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 ProfWag » 09 May 2012, 03:16

Craig Browning wrote:That could be seen as being quite naughty. . . :lol:

What can I say? I've been known to be a tad naughty in my time...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






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

Postby Scepcop » 18 May 2012, 17:37

Craig Browning wrote:Can I get a showing of hands as to who is going to waste 3 and a half hours of their day watching this rhetoric? :roll:


It's not a waste of time. The arguments in the film are true and irrefutable. You're an idiot if you think that the moon videos and photos were real. Any amateur photographer can debunk them. Basic logic and science. Why do you hate the proven facts?

How about spending 20 minutes then? See below:

Check this out. It's very compelling.

Jay Weidner, producer of the Kubrick Odyssey films, explains in this interview with James Fetzer about the obvious evidence and signs in the moon photos and videos that the whole thing was filmed in a studio by Stanley Kubrick. He brings up some new evidence that I haven't heard before. He believes that we did go to the moon, but that the photos and videos from NASA are clearly faked without a doubt. Movie directors in 1974 had already known about this but were too scared to point it out.

Some of his key points that are new to me:

- Many of the photos clearly had second and third lighting sources, which means they were in a studio because they did not bring additional light sources on the moon. Propagandists falsely claim that the second light sources were reflections from the ground, but that's not true because the luminosity of the moon's surface is the same as asphalt, or cement highway roads, which has very little luminosity.
- You can see a line apparent in many moon photos separating the foreground and background, indicating a fake background. Jay explains how front screen projection works and explains why a glass screen in the background was necessary, which is why you see the line, with a totally different texture in the background. He went into detail about this in his "Kubrick's Odyssey" film but it's been pulled from YouTube because he prefers people buy it from him.
- The photos show the foreground and background in focus, which is optically impossible because any photographer knows that you can't bring both the foreground and background into focus at the same time, unless the background is fake and so is already is in focus.
- In low gravity, 1/6 of the Earth's, the astronauts should be moving FASTER, not 40 percent slower. Kubrick did this because he couldn't make them walk faster and make it look realistic at the same time.

He makes a lot of practical sense. This is all very easy to understand and you will slap yourself in the head for not realizing it sooner.



Here is a longer interview where he talks about how and why NASA used Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landings, the Gnostic teachings about the Archons that rule our world, etc. It's VERY mind blowing.

“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

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

Postby Arouet » 18 May 2012, 17:43

Still waiting for your source for why you believe that NASA and Obama have said that they have forgotten the technology for getting back to the moon.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

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

Postby Craig Browning » 18 May 2012, 20:31

Arouet wrote:Still waiting for your source for why you believe that NASA and Obama have said that they have forgotten the technology for getting back to the moon.


That line totally cracks me up, it's so audacious a lie; We're talking about one of the most heavily documented projects in human history since the Atomic Bomb itself. Not just our R&D but everything collected by the Soviets during the day alongside actual representatives from other nations who worked on the project. . . but hey, the Holocaust didn't happen either and Hitler was a saint.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

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

Postby ProfWag » 18 May 2012, 21:31

I love this statement:
Scepcop wrote:The arguments in the film are true and irrefutable. You're an idiot if you think that the moon videos and photos were real. Any amateur photographer can debunk them. Basic logic and science. Why do you hate the proven facts?

Okay, let's take a look at a couple:
Scepcop wrote: Propagandists falsely claim that the second light sources were reflections from the ground, but that's not true because the luminosity of the moon's surface is the same as asphalt, or cement highway roads, which has very little luminosity.

Really? Then why can I see it? I went outside a couple weeks ago during full moon and it looked almost daylight out. If there is "very little luminosity," then we shouldn't be able to see it (unless you can explain it Winston).
Scepcop wrote:- In low gravity, 1/6 of the Earth's, the astronauts should be moving FASTER, not 40 percent slower. Kubrick did this because he couldn't make them walk faster and make it look realistic at the same time.

You're right that you would move faster. So fast, in fact, that you would easily be thrown off balance. As such, the astronauts had to move slower to help prevent sudden movements that would have thrown them violently in any direction.
And you call me an "idiot?"
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Craig Browning » 20 May 2012, 00:04

:lol: not to mention how easily they could literally push themselves into lunar orbit. . .

One of the biggest fears of NASA as well as the astronauts was just that; getting to enthusiastic and bouncing up and away from things. I believe that they deliberately added weight to the boots of the suits so as to purposely slow down foot & leg action for this reason; even the rover had certain safeties tied into its dune-buggie design, that would guard against a never-ending Evel Knievel moment.

I'd love to know what the GPA was for all these shit-stirring brainiacs when they were in college . . . if they made it that far. Then too, who amongst them has a credible reputation in the field that have given reasonably sound data based on their specialties and area of work, to support this particular Conspiracy issue?

I've yet to see any such person involved and I'm betting that most of the "experts" had exceptionally low GPAs with a fair number of these nut jobs fitting the Jeff Foxworthy descriptive of being a "Red Neck" a.k.a. trailer trash with barely a High School diploma to speak of.

The real mystery, at least for me, is how supposedly educated and intelligent people get sucked into all this crap?
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

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

Postby Scepcop » 21 Nov 2012, 05:31

Check out my new report with 50+ logical conspiracy arguments. It covers 9/11, JFK and the Moon Landings.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm
“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

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

Postby Scepcop » 21 Nov 2012, 05:58

Check out this great new interview with Bart Sibrel on Coast to Coast AM. He's the famous moon hoax filmmaker who was punched by Buzz Aldrin and discovered the smoking gun footage of the Apollo 11 crew faking a video shot of being halfway to the moon when they were really in Earth orbit, which is very damning evidence if not ironclad proof of the moon hoax.



Here is another great interview with him by a guy who agrees with him.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview- ... ibrel.html
“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

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

Postby Scepcop » 05 Dec 2012, 20:55

Apollo defenders claim that the flag flutters on the moon because the astronauts are twisting the pole. But in many clips, they are barely moving it at all yet the flag flutters sharply. Here is one example. As you can see, there is no twisting of the pole and very little movement, yet the corner of the flag is fluttering up sharply.

Image

There is also video clips of the Apollo astronauts where you can see wires attached to them from above. Here are some video stills where you can see the wires attached to them.

Image

Image

In short, there is very little solid evidence that we went to the moon, and A LOT of evidence that we didn't. This means the evidence that the moon missions were a hoax heavily OUTWEIGH the little or no evidence that we went. People seem to only believe it out of faith, emotion and pride.
“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

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 05 Dec 2012, 22:32

Craig Browning wrote:
Arouet wrote:Still waiting for your source for why you believe that NASA and Obama have said that they have forgotten the technology for getting back to the moon.


That line totally cracks me up, it's so audacious a lie; We're talking about one of the most heavily documented projects in human history since the Atomic Bomb itself. Not just our R&D but everything collected by the Soviets during the day alongside actual representatives from other nations who worked on the project. . .


It's not heavily documented at all. Somehow they've 'lost' the blueprints to the LEMs. The 'documentation' in terms of video evidence was all fed by NASA -- in some cases video journalists were only able to see a TV screen with a feed that they had to shoot in turn. A great deal of the video and stills evidence is heavily compromised on analysis. it was possible to hoax the public, there is no hard incontrovertible evidence that suggests they actually went, and plenty of evidence to suggest they didn't. The R&D done by subcontractors was paid for but never used. A lot of the NASA pics interestingly were produced for the first time in the 1990s and put on their website after the invention of Photoshop.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby ProfWag » 08 Dec 2012, 23:31

I'm having to type with just my left hand so I apologize up front if my post contains grammar errors or is abbreviated.

Here is the fallacy in the moon hoax debate that none of the CTers here will admit. Let's say for a minute that absolute proof that the films from the moon were faked (they weren't, but let's pretend they were). Does that mean we didn't actually go to the moon or would that just prove we didn't have the ability to send live coverage back to earth and NASA wanted to give the people of the world a view of what it was like there? I'll answer for you since I know you won't. NO! Fake video is absolutely NO proof that we didn't go there. Without "faked" video, what other evidence do you have that we never went there?











'
'
'
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 09 Dec 2012, 02:52

ProfWag wrote:I'm having to type with just my left hand so I apologize up front if my post contains grammar errors or is abbreviated.

Here is the fallacy in the moon hoax debate that none of the CTers here will admit. Let's say for a minute that absolute proof that the films from the moon were faked (they weren't, but let's pretend they were). Does that mean we didn't actually go to the moon or would that just prove we didn't have the ability to send live coverage back to earth and NASA wanted to give the people of the world a view of what it was like there? I'll answer for you since I know you won't. NO! Fake video is absolutely NO proof that we didn't go there. Without "faked" video, what other evidence do you have that we never went there?


You may be on pain killers but that's one heck of a thought. I was all about the video looking too fake but you're right, it doesn't mean we didn't actually put something on the moon.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Dec 2012, 11:32

ProfWag wrote:I'm having to type with just my left hand so I apologize up front if my post contains grammar errors or is abbreviated.

Here is the fallacy in the moon hoax debate that none of the CTers here will admit. Let's say for a minute that absolute proof that the films from the moon were faked (they weren't, but let's pretend they were). Does that mean we didn't actually go to the moon or would that just prove we didn't have the ability to send live coverage back to earth and NASA wanted to give the people of the world a view of what it was like there? I'll answer for you since I know you won't. NO! Fake video is absolutely NO proof that we didn't go there. Without "faked" video, what other evidence do you have that we never went there?

har har.

Yes, but why keep it hidden if it was a success? The point is, all the 'star' astronauts like Armstrong etc were shot in a recreated studio setting of some sort. One researcher pointed out that if it was a 'half and half' thing, then some of the footage would look a lot different, because the real moon and footage thereof would be different from the studio setting. Jarrah White's research on the moon rocks and moon dust show that the real constituency of moon dust is different than the grey cement powder look -- this has been found by the genuine unmanned probes that have gone up that have done spectrographic analyses of moon rocks and dust.

As a side observation, it is believed also that Yuri Gagarin wasn't in the initial earth orbit rocket, that he was removed half an hour before, just in case the thing blew up and was a failure, or lost oxygen, or crash-landed, or whatever -- they needed him alive for the PR coup. He could have gone into orbit and everything could have been OK, but they didn't want to take the chance. So there was PR doctoring on both sides of the Cold War for obvious reasons.

Similarly, some unnamed astronauts may have gone to the moon, but why bother? If there's no PR victory for them. One belief is that NASA's engineers and scientists knew a genuine manned landing would be impossible inside 8 years with 60s technology, probably impossible inside 20-30 years due to limits on battery technology, air-con, rocket technology, radiation protection, accurate physics and computation, and so on. However, they possibly decided to fake the early ones in the hope of buying some time and eventually getting a successful manned moon landing towards the end of the program. Maybe. Or maybe they decided to fake the whole thing from beginning to end as it was just easier that way, and for consistency with the sets.

White's re-analysis of moon rock data also tend to refute ProfWag's thesis, but of course PW is too uninterested to actually canvass real research and analysis that has been done in this area, preferring to justify the hoax on no research and his unique and peculiar idea of 'the application of pure logic' instead. Aka living in denial.

As has also been pointed out, camera film would melt at 250F, there was no way of conveniently focusing the cameras, there were no viewfinders, and the astronauts couldn't look down, they just roughly pointed the cameras. Nonetheless, a whole pile of brilliant PR photos in full colour and perfect focus have been obtained. There are so many that it has been calculated one photo was taken every 10 seconds by someone in all the time one mission was 'on the moon'. Apart from artifacts like ScotchLite reflections and multiple light sources and various impossibilities, not a bad effort for guys on the moon.

The other big problem that ProfWag can't be bothered researching, choosing instead to rely on his idea of the application of pure logic, is the problem of camera focus. Foregrounds and backgrounds in the 'moon' shots are perfectly in focus, but the astronauts were using 70mm film which has a huge problem in keeping different distances in focus, compounded by the fact they couldn't adjust focus manually or even see through a viewfinder to check focus.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo (Note the website is called 'reality sandwich'.)

The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film, the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field, and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field.

What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.


By ProfWag's reasoning, I suppose we could have landed someone on Mars or Pluto by now and not told anyone. Perversely, he has fallen directly into the classic sceptic's counter-argument about unverifiable claims -- that if he claims invisible pink flying elephants are pissing invisible pink piss all over him, I can't disprove that claim. That's a sceptic's choice of example from TV, not mine, by the way.

Ironic that once again ProfWag has to take a bite from the 'reality sandwich', something which could be said for all the pseudosceps out there.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 10 Dec 2012, 06:51, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby ProfWag » 09 Dec 2012, 23:03

So all you did Syd was rehash the camera footage which I pointed out does nothing towards proving we didn't go to the moon. How about some evidence we didn't go? Oh, you don't have any eyewitnesses from the thousands involved at NASA who say it was a hoax or you don't have any mathematical or scientific data to show it was not possible? I didn't think so...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Misha » 10 Dec 2012, 03:31

ProfWag wrote:So all you did Syd was rehash the camera footage which I pointed out does nothing towards proving we didn't go to the moon. How about some evidence we didn't go? Oh, you don't have any eyewitnesses from the thousands involved at NASA who say it was a hoax or you don't have any mathematical or scientific data to show it was not possible? I didn't think so...


ProfWag, there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that NASA has not been forthcoming with how the Apollo missions made it to the moon. Scepcop and SydneyPSIder have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there are problems with the moon landings and everything associated with it. If NASA lied about the pictures and the film footage concerning the moon landings then why should we take at face value that they have not lied on other anomalies concerning Apollo. You cannot pick and choose your lies to comport with your belief system.

Just because we saw it on TV in 1969 and beyond does not mean it is real. I wonder if you have gone through all of Jarrah White's moonfaker.com videos? Have you read Percy and Bennett's "Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers and Gerhard Wisnewski's book - "One Small Step?" Very compelling works that deserve attention. Yes, I have read and viewed on three.

Furthermore - "NASA, we have a problem" is apropos. People in general are catching wise to the Apollo anomalies. The numbers are growing from the small percentage who started out questioning the Apollo program in the seventies.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests