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

The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

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: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Mar 2014, 19:30

pwil wrote:Let's just disregard NASA's LRO pics . Prakish Chauhun from the Indian Research Organisation had confirmed seeing the rover tracks from Apollo 15 site by their own probe Chandrayaan-1. The Japanese probe Kaguya Selene took pics of the terrain of the Apollo 15 site and the terrain matched up perfectly to our own pics and videos. Radio transmissions can determine their distance from Earth. And about the telescopes I mentioned,sorry I should have specified, the Apollo would have been seen by anyone if they stayed below the Van Allen belts.

Interestingly JW has had comments about the LRO, Selene and other pics on his FAQ for a long time, including the release time to Arizona State University:

"
Q: What about the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographs which show the lander, rover and tracks?

A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them. In fact a close examination indicates this to be the case. For example, in some cases the Lunar Rover and Surveyor 3 probe shows as being black [Fig-22, 23, 24], despite their many bright and reflective surfaces [Fig-25, 26, 27] and with the sun overhead. In the one case when Surveyor 3 did appear, its white boxes appeared to be aligned east and west, not north and south as seen in the Hasselblad still-pictures [Fig-28].

There are even anomalies that contradict previous landing site photos. Prior to LRO, the most commonly cited images were pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site taken by NASA’s Clementine spacecraft and JAXA’s SELENE spacecraft [Fig-29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. These images showed what they described as a bright “halo” within a 150metre radius around the landing site. This “halo” was attributed to dust that was disturbed by the engine exhaust during touchdown. NASA, propagandists and scientists at large have insisted that the disturbance caused by the engine should be easily seen from orbit. David Scott & Jim Irwin even claimed to have seen it themselves after their alleged departure from the lunar surface. But by comparing these Clementine & SELENE images with the newer LRO imagery, Jarrah discovered that the “halo” was nothing more than the sunlight sides of some giant impact craters [Fig-37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. The alleged lunar module is not even within this halo, but on the outermost edge of it. In fact the halo exists in the pre-Apollo photos taken by Lunar Orbiter [Fig-43, 44, 45]. The total lack of a visible soil disturbance is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that the ‘artefacts’ were added into the LRO image.

Further, the way the LRO operates is suspicious. The images are transmitted in an encrypted format which means nobody that eavesdrops on the signal can decode it. Why encrypt a picture of something that isn’t secret? NASA then holds on to the images for a few days before releasing them to Arizona State University, who then reframes and annotates the images before making them public. Why the delay? For some reason NASA doesn’t want any 3rd party to view a live transmission.

Finally, the LRO images are of very poor quality. The LRO operates at an altitude of 50km and returns images of resolution 0.5 metres/pixel. And the images have an odd striped pattern that reduces the quality further. Equivalent earth-imaging satellites return better resolution from much higher up. The privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite for example has perfectly resolved cars and even individual people at 0.5 m/pixel, in colour, through an atmosphere, and from an altitude 14 times higher up than the LRO [Fig-46, 47]. If NASA had installed a similar camera (which they can afford!) we would be seeing a resolution of 3 cm/pixel and this would allow us to see the hardware in great detail – assuming that it’s there. We would also be able to see the landscape in great detail and compare it to the Hasselblad images. Since the landscape had never been photographed at that resolution prior to the Apollo missions, a match between the two sets of images would provide a good test of Apollo’s authenticity.

"

http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 21 Mar 2014, 11:36, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 03 Mar 2014, 07:28

SydneyPSIder wrote:A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them.
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

Jarrah is incorrect on this point and, interestingly enough, it's the first sentence. If he is misleading in his first sentence, how are we to believe anything else? I do know that JW references ASU in another part of his website and calls them "friends" with NASA, but there again, he's adding to the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy which would include a bunch of college kids. Really? People, that's just not possible to have that many people want to carry on a lie about a project from 45 years ago! Think people, THINK!
It would have been a whole hell of a lot easier if we had just gone to the moon rather than try to cover it up based on what Jarrah has claimed. Sheesh.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Mar 2014, 10:45

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them.
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

Jarrah is incorrect on this point and, interestingly enough, it's the first sentence. If he is misleading in his first sentence, how are we to believe anything else? I do know that JW references ASU in another part of his website and calls them "friends" with NASA, but there again, he's adding to the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy which would include a bunch of college kids. Really? People, that's just not possible to have that many people want to carry on a lie about a project from 45 years ago! Think people, THINK!
It would have been a whole hell of a lot easier if we had just gone to the moon rather than try to cover it up based on what Jarrah has claimed. Sheesh.

that doesn't make sense. and, no, it's a hell of a lot harder to go to the moon completely successfully 6 times out of 7 with flawless touchdowns and launches and dockings without a single engineering failure or any loss of life, using 1960s technology, including the difficulties of life support, battery life, temperature control, necessary payload weight, etc. I mean, there's a huge question mark over whether the LEM could even land without capsizing with a single central rocket thruster, or whether the verniers could work.

We are thinking, prof, that's your problem here.

he goes on to say 'In fact a close examination indicates this to be the case. For example, in some cases the Lunar Rover and Surveyor 3 probe shows as being black [Fig-22, 23, 24], despite their many bright and reflective surfaces [Fig-25, 26, 27] and with the sun overhead. In the one case when Surveyor 3 did appear, its white boxes appeared to be aligned east and west, not north and south as seen in the Hasselblad still-pictures [Fig-28].'

NASA could doctor photos before sending them on to ASU, easily. See also JW's analysis of the disappearing tracks on the moon -- apparently it all got too hard for the photoshopper:



Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 04 Mar 2014, 16:31, edited 4 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 03 Mar 2014, 20:14

SydneyPSIder wrote:. See also JW's analysis of the disappearing tracks on the moon -- apparently it all got too hard for the photoshopper:


What part of my statement that I will never watch another of Jarrah's videos do you not understand? Tell us what he says, the reference he uses to draw his conclusions, and why you support his views and we'll all read that. If you're not willing to spend some time analyzing what he says, then I sure as hell am not. You can do your own work. I've already spent too much time researching him, only to find out his views aren't correct. Prove me wrong, but without a youtube video.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby SydneyPSIder » 04 Mar 2014, 05:29

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:. See also JW's analysis of the disappearing tracks on the moon -- apparently it all got too hard for the photoshopper:


What part of my statement that I will never watch another of Jarrah's videos do you not understand? Tell us what he says, the reference he uses to draw his conclusions, and why you support his views and we'll all read that. If you're not willing to spend some time analyzing what he says, then I sure as hell am not. You can do your own work. I've already spent too much time researching him, only to find out his views aren't correct. Prove me wrong, but without a youtube video.

you're a joke.

you mean you want me to paste in a transcript of his youtube narratives with a bunch of pictures? let's say I broadly accept most of his arguments if they seem plausible until convincingly proven otherwise. why does it matter if his narrative is presented as text or a powerpoint dot point presentation (almost useless) or a multimedia video, when he can very effectively use multimedia to analyse a mix of videos, photos, charts, tables, interviews with others, and provide his text as a voice over? surely all those things together provide far more compelling evidence than some sort of textual essay with no backing info. his videos are generally very short, under 10 minutes, partly due to youtube posting rules. he points out in his 19 min piece above it was originally in two parts.

I usually preface any of his treatments with a brief summary of why I think it is relevant, and let his own work do the rest of the talking. that's why he posts to youtube in the first place -- it's the most effective way to get his findings to a mass audience, which you clearly hate, because it stops you from suppressing dissenting viewpoints effectively.

If you're not prepared to watch a short video presentation, why not just piss off and stop posting altogether?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby Misha » 04 Mar 2014, 14:46

SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:. See also JW's analysis of the disappearing tracks on the moon -- apparently it all got too hard for the photoshopper:


What part of my statement that I will never watch another of Jarrah's videos do you not understand? Tell us what he says, the reference he uses to draw his conclusions, and why you support his views and we'll all read that. If you're not willing to spend some time analyzing what he says, then I sure as hell am not. You can do your own work. I've already spent too much time researching him, only to find out his views aren't correct. Prove me wrong, but without a youtube video.

you're a joke.

you mean you want me to paste in a transcript of his youtube narratives with a bunch of pictures? let's say I broadly accept most of his arguments if they seem plausible until convincingly proven otherwise. why does it matter if his narrative is presented as text or a powerpoint dot point presentation (almost useless) or a multimedia video, when he can very effectively use multimedia to analyse a mix of videos, photos, charts, tables, interviews with others, and provide his text as a voice over? surely all those things together provide far more compelling evidence than some sort of textual essay with no backing info. his videos are generally very short, under 10 minutes, partly due to youtube posting rules. he points out in his 19 min piece above it was originally in two parts.

I usually preface any of his treatments with a brief summary of why I think it is relevant, and let his own work do the rest of the talking. that's why he posts to youtube in the first place -- it's the most effective way to get his findings to a mass audience, which you clearly hate, because it stops you from suppressing dissenting viewpoints effectively.

If you're not prepared to watch a short video presentation, why not just piss off and stop posting altogether?


ProfWag, not that Syd needs defending, but he has a point. JW is one pretty thorough cat. Syd has also done an excellent job prefacing any and all research relative to any posting of videos or articles. Let's be fair.....
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 05 Mar 2014, 02:19

Misha wrote:ProfWag, not that Syd needs defending, but he has a point. JW is one pretty thorough cat. Syd has also done an excellent job prefacing any and all research relative to any posting of videos or articles. Let's be fair.....

Fair? You want to be fair? What the hell is fair about me being the one to actually have to spend hours upon hours verifying if what he said was true? Shouldn't that be on the shoulders of the person making the post? I shouldn't have to be the one to verify a youtube video. I did that a couple days ago and spent several hours trying to verify what JW said, only to find that it was filled with misrepresentations and half-truths. I work 45-50 hours a week and have a family so I don't have time to spend hours and hours watching a youtube video that statistically speaking has no credibility in the academic community. No, I'm not doing that again. If a poster refers to a youtube video and doesn't take the time to verify, then that tells me the poster is either lazy, just a believer in the subject matter of the video regardless of the truth, or both (both, in my opinion) A person in a youtube video (in this case Jarrah) can be VERY thorough, but it doesn't make him/her right or honest. I would LOVE to have a mature debate on the subject of a moon landing, but posting a video of Jarrah White and telling me to watch and believe is uncool and goes nowhere.
How about I post a deluge of youtube videos that debunk everything Jarrah says. Would that be fair to you if I don't double check the accuracy? Or, would you just criticize me or the person in the video without verification?
Again, if Jarrah makes a good point in one of his videos, then the poster can tell us what point and why that is a valid point. To ask me to watch a 37 minute video and then believe all that is said is not only the wrong way to debate, but it's downright rude. Y'all get off your asses and do some of your own research and verification.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby Misha » 05 Mar 2014, 06:13

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:ProfWag, not that Syd needs defending, but he has a point. JW is one pretty thorough cat. Syd has also done an excellent job prefacing any and all research relative to any posting of videos or articles. Let's be fair.....

Fair? You want to be fair? What the hell is fair about me being the one to actually have to spend hours upon hours verifying if what he said was true? Shouldn't that be on the shoulders of the person making the post? I shouldn't have to be the one to verify a youtube video. I did that a couple days ago and spent several hours trying to verify what JW said, only to find that it was filled with misrepresentations and half-truths. I work 45-50 hours a week and have a family so I don't have time to spend hours and hours watching a youtube video that statistically speaking has no credibility in the academic community. No, I'm not doing that again. If a poster refers to a youtube video and doesn't take the time to verify, then that tells me the poster is either lazy, just a believer in the subject matter of the video regardless of the truth, or both (both, in my opinion) A person in a youtube video (in this case Jarrah) can be VERY thorough, but it doesn't make him/her right or honest. I would LOVE to have a mature debate on the subject of a moon landing, but posting a video of Jarrah White and telling me to watch and believe is uncool and goes nowhere.
How about I post a deluge of youtube videos that debunk everything Jarrah says. Would that be fair to you if I don't double check the accuracy? Or, would you just criticize me or the person in the video without verification?
Again, if Jarrah makes a good point in one of his videos, then the poster can tell us what point and why that is a valid point. To ask me to watch a 37 minute video and then believe all that is said is not only the wrong way to debate, but it's downright rude. Y'all get off your asses and do some of your own research and verification.


Now again let's be fair, ProfWag. Any "labeled" revisionist is ALWAYS confronted with the so-called established record. That is the whole point of being called a revisionist. The "revisionist" must have in place the thesis in which to form the antithesis. It does not come out of the thin blue air. Yes, there are degrees in which any "revisionist" spends time looking at the thesis. This is the challenge which all historians must adhere to when either supporting or discrediting any thesis. However, it appears that established historians refuse to even consider the antithesis in an argument. In effect, such established historians upon credentialed edicts refuse to re-evaluate the record. It is if the "emperor wears no clothes" and historians do not want to even acknowledge it.

Now as far as getting off one's ass and doing the work is up to any honest researcher where ever it might lead, good or bad. I have made it a point in my research to read the books, look at the Internet and try and meet in the field those who can give me insight. This in turn has helped give me corroboration in any thesis I challenge or support. So, again, let's be careful about stating exactly what getting off one's ass means. How far do you want to dig, ProfWag, is the question?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 05 Mar 2014, 07:07

Misha wrote:
Now as far as getting off one's ass and doing the work is up to any honest researcher where ever it might lead, good or bad. I have made it a point in my research to read the books, look at the Internet and try and meet in the field those who can give me insight. This in turn has helped give me corroboration in any thesis I challenge or support. So, again, let's be careful about stating exactly what getting off one's ass means. How far do you want to dig, ProfWag, is the question?

I know you've read a lot of conspiracy books Misha, but I don't recall you ever referring to a book that wasn't conspiracy based. If you have, I apologize. If one is going to research, it needs to be for the truth with respectable and unbiased opinions. David Irving is biased. He's a racist which is his motive for writing crap. I don't really know why Jarrah is so biased, but it is obvious to me that he is.
As far as how we want to dig, we don't have to go very far down. All I'm asking, and have ever asked, is that if someone is going to post a youtube video and then ask me to challenge it, I ask that the poster actually look at it with a critical mind as well. As far as I'm concerned, and anyone who may have a critical mind is concerned, it is virtually impossible to give a serious opinion on a 37 minute video. A lot is said in those 37 minutes and it is said by someone who can say ANYTHING. It's the internet. Do you believe everything you read on the internet? If so, why? If not, why not? What makes you trust one person over another? If I'm being asked to believe everything in a 37 minute video, what is it that is so compelling? Posters should have a responsibility to defend what they write and not make it my responsibility to do it for them.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 05 Mar 2014, 08:17

I recall that Jarrah made a point in one of his videos that water was found in the moon rocks and that since water is also found in earth rocks that this shows that the both rocks came from earth or something like that. Does anyone remember him saying that? If so, where? It's in one of his videos, I just know it. Please find the video and at what minute point in the video he said it. Thanks. Am I trying to make a point about youtube videos and why I ask for references instead? Yes. However, I would really like to see if I remember correctly or just exactly what he said. Thanks. I'll be waiting (and waiting and waiting and waiting, I'm sure)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby Misha » 05 Mar 2014, 16:38

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:
Now as far as getting off one's ass and doing the work is up to any honest researcher where ever it might lead, good or bad. I have made it a point in my research to read the books, look at the Internet and try and meet in the field those who can give me insight. This in turn has helped give me corroboration in any thesis I challenge or support. So, again, let's be careful about stating exactly what getting off one's ass means. How far do you want to dig, ProfWag, is the question?

I know you've read a lot of conspiracy books Misha, but I don't recall you ever referring to a book that wasn't conspiracy based. If you have, I apologize. If one is going to research, it needs to be for the truth with respectable and unbiased opinions. David Irving is biased. He's a racist which is his motive for writing crap. I don't really know why Jarrah is so biased, but it is obvious to me that he is.
As far as how we want to dig, we don't have to go very far down. All I'm asking, and have ever asked, is that if someone is going to post a youtube video and then ask me to challenge it, I ask that the poster actually look at it with a critical mind as well. As far as I'm concerned, and anyone who may have a critical mind is concerned, it is virtually impossible to give a serious opinion on a 37 minute video. A lot is said in those 37 minutes and it is said by someone who can say ANYTHING. It's the internet. Do you believe everything you read on the internet? If so, why? If not, why not? What makes you trust one person over another? If I'm being asked to believe everything in a 37 minute video, what is it that is so compelling? Posters should have a responsibility to defend what they write and not make it my responsibility to do it for them.


I am in bold, ProfWag:


I know you've read a lot of conspiracy books Misha, but I don't recall you ever referring to a book that wasn't conspiracy based. If you have, I apologize.

I'm not sure what your definition of "Conspiracy based" means. However, I have read many mainstream authors over the years such as: Evans, Thomas, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Hitchens, Burroughs, Burke, Sick, Lifton etc,... Mind you, this is a very short list.


If one is going to research, it needs to be for the truth with respectable and unbiased opinions. David Irving is biased. He's a racist which is his motive for writing crap. I don't really know why Jarrah is so biased, but it is obvious to me that he is.

Disagree. Yes, all authors have a bent, some more so than others. However, I think you have neglected to look at Irving without a jaundiced eye and it has gotten in the way with your so-called unbiased approach to the author.


As far as how we want to dig, we don't have to go very far down. All I'm asking, and have ever asked, is that if someone is going to post a youtube video and then ask me to challenge it, I ask that the poster actually look at it with a critical mind as well.

The same could be said of you, correct? I do think one has to really dig into any subject nonetheless. Yes, it comes down to how important the matter is and how much energy one wants to put into it. Once this has been achieved, the digging part, and weighed against the totality of history a pattern emerges which centers oneself. Yes, it is always important to re-evaluate your thesis after a synthesis. it is ongoing. I think based on your posts you put to much weight on "established" facts which have holes in them. I am interested in the holes.


As far as I'm concerned, and anyone who may have a critical mind is concerned, it is virtually impossible to give a serious opinion on a 37 minute video. A lot is said in those 37 minutes and it is said by someone who can say ANYTHING. It's the internet. Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

For me the Internet is a tool. My research overall comes mainly from books or being in field on a particular topic which I find interesting. I think what Sydney or FatFreddy have done is to at least point out the holes in established history. The You-Tube videos are a means to open up a greater investigation through other means, i.e., books or being in the field.


If so, why? If not, why not? What makes you trust one person over another? If I'm being asked to believe everything in a 37 minute video, what is it that is so compelling? Posters should have a responsibility to defend what they write and not make it my responsibility to do it for them.

Belief evolves as one looks at the evidence or lack thereof. It's an evaluation and re-evaluation when more information is obtained.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 06 Mar 2014, 10:32

Misha, I actually had a rather long retort written and ready, but then I thought better of posting it as it was written from emotion rather than logic which is against what I want to be. So, I'll leave it alone with the only comment being that I stand by my statement that youtube videos have little relevance in a debate where one wants to learn the truth for reasons that I find obvious, but for some reason, others don't.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby Misha » 06 Mar 2014, 11:25

ProfWag wrote:Misha, I actually had a rather long retort written and ready, but then I thought better of posting it as it was written from emotion rather than logic which is against what I want to be. So, I'll leave it alone with the only comment being that I stand by my statement that youtube videos have little relevance in a debate where one wants to learn the truth for reasons that I find obvious, but for some reason, others don't.


I respect that, ProfWag. I have done the same thing when my hypothalamus gets the best of me. So I too will leave it there.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Mar 2014, 14:46

hours and hours or minutes and minutes? JW's youtube videos are more like minutes and minutes for the most part, they're not laboured and drawn out, unlike the 4 hour videos linked by FF with no explanation of relevance.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby Misha » 14 Mar 2014, 05:01

A blast from the past. I thought this might interest you regarding the late Mae Brussell's reporting of Bill Kaysing's work - "We never went to the moon." Mae in this program will often reference the "mind control" aspects of assassins and with possible aspects regarding the Apollo "moon shot." Give it a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXWI8Gc9NvM
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 2 guests

cron