How the Moon Landing Hoax got Started.

[SydneyPSIder]

I don't see anything too irrational in the core research done by the 'CTers' who are simply assessing the evidence presented by NASA itself, complete with flaws.

[really?]

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

[Misha]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

There are a number of key reasons for believing it was a hoax, Arou, as spelt out many, many times already. These include:

- low likelihood of 6 successful missions without significant mission-compromising life-endangering engineering failure somewhere along the line, not just a fender coming off ferchrissakes
- comparison with space shuttle deaths using 80s/90s technology only going into low earth orbit
- all real manned space efforts since then by any country have only gone into low earth orbit
- likelihood of achieving successful 'flipping' of modules in space on the way out and re-docking after leaving the moon's surface 6 times over is very low; likelihood of missing rendezvous between LEM and command module high
- unnatural physics demonstrated in the docking maneouvre video which suggests it's a fake with models being pivoted
- extra-long lift-off sequence from the moon is also wrong -- lunar surface rotates under the camera for too long at the same height, when the rocket was going straight up, and even if it wasn't going straight up it should have been ascending. shadows are also unnatural in the sequence like a rotating model.
- lack of stability of a lander with a single large engine -- centre of gravity would be thrown off if an astronaut even moved an arm, possibly causing a crash. video of Neil Armstrong ejecting from a steel frame test craft before it crashed. this was probably the time NASA started thinking it was all too hard.
- JFK's silly promise to the world to get a manned mission to the moon by the end of the decade, driven by a fear of the Soviet space program. many impassioned speeches to Congress outlining his fears prior to that. fear of weaponising inner space most likely.
- likely radiation risks throughout the mission, particularly around solar flares and the van allen belt
- possibility of high speed collision in transit or on the surface with meteors
- too much clowning around on the moon given the seriousness of the mission and its dangers - space suit puncture, strikes by meteorites travelling at 20,000 mph with no atmosphere, etc
- there was a massive solar flare, the largest that century, during the Apollo 15 mission I believe it was, with no harm to the craft or crew
- clear video cutting and audio overdubbing where a continuous feed is claimed
- batteries seem unlikely to have lasted for the duration of the mission to run a/c
- temperatures - risk of astronauts being fried along with radiation risk
- Kodak film would have melted at moon temperatures
- there are suggestions the Saturn V was underpowered to even launch into space
- wrong exhaust colour from the lander rockets; Saturn V exhaust seems to be for effect also, and could not have provided sufficient propulsion
- thick moon dust (regolith) still present under the lander
- landing sensor rods pointing in the wrong direction
- lack of wheel marks going up to the rover in various photos
- stereoscopic analysis of pics strongly suggests backdrops and projections are being used
- use of backlighting for effect
- picture of a light bulb in the sun
- earth is too small in pics to be real, and shows evidence of insertion, use of blacking out and touching up etc
- pics are too good given the way cameras were used, on top of the problem of film melting etc
- lack of room in modules for operations
- too small hatchway to move between modules wearing a spacesuit
- the present day response from a NASA rep when a researcher asked to measure the size of the hatchway -- the immediate bum's rush from the facility and a nasty goodbye message
- other anomalies in the film with detailed analysis, e.g. in one the photographer must have been about 2 feet above the head of the astronaut, difficult to do without a ladder or scaffold
- no stars whatsoever in pics, not even dimly -- suggests use of sets, blacking out and need only for a spotlight 'sun' in faking it
- evasiveness and revealing slip of the tongue by Mike Collins in trying to explain the lack of stars to the world's media on 'return'
- different topography on hadley mount vs unmanned lunar surveyor pics
- odd similarity between hadley mount pics and a mountain range in hawaii the astronauts had visited
- the totally unnecessary antarctic trip -- looking for meteorites to pass off as moon rocks?
- eerie weathered middle ground and backgrounds in pics with sharp rocky relief in foregrounds
- all the pics have a foreground, then a sharp line, then a background
- the background mountains have signs of long term weathering like 'old' mountain ranges on earth which is impossible on the moon without wind, rain and glaciers -- should be jagged
- all the pics were shot in the same direction towards the same mountains even tho the astronauts were moving around the equipment in different directions and should have taken 360 degree shots -- obviously much easier when you have a set and a backdrop than attempting 360 degree views
- wire flashes in the videos suggestng harnesses to simulate weightlessness
- oxygenated blue light in the module while supposedly halfway to the moon. earth appears in window at close range. focus issues.
- use of unusual trucks with small trinagular windows where the astronauts were trained for some reason to be driven around commentating on what they could see out the window. mentions of 'orange soil' on the supposed moon landing which correspond to desert soil
- the ridiculous 'bear rock' shot on Apollo 17 that is clearly a composite
- the 'moving LEM' on Apollo 17 that moves closer and further away from the nearest mountain range for effect
- numerous other problems with a large number of the pics and videos, e.g. duplication of terrain when supposedly in different places, re-use of footage, etc
- grainy 'video of a video' presentation to the world's media on the 'first moon walk'
- discovery of large-scale models of the moon and landscape that had been created perfect for faking approach and departure shots
- apparent claims of an airline pilot who says he saw a module being ejected from a C-4 over the ocean -- TBV
- lack of past and present research into actual radiation levels in the van allen belts and in outer space -- clearly no measurements were taken on the apollo missions, and in fact how could you if you never left low earth orbit, assuming you even reached that height with the underpowered Saturn V, or assuming there were even astronauts aboard any of the launches -- meaning that that research still needs to be done by NASA today
- convenient re-use of all the 'training' equipment and landscapes to make a fake landing set -- use of spring harnesses, lunar landscape, cranes, desert settings, etc etc -- you cannot tell the 'necessary training' apart from a fake landing, and the money you spent does double duty to create the hoax.
- possible use of Saturn V development to advance ICBM technology when the public was probably not going to accept the expenditure any other way
- use of Apollo space program as a feelgood foil next to the Vietnam war -- Apollo program conveniently finished and was truncated as soon as the Vietnam war was over and troops withdrawn.
- petrified wood passed off as moon rock. Jarrah White's analysis of rock make-up and presentation of ESA findings suggests fake moon rocks, possibly drawn from Antarctica and Western Australia.
- the psychology of the astronauts when challenged in the present day is just wrong -- if anything, this was about 33% of the evidence I needed to come to a conclusion, apart from all the foregoing
- footage found by Bart Sibrel suggesting faked lunar module activity, shown to actual astronauts. the 'we were only passengers' line. mike collins' son threatening to call the CIA to 'wax' Sibrel (note no threat to call the police for any reason such as trespass)

and several other things not listed above. against all that we only have the word of NASA that they went with no convincing proof. One way, you have no fatalities and 100% successful missions. The other way you have risk and a strong likelihood of fatalities, accidents, radiation poisoning, bad press, plus it's just a great deal harder and more expensive. much easier to take the tax money and pay yourself a fortune and not go! same result.

So NASA gets an 'E' for Effort for faking it, I was tempted to award an 'F' for Fail.

[Arouet]

Posting the talking points don't really impress me much Sydney. If you want to pick a topic to look into in more detail I'm game - just not the photo or video evidence type ones for reasons I set out above.

[SydneyPSIder]

[Misha]

[SydneyPSIder]

here's some light lunar relief to take our minds off this pressing problem: