Most incriminating moon hoax evidence?

[Gangularis]

I originally saw this video in the documentary "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon".. This version spells out what's going on, much better for me..

I know some people believe we never went to the moon.. Some believe we didn't go for the first Apollo mission, but we made it there for other missions..
I believe we did, but this video throws a monkey wrench of doubt, into that belief, for me..

3HT3_X9Suec

I believe there's no lack of motive to fake a lunar landing, at the height of the cold war, no less, and this video really makes me wonder.. Has it been explained what reason they would be doing this sort of thing? I can see no legitimate reason, outside of the obvious, as to why they would be putting so much energy and time into doing this..

[240-185]

über-mega-evidences that USA went on the moon:

- we placed some mirrors on the moon, so we could measure the growing distance between Earth and it,
- if it was faked, USSR would immediately scream at USA for faking their moon landing.

[MG1962]

über-mega-evidences that USA went on the moon:

- we placed some mirrors on the moon, so we could measure the growing distance between Earth and it,
- if it was faked, USSR would immediately scream at USA for faking their moon landing.

Hoaxers never have an answer for this. Nor the fact that their was brief concern that a Soviet probe and the Apollo craft may hit each other while in orbit around the moon

[CurtC]

I believe we did, but this video throws a monkey wrench of doubt, into that belief, for me..

What was it about that video that you found compelling? It looked like a bunch of bare, unsupported assertions to me. The overall point it was trying to make is that the view of the Earth was not, as it appeared, of the whole Earth, but of just a small part you could see out the round window. But they never offered anything to support that assertion.

Later, when the astronauts mentioned that the camera was placed right up against the window, the video here says that an arm then went in front of it, but it doesn't look like an arm to me - it looks like the camera shifted and the edge of the window cut off the view a little bit.

That whole video was just craziness, right down to the music. Where'd they get that? Old episodes of Dark Shadows?

[Horatius]

That whole video was just craziness, right down to the music. Where'd they get that? Old episodes of Dark Shadows?



What I loved was how they made a big deal about the astronauts taking a "long time" to answer when Houston asked them a question. They conclude it was because they were busy "faking" the shot, and not, you know, light speed delay from them being halfway to the moon, or something....

[quarky]

When are we going to fake a landing on a juicy moon, like Europa?

[twinstead]

The video has the dubious distinction of not having a single claim that is not easily verified as being false upon even with the most cursory investigation. That said, that really isn't the purpose of the video. It's job is to instill just enough doubt in folks who won't even do the most cursory investigation so they will recommend the video to a friend so more videos can be sold.

[Tomblvd]

I believe there's no lack of motive to fake a lunar landing, at the height of the cold war, no less, and this video really makes me wonder.. Has it been explained what reason they would be doing this sort of thing? I can see no legitimate reason, outside of the obvious, as to why they would be putting so much energy and time into doing this..

First of all, it is a lie that this is "never before seen footage". Anybody with the Apollo 11 DVD from Spacecraft films (I believe) can see the whole, unedited thing. They are in the process of setting up a live broadcast, and are spending some time adjusting the lighting and camera positions for the best result.

For the cutout pretending they are further away from the earth than orbit, just look at the earth. How big are the cloud formations? Not very big. But, most importantly, do you see the clouds and landmasses moving? NO. Look at any video shot from the shuttle and you will see the earth move at a fairly fast rate as they orbit. How did they fake that?

Finally, I can go out any night and see satellites, the shuttle and the ISS as they orbit the earth with just the naked eye. If they never left orbit, how did they hide?

[Tomblvd]

Hoaxers never have an answer for this. Nor the fact that their was brief concern that a Soviet probe and the Apollo craft may hit each other while in orbit around the moon


Actually they do. The Russian robotic lander Lunakhod 2 left a reflector, however I don't beleive it is still usable due to the placement being so inaccurate. But it was possible for an unmanned mission to do it.

Not that that means much.

[Gorgonian]

That segment of video is absolutely destroyed here:

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=884

[jaydeehess]

über-mega-evidences that USA went on the moon:


- if it was faked, USSR would immediately scream at USA for faking their moon landing.

The USSR tracked the Apollo missions by radar as well, IIRC, so they'd have known if there was nothing going on.

[twinstead]

The only thing we're missing is a real hoax believer. It just isn't the same...

[Shrinker]

I believe there's no lack of motive to fake a lunar landing, at the height of the cold war, no less, and this video really makes me wonder.. Has it been explained what reason they would be doing this sort of thing? I can see no legitimate reason, outside of the obvious, as to why they would be putting so much energy and time into doing this..

In your own words Gangularis, what are they doing which looks so suspicious? If you turn off the voiceover, which seems so insistent on telling us what we should be seeing, all you actually see is a shot of the Earth, moving around a bit.

[timhau]

The USSR tracked the Apollo missions by radar as well, IIRC, so they'd have known if there was nothing going on.

Yeah. And I just love the way CTists 'prove' moon landing hoaxes by examining NASA photographs. The Russians could only devote, oh, maybe years worth of manhours by people who know physics and photography without finding anything, and then a guy with two years of college, a web page and a tinfoil hat figures that out in minutes?

[Gangularis]

That segment of video is absolutely destroyed here:

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=884

Excellent link. Thanks for sharing. ;)

The only thing we're missing is a real hoax believer. It just isn't the same...

Sorry to disappoint. I found it to be compelling evidence, but I knew there was probably a lot I was missing. Thanks for the info, from everybody.

[Horatius]

Excellent link. Thanks for sharing. ;)



Sorry to disappoint. I found it to be compelling evidence, but I knew there was probably a lot I was missing. Thanks for the info, from everybody.



And that's the way these things always work. Seemingly compelling arguments that rely on the people they are trying to convince not knowing anything really detailed on the subject.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Some believe we didn't go for the first Apollo mission, but we made it there for other missions.


I know I'm being nitpicky, but we actually didn't land on the Moon with the first Apollo mission. :p

[Horatius]

I know I'm being nitpicky, but we actually didn't land on the Moon with the first Apollo mission. :p


So you admit it!!!11!1!!1!




;)

[Wowbagger]

The only thing we're missing is a real hoax believer. It just isn't the same...
I can act like one, if it will help:

<hoaxer>
Oh, come on! You guys got caught out, and you know it! LOL!!! The video clearly shows manipulation of the shot of the Earth. Manipulation implies fakery. Why would they have such fakery, if the whole thing wasn't fake!! And, why would they need someone to direct the shot, from another location?!

Besides, the U.S. had enough spies in Russia to fake Russia's data, to make it look, to them, that there was a landing.

A moon landing would have been impossible, back then, because they ddn't have the materials to sheild the ship from the sun's own gamma rays, back then! Gamma sheilding wasn't invented until 10 years ago!

And, nobody notices that there is no food on the ship?!! What did the astronaughts eat?!! You so-called "smart" guys are such stupid, gullible sheeple. LOL!!!!
</hoaxer>

Does that make you feel better?

[Horatius]

Does that make you feel better?



No, not really.



I think Gravy's Goons need to beat you up again!


;)

[jaydeehess]

Yeah. And I just love the way CTists 'prove' moon landing hoaxes by examining NASA photographs. The Russians could only devote, oh, maybe years worth of manhours by people who know physics and photography without finding anything, and then a guy with two years of college, a web page and a tinfoil hat figures that out in minutes?

Well to be fair, tin foil was hard to come by in the old Soviet Union.:D

[JoeyDonuts]

Well to be fair, tin foil was hard to come by in the old Soviet Union.:D

In Soviet Russia, tinfoil hat wears YOU.

Hee Hee Heeee.

[Redtail]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I hope that when the Chinese go to the moon that they will land in the Sea of Tranquility and one of the Astronauts will go over to what's left of the Eagle and exclaim "Holy... The Americans DID fake it!!!!! Look! This thing is cardboard!!!11!

[Gangularis]

I know I'm being nitpicky, but we actually didn't land on the Moon with the first Apollo mission. :p

Sorry... first Apollo mission to the moon...

[twinstead]

I can act like one, if it will help:

<hoaxer>
Oh, come on! You guys got caught out, and you know it! LOL!!! The video clearly shows manipulation of the shot of the Earth. Manipulation implies fakery. Why would they have such fakery, if the whole thing wasn't fake!! And, why would they need someone to direct the shot, from another location?!

Besides, the U.S. had enough spies in Russia to fake Russia's data, to make it look, to them, that there was a landing.

A moon landing would have been impossible, back then, because they ddn't have the materials to sheild the ship from the sun's own gamma rays, back then! Gamma sheilding wasn't invented until 10 years ago!

And, nobody notices that there is no food on the ship?!! What did the astronaughts eat?!! You so-called "smart" guys are such stupid, gullible sheeple. LOL!!!!
</hoaxer>

Does that make you feel better?

Excellent. That helped a lot. ;)

[DavidJames]

Come on, this is to easy. The most incriminating moon hoax evidence? Look at the moon, hold your fingers up, it's like an inch wide. Sheesh.

[Wowbagger]

Excellent. That helped a lot. ;)

I'm glad someone here believes me!!

[Corsair 115]

Sorry... first Apollo mission to the moon...


That's not right either. The first Apollo mission to the moon was Apollo 8, which orbited the moon. The second to go to the moon was Apollo 10, which tested the lunar lander in lunar orbit (it came within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface). The third mission to the moon, Apollo 11, was the first which had landing on the moon as its goal.

[Alt+F4]

Come on, this is to easy. The most incriminating moon hoax evidence? Look at the moon, hold your fingers up, it's like an inch wide. Sheesh.

Hehehe...I'm home from work with a broken leg and this is the first thing that has made me laugh in awhile. Thanks Dave. :)

My theory on why some folks buy into the "Moon Hoax": SCIENCE IS SCARY!

[jaydeehess]

Hehehe...I'm home from work with a broken leg and this is the first thing that has made me laugh in awhile. Thanks Dave. :)

My theory on why some folks buy into the "Moon Hoax": SCIENCE IS SCARY!

"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - (from "Mr.Harrington's Washing")-Somerset Maugham

"Math is hard" - Barbie (by Mattel)

[Gangularis]

That's not right either. The first Apollo mission to the moon was Apollo 8, which orbited the moon. The second to go to the moon was Apollo 10, which tested the lunar lander in lunar orbit (it came within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface). The third mission to the moon, Apollo 11, was the first which had landing on the moon as its goal.

semantics.. you know what i meant..

If you want to keep getting literal about it, then you're wrong. We didn't go to the moon until we touched down on it. After all, the moon's orbit does not = moon.

[timhau]

Come on, this is to easy. The most incriminating moon hoax evidence? Look at the moon, hold your fingers up, it's like an inch wide. Sheesh.

Yup. I can't understand what the big deal with the moon is. It's just a chunk of cheese, and not even a particularly big chunk.

[Aitch]

That's not right either. The first Apollo mission to the moon was Apollo 8, which orbited the moon. The second to go to the moon was Apollo 10, which tested the lunar lander in lunar orbit (it came within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface). The third mission to the moon, Apollo 11, was the first which had landing on the moon as its goal.

What happened to Appollo 9 - was that the one that discovered the aliens (http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm) and had to be covered up???? :eek:

[ArmillarySphere]

Apollo 9 tested the LM maneuvering capabilities in LEO. It was supposed to be done during Apollo 8, but the LM took longer to complete than anticipated, so the mission order was swapped, and 8 flew with a boilerplate LM.

Fun mission to look at the transcripts - they basically went crazy with the LM - start, stop, rendezvous, APS "fire-in-the-hole" test, you name it. And it performed beautifully. :)

The guys who had the real kicker were the Apollo 10 crew. Everything fine and ready to go, they get to approach the surface within a few miles... but no landing.

[Belz...]

I believe there's no lack of motive to fake a lunar landing

Yeah, just a lack of ability.

As many people have said before, it would have been easier to just go there than fake the whole thing.

[Belz...]

Fun mission to look at the transcripts - they basically went crazy with the LM - start, stop, rendezvous, APS "fire-in-the-hole" test, you name it. And it performed beautifully. :)

All the better for the Apollo 13 astronauts...

[Myron Proudfoot]

I have noticed that many of the "No-Moon-Landing" loons don't realize there were multiple missions. They think it ended with Apollo 11.

CT " Well, why didn't we go back, huh!?!!?"

RP* "What about Apollo's 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17?"

CT: HUH? :confused:


My favorite though was the guy who thought the landing(s) were faked because TV signals wouldn't reach Earth from the moon in 1969. He remembered as a kid you couldn't get a TV signal from a town more than 100 miles away so clearly the TV signals from the moon were faked!

We had to explain the idea that the Earth was currrvvveeeeddddd


* RP=Rational Person

[Myron Proudfoot]

The guys who had the real kicker were the Apollo 10 crew. Everything fine and ready to go, they get to approach the surface within a few miles... but no landing.



reminds me on a girl I dated in college....:boxedin:

[maxpower1227]

I find this video to be much more incriminating:

umEpXKdTm5k

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, just a lack of ability.

As many people have said before, it would have been easier to just go there than fake the whole thing.

Quite possibly cheaper too.

[Pantaz]

Quite possibly cheaper too.

Funny you should mention that. There happens to be a thread on BAUT (http://www.badastronomy.com/) discussing that very thing... Economic Debunking of the Moon Hoax (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/84898-economic-debunking-moon-hoax.html)

[Travis]

semantics.. you know what i meant..

If you want to keep getting literal about it, then you're wrong. We didn't go to the moon until we touched down on it. After all, the moon's orbit does not = moon.

So, what has you mystified, is that we didn't land on the moon until we had an actual mission where we intended to land on the moon?

How suspicious is that?:rolleyes:

ETA: Eh, it seems other people find that suspicious, not you. Well, okay. It's still dumb.

[HeyLeroy]

I remember a Moon hoax hoax video a few years back, where at the end of the video some stage lights fell in front of the 'astronauts' and a director can be heard yelling "Cut!" Funny stuff.

Has anyone seen it?