be posting when I get back. More convincing stuff around fake backgrounds, and a raft of other things.

Could you remind us again how your picture evidence has anything at all to do with us going to the moon?


I don't think it necessarily does either. It does support the hypothesis that they either determined taking photos would be a crap shoot or they decided getting some great PR shots was essential.
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 really? » 30 Dec 2012, 23:01

SydneyPSIder wrote:Cool bananas.

I'm on vacation over new year, currently posting via a slow Edge connection in the boondocks. Should have broadband by tomorrow, but won't necessarily be posting. I have rediscovered a whole shedload of further pics and videos and websites that I will be posting when I get back. More convincing stuff around fake backgrounds, and a raft of other things.


I wonder how you can tell these are fake photos. It seems in order to make an informed opinion you'd have to have a real Moon landscape photo to compare to a fake moon landing landscape photo. Since ct'ers claim no real Moon landscape photos exist how can you determine the what the moon landscape should or should not look like if all your evidence is fake ? I wonder if you can tell the difference ?
Here are some photos of the surface of Mars. Are they real or not ? Explain your answer in detail.
Image
Image
Image
Image
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 Dec 2012, 09:50

ProfWag wrote:Could you remind us again how your picture evidence has anything at all to do with us going to the moon?

Could you remind us again of your alternative hypothesis of what must have happened, as an apologetic for all the fakery? I think it goes something like this: "yes, all the snapshots and videos were faked, but 'someone' went to the moon, maybe not the celebrity astronauts, and we can't tell you how many times, but just trust us. We're bald faced liars, but trust us".

Fabulous. So you seem to be agreeing that photos are fakes on the evidence. Furthermore, there is an interconnected web of evidence that suggests fakery across the board, not just 'picture evidence' -- supposed lunar rocks and soil samples don't agree with unmanned Russian samples and ESA spectrographic analysis, two more strikes. Further, video was possible from the relatively safe confines of the lunar modules in space, unlike the 250F temperatures on the moon itself which would have melted the ordinary Kodak film that was used -- again, a high ranking Kodak employee who supplied it at the time has confirmed it was ordinary film, whereas the NASA spokesman/shill they are currently using LIED about it and carried on about thin gel film etc etc, i.e. fabricated a bunch of lies. But we are still to believe these lying liars apparently, because ProfWag implores us to do so. (You would have to watch the interview with the Kodak employee in the Percy Dark Mission movie embedded elsewhere here, something ProfWag always proves loathe to do -- i.e. doesn't want to examine the evidence or witness reports.)

So, video was safe, but what do we see in the videos? A module in low earth orbit that claims to be halfway to the moon -- blue light streaming in through the window suggesting an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Furthermore, an astronaut shows what is verified to be a TRANSPARENCY OF A PICTURE OF EARTH in one window -- verified because the window is in focus at the same time as the earth at supposed 'infinite' focus -- then pans around to another window where we see A MUCH LARGER EARTH IN THE OPPOSITE WINDOW, i.e. in low earth orbit. They just hoped no-one would see the detail.

So there is the web of evidence -- fake samples, fake videos, fake pics, and evidence of model making. What exactly are you proposing happened, ProfWag, and where's your hard evidence? I can answer for you now -- it's non-existent, and you are a pseudoscep.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 31 Dec 2012, 10:42

really? wrote:I wonder how you can tell these are fake photos. It seems in order to make an informed opinion you'd have to have a real Moon landscape photo to compare to a fake moon landing landscape photo. Since ct'ers claim no real Moon landscape photos exist how can you determine the what the moon landscape should or should not look like if all your evidence is fake ? I wonder if you can tell the difference ?
Here are some photos of the surface of Mars. Are they real or not ? Explain your answer in detail.


Ah, well, this is where really? is showing its absolute ignorance and laziness yet again. Plenty of moon landscape photos exist, taken by the unmanned US Surveyor and USSR Luna and Zond missions, which are part of the cache of photos I announced earlier I was about to publish here. So some Luna and Zond photos coming up soon, many also showing STARS in the sky. There is relatively little reason to doubt that these photos were legit, but all claims to the truth need to be tested of course.

(Remember the Russians were well ahead of the US in space exploration and technology, to their credit, and there is footage of a speech by JFK to Congress where he demonstrates the US were utterly shit-scared of this and catching up was paramount to them.)

Regarding the Mars photos, I have read one or two accounts that throw suspicion onto a couple of alleged Mars photos, as the colours have been tampered with -- one correction interestingly shows a blue earth-like oxygen-rich sky, for instance, by correcting the colours on the module that is visible in the photo back to the colours demonstrated in pictures of the same module on earth. There is no good excuse by NASA for manipulating the colours the way they have. Maybe another crashed US rocket or off-target launch that never delivered the unmanned probe to Mars they were promising? Who knows? Interesting, but I haven't studied that area closely.

However, the stereoscopic analysis of moon pics, further to just examining them physically, conclusively demonstrates that sets and projections or backdrops were being used. A stereoscopic analysis goes further than the human eye in exposing such fakery.

A similar analysis for the use of backdrops or projections would need to be performed on any 'Mars' pics posted by really?, assuming two similar pics can be obtained taken a short distance apart in the same direction -- this may not be possible. Other than that, the colour correction technique could be used. Some may be fake and some may be legit, for instance.

I think really? is trying to point to a visual comparison approach only, however, as though this is all that can be done. If really?'s belief were true, which it's not, then there are still demonstrable differences between those Mars images and many of the moon images, which were faked in different ways. One is the disappearance of rocky detail on many of the moon pics -- there are only detailed rocks in the foreground. Another is the frequent clear lines between f/g, m/g and b/g, which I will be demonstrating when I get back form vacation with a new crop of pics highlighting this in particular on many moon pics. Another is the inexplicable change in lighting level between the f/g and the rest of the shot, as I've already pointed out at least twice using the Apollo 17 split rock example as a single example only. Others involve careful examination of the mountainous backdrop which demonstrate the same backdrop being used over and over again, and the astronots kept pointing their cameras in the same direction to the mountains at every new site for some reason!!?? There are also pictures missing reticules, or crosshairs, which should not be possible.

So really? has jumped the gun again, with yet another poorly researched and half-cocked question and by ignoring the web of evidence and techniques that can be used to demonstrate fakery. It's almost as though he thinks up bad questions to allow himself to be hit out of the park by the true sceptics! Anyone would think he was working for Scepcop and on the payroll -- come on, really?, you can admit it now. Thank you, really?, thank you.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby really? » 31 Dec 2012, 12:34

SydneyPSIder wrote:
really? wrote:I wonder how you can tell these are fake photos. It seems in order to make an informed opinion you'd have to have a real Moon landscape photo to compare to a fake moon landing landscape photo. Since ct'ers claim no real Moon landscape photos exist how can you determine the what the moon landscape should or should not look like if all your evidence is fake ? I wonder if you can tell the difference ?
Here are some photos of the surface of Mars. Are they real or not ? Explain your answer in detail.


Ah, well, this is where really? is showing its absolute ignorance and laziness yet again. Plenty of moon landscape photos exist, taken by the unmanned US Surveyor and USSR Luna and Zond missions, which are part of the cache of photos I announced earlier I was about to publish here. So some Luna and Zond photos coming up soon, many also showing STARS in the sky. There is relatively little reason to doubt that these photos were legit, but all claims to the truth need to be tested of course.

(Remember the Russians were well ahead of the US in space exploration and technology, to their credit, and there is footage of a speech by JFK to Congress where he demonstrates the US were utterly shit-scared of this and catching up was paramount to them.)

Regarding the Mars photos, I have read one or two accounts that throw suspicion onto a couple of alleged Mars photos, as the colours have been tampered with -- one correction interestingly shows a blue earth-like oxygen-rich sky, for instance, by correcting the colours on the module that is visible in the photo back to the colours demonstrated in pictures of the same module on earth. There is no good excuse by NASA for manipulating the colours the way they have. Maybe another crashed US rocket or off-target launch that never delivered the unmanned probe to Mars they were promising? Who knows? Interesting, but I haven't studied that area closely.

However, the stereoscopic analysis of moon pics, further to just examining them physically, conclusively demonstrates that sets and projections or backdrops were being used. A stereoscopic analysis goes further than the human eye in exposing such fakery.

A similar analysis for the use of backdrops or projections would need to be performed on any 'Mars' pics posted by really?, assuming two similar pics can be obtained taken a short distance apart in the same direction -- this may not be possible. Other than that, the colour correction technique could be used. Some may be fake and some may be legit, for instance.

I think really? is trying to point to a visual comparison approach only, however, as though this is all that can be done. If really?'s belief were true, which it's not, then there are still demonstrable differences between those Mars images and many of the moon images, which were faked in different ways. One is the disappearance of rocky detail on many of the moon pics -- there are only detailed rocks in the foreground. Another is the frequent clear lines between f/g, m/g and b/g, which I will be demonstrating when I get back form vacation with a new crop of pics highlighting this in particular on many moon pics. Another is the inexplicable change in lighting level between the f/g and the rest of the shot, as I've already pointed out at least twice using the Apollo 17 split rock example as a single example only. Others involve careful examination of the mountainous backdrop which demonstrate the same backdrop being used over and over again, and the astronots kept pointing their cameras in the same direction to the mountains at every new site for some reason!!?? There are also pictures missing reticules, or crosshairs, which should not be possible.

So really? has jumped the gun again, with yet another poorly researched and half-cocked question and by ignoring the web of evidence and techniques that can be used to demonstrate fakery. It's almost as though he thinks up bad questions to allow himself to be hit out of the park by the true sceptics! Anyone would think he was working for Scepcop and on the payroll -- come on, really?, you can admit it now. Thank you, really?, thank you.


Well you got me with your logic. You are amazing.

You mean these low resolution USSR photos. http://www.mentallandscape.com/c_catalog.htm
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

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

Postby really? » 31 Dec 2012, 13:16

Enough links to cause any reasonable person to believe we did set foot on the Moon. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxa ... #radiation Notice how old this page is rebutting the old hoax arguments.
Just a thought. Since we (meaning NASA) staged this on a movie set why didn't the Soviets do that first ? It would have been cheaper and quicker.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

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

Postby Scepcop » 31 Dec 2012, 17:38

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."
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests