How NASA FAKED the moon landings!

You can see stars around where there should be the rest of the stage light aswel.

Those aren't stars, I suspect they are dust on the lens being lit up or dust/scratches on the photograph when it was scanned to computer.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 01, 2010, 02:42:10 PM

They are definitely UFOs

OK.

Its is something, it appears to be levitating and non one can 100% say what it is.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 01, 2010, 03:55:55 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 01, 2010, 02:42:10 PM

They are definitely UFOs

OK.

Its is something, it appears to be levitating and non one can 100% say what it is.

If you look closely, you can see a very distinct outline of a small, humanoid-like shape. This tells me that they are aliens and the two lights are UFOs. The government says it is lens flare though so as to keep a secret from us.

It's a conspiracy.

ok guys, another photo (it might seem like I am on the hoax side of the debate, but I'm not...however, it's a subject that interests me).

this one's from Apollo 17.  I found out about it on YouTube. it's not shopped, it's from the Apollo Archive.



larger Hi-Res version can be found here.

in the video I watched, it was zoomed in to the reflection on his visor.


The conspiracy guy interpreted this as there being a guy with no backpack like all the Apollo astronauts (like below). therefore it is suggested that he is a photographer on Earth.

I can see a backpack, it's distorted as hell due to the lens of the visor though.


Hell, look at the guys shadow.

Yea, the shadow gives it away. Besides, he's definitely in a space suit. Why would they go to the effort of putting him in a suit with no backpack if he wasn't intending to be in shot anyway?

damn....I didn't notice the shadow at all. thanks.

general zod debunked this scenario no?

I believe that photo is taken at Geology Station 6.  This is a very significant location and the rock at that location is very important as it gives us very tangible evidence of the reality of the moon missions.  There is a very curious feature about that rock, and that's the very large split in the middle of the rock.  This split was not seen on pre-apollo moon surveys and was not discovered until the astronauts visited the site in person.  With the recent pictures from LRO we got to see this location in better detail and sure enough you can see the split in the rock, which is accentuated by the very noticable double shadow that the rock casts.  Here is a post which I did which covers this subject in much greater detail for those who are interested:

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6111&st=120&p=143981&#entry143981

As usual the moon hoaxers have no explanation for this, and I doubt the flatheads will be able to figure it out either, I'm sure they'll just dismiss the evidence as fake, present no actual evidence to prove that they are fake, and move on.

I don't see any evidence that the rocks picked out in the LRO are the same as the rocks picked out in the surface images.

I don't see any evidence that the rocks picked out in the LRO are the same as the rocks picked out in the surface images.

Then how did they know there was a large gap in the rock?  that feature was not seen in the original lunar orbiter photos.  It wasn't seen until the rock was visited during Apollo 17.  Of course all of this is explained in my post.  You don't see because you don't want to see.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2010, 09:11:34 PM

I don't see any evidence that the rocks picked out in the LRO are the same as the rocks picked out in the surface images.

Then how did they know there was a large gap in the rock?  that feature was not seen in the original lunar orbiter photos.  It wasn't seen until the rock was visited during Apollo 17.  Of course all of this is explained in my post.  You don't see because you don't want to see.

I don't see a large gap in the surface image of Rocher 1. There's only a large gap in the LRO image.

How would you know whether Rocher 1 is the rock depicted in the LRO image, or the one to the left of it?

How do we know that there aren't any gaps in any of those other rocks depicted in the surface image?

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 02, 2010, 09:28:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2010, 09:11:34 PM

I don't see any evidence that the rocks picked out in the LRO are the same as the rocks picked out in the surface images.

Then how did they know there was a large gap in the rock?  that feature was not seen in the original lunar orbiter photos.  It wasn't seen until the rock was visited during Apollo 17.  Of course all of this is explained in my post.  You don't see because you don't want to see.

I don't see a large gap in the surface image of Rocher 1. There's only a large gap in the LRO image.

Great questions, Tom!  I'm glad to see you are taking an interest in this.  In the surface image, the panoramic shot the point of view is in line with teh gap itself, from that vantage point you can see the gap at it's largest.  The label is pointing to the largest chunk of rock with the second part of the rock to the right of it.  On the LRO it is difficult to make out the gap in the rock, but the very long shadow very distinctly shows the gap.  The gap is perfectly east-west and as such the gap in the shadow will always show up no matter what angle the sun is at.  Very cool stuff!

How would you know whether Rocher 1 is the rock depicted in the LRO image, or the one to the left of it?

Well, having studied these images a long time, that rock is VERY unique.  It's one of the most famous rocks in all of the Apollo missions.  It is known as Tracy's Rock.  You can read up on it in it's wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy's_Rock

It's very easy to point out in even the lowest resolution imagery because of the long trail it left as it rolled across the lunar landscape and down the hill.  It's fairly unmistakable.  It would be like looking at a photo of Ayers Rock, the most famous rock in Australia, and suggesting that it could be some other lesser known rock.

Additionally all of the smaller rocks and craters seen around the rock in the Apollo surface imagery match up PERFECTLY with the LRO images.

Here's a shot from the south, you can see the two chunks, one in front of the other and the two shadows, this time much shorter than what we see in the LRO pics because the sun is higher in the sky.


(actually the larger "chunk" is really two seperate chunks that are much closer together, you can see a slight gap between those two in the following photo)

Here's a nice diagram for further scrutiny:

How do we know that there aren't any gaps in any of those other rocks depicted in the surface image?

It wouldn't matter if there were, this rock and this gap are completely unique in all of the Apollo imagery.  I'm not familiar with even another rock in the surface photos that come close to looking like this one.

Please understand, the unique features of this rock were not discovered until Apollo 17 landed on the moon.  They took dozens of photos of this thing, they identified exactly where the rock was.

40 years later they photographed that area using the LRO and true to the original information the rock at Geology Station 6 does indeed have the very unique east-west gap.

It BEGS the question, if the apollo missions were faked, how did they know what would be found at this specific spot on the moon?

Two rocks next to each other isn't particularly distinctive. I don't know what you're mumbling about. Rocher 2 and 3 seen off in the distance may also consist of two rocks next to each other.

It BEGS the question, if the apollo missions were faked, how did they know what would be found at this specific spot on the moon?

If NASA is composing LRO images in a studio they would obviously add in landmarks and Apollo Equipment to "prove" that they went to the moon. They know it's the first thing everyone would be looking for in the LRO images.

NASA's self serving evidence is invalid. Stop posting it.

My self serving evidence is invalid. I better stop posting it.

Oh hey Tom, nice.

Two rocks next to each other isn't particularly distinctive. I don't know what you're mumbling about.

It is very distinctive, I have listed many reasons why.  As usual you just ignore the evidence when you don't like it.

Rocher 2 and 3 seen off in the distance may also consist of two rocks next to each other.

Even if they did they would not be in the same exact configuration as seen in Tracy's Rock (which is far bigger than any of the other rocks in the area, big enough that you can see the gap from even the lowest quality LRO photos) Those other rocks are only single rocks as can be seen in the Apollo photographs.  Only Tracy's Rock has the distinctive east-west gap.

Quote

It BEGS the question, if the apollo missions were faked, how did they know what would be found at this specific spot on the moon?

If NASA is composing LRO images in a studio they would obviously add in landmarks and Apollo Equipment to "prove" that they went to the moon. They know it's the first thing everyone would be looking for in the LRO images.

[/quote]

The LRO imagery was online less than a week, that's not nearly enough time to mock up FIVE apollo landing sites.  Additionally since then the landing sites have been photographed multiple times, from multiple angles in different lighting conditions.  To suggest they have managed to photoshop the same thing over and over again without a single inconsistency is living in a fantasy.  You won't be able to find any discrepancies between not only the LRO photos themselves, but between the LRO photos and the THOUSANDS of Apollo photos.  Not a single continuity error.  In your average Hollywood movie there are dozens of continuity errors.  And yet the biggest Hollywood production EVER, not a single such error.  How'd they manage that?

And you really have to wonder... exactly who is doing all these amazing photoshops and fakes?  Where is NASA getting this talent?  Surely most of the people to apply for jobs at NASA grew up not only thinking the Apollo programs were real, but they were probablly pretty familiar with the programs.  So at what point did NASA break it to these new hires that they would NOT be working on legitimate NASA programs but would instead be putting their talent to producing the best fakes in the history of mankind.  I'm sure they JUMPED at the chance!  I sure as heck know I would!  Not one single disillusioned soul, not one whistleblower in the history of the manned space program.

That's AMAZING.

NASA's self serving evidence is invalid. Stop posting it.

Your ad homenin does not excuse you from ignoring the evidence.  The evidence can be validated by many means.  At least I am posting evidence.  You have yet to post anything that comes close to evidence.  I'm most certainly NOT going to stop posting it.  Not until I hear a reasonable explanation for all of this evidence, a reason that is itself ACTUALLY BACKED UP BY EVIDENCE.

You ask me to stop posting evidence?

I ask you to START.

Quote from: Gigamonsta on December 29, 2009, 07:49:21 PM

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Read em and weap. It is a sad thing, and maybe difficult to accept for some, but yes NASA has faked the moonm landings. so please read this and learn my friends. learn the TRUTH.

Holy S**t!!

Some guy called Dave wrote it on his website, this means it must be true!

Get lost.

lol u couldnt refute it! arent u an engineer? so y cant u refute it if ur so smart? cmon lets see what u got in refuting it! whats nxt? gonna criticize my grammar lol~!

lol u couldnt refute it! arent u an engineer? so y cant u refute it if ur so smart? cmon lets see what u got in refuting it! whats nxt? gonna criticize my grammar lol~!

I dunno about you, but I wouldn't trust a website by some guy on the internet. What credibility do they have? It seems like a run-of-the-mill conspiracy site. I see no reason to trust it.

It's not that he can't refute it, (I assume) but that you start from refuting the source. If a homeless man said that the sky was bright neon green, well, I wouldn't trust him because he's some homeless man. Doesn't mean I can't show that the sky is bright neon green.

Quote from: d00gz on March 02, 2010, 09:32:42 AM

Quote from: Gigamonsta on December 29, 2009, 07:49:21 PM

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Read em and weap. It is a sad thing, and maybe difficult to accept for some, but yes NASA has faked the moonm landings. so please read this and learn my friends. learn the TRUTH.

Holy S**t!!

Some guy called Dave wrote it on his website, this means it must be true!

Get lost.

lol u couldnt refute it! arent u an engineer? so y cant u refute it if ur so smart? cmon lets see what u got in refuting it! whats nxt? gonna criticize my grammar lol~!

To be fair, you type like a child. It reflects poorly upon you. Your source does not require refutation, because it's unreliable and full of ridiculously misinformed nonsense.

^This FTW

i like how they dont mention that they have no scientific need to actually waste billions of dollars into going into space.

they didnt make it first, whats the point in making it second?  Do they have some sort of experiment to do?  Is there the cure for hunger up there?  Alternative fuel source?

Who in their right mind would spend billions of dollars to go to an atmospheric wasteland thats ALREADY been explored/experimented on? They have all that they need already in forms of space trave/orbit, who would go to the moon?

EDIT: the site spends a lot of time mentioning soviets never going on the moon, and the fact that there is no point in doing so is never mentioned.

i like how they dont mention that they have no scientific need to actually waste billions of dollars into going into space.

they didnt make it first, whats the point in making it second?  Do they have some sort of experiment to do?  Is there the cure for hunger up there?  Alternative fuel source?

Who in their right mind would spend billions of dollars to go to an atmospheric wasteland thats ALREADY been explored/experimented on? They have all that they need already in forms of space trave/orbit, who would go to the moon?

EDIT: the site spends a lot of time mentioning soviets never going on the moon, and the fact that there is no point in doing so is never mentioned.

Given NASA's fairly pawlty budget of 15 to 20 billion (compared to the half trillion thrown at defense each year, and these Flatheads think NASA is the racket!) I think the money is far better spent on stuff like Cassini and Hubble (how do the Flatheads integrate the THOUSANDS of amazing images from just those two programmes in to their absurd Fantasy Earth? I would love to know!)... There are some good reasons to go back to the moon, the energy potential of Helium-3 might make it worth it.  Additionally if we ever do want to send people to Mars and beyond, the moon is a good place to start with a permanent base, launching to mars from the moon is a lot easier, takes a lot less fuel than launching from the surface of the Earth.

Quote from: brathearon on March 04, 2010, 10:26:30 AM

i like how they dont mention that they have no scientific need to actually waste billions of dollars into going into space.

they didnt make it first, whats the point in making it second?  Do they have some sort of experiment to do?  Is there the cure for hunger up there?  Alternative fuel source?

Who in their right mind would spend billions of dollars to go to an atmospheric wasteland thats ALREADY been explored/experimented on? They have all that they need already in forms of space trave/orbit, who would go to the moon?

EDIT: the site spends a lot of time mentioning soviets never going on the moon, and the fact that there is no point in doing so is never mentioned.

Given NASA's fairly pawlty budget of 15 to 20 million billion (compared to the half trillion thrown at defense each year, and these Flatheads think NASA is the racket!) I think the money is far better spent on stuff like Cassini and Hubble (how do the Flatheads integrate the THOUSANDS of amazing images from just those two programmes in to their absurd Fantasy Earth? I would love to know!)... There are some good reasons to go back to the moon, the energy potential of Helium-3 might make it worth it.  Additionally if we ever do want to send people to Mars and beyond, the moon is a good place to start with a permanent base, launching to mars from the moon is a lot easier, takes a lot less fuel than launching from the surface of the Earth.

Fixed.  BTW, Obama essentially killed NASA return to the moon program.

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 04, 2010, 08:26:07 PM

Quote from: brathearon on March 04, 2010, 10:26:30 AM

i like how they dont mention that they have no scientific need to actually waste billions of dollars into going into space.

they didnt make it first, whats the point in making it second?  Do they have some sort of experiment to do?  Is there the cure for hunger up there?  Alternative fuel source?

Who in their right mind would spend billions of dollars to go to an atmospheric wasteland thats ALREADY been explored/experimented on? They have all that they need already in forms of space trave/orbit, who would go to the moon?

EDIT: the site spends a lot of time mentioning soviets never going on the moon, and the fact that there is no point in doing so is never mentioned.

Given NASA's fairly pawlty budget of 15 to 20 million billion (compared to the half trillion thrown at defense each year, and these Flatheads think NASA is the racket!) I think the money is far better spent on stuff like Cassini and Hubble (how do the Flatheads integrate the THOUSANDS of amazing images from just those two programmes in to their absurd Fantasy Earth? I would love to know!)... There are some good reasons to go back to the moon, the energy potential of Helium-3 might make it worth it.  Additionally if we ever do want to send people to Mars and beyond, the moon is a good place to start with a permanent base, launching to mars from the moon is a lot easier, takes a lot less fuel than launching from the surface of the Earth.

Fixed.  BTW, Obama essentially killed NASA return to the moon program.

Thank you for reminding me why I voted for him!  Thanks for fixing my million/billion error.

im not sure how many more several billion dollar gambles people are willing to make though =)

im not sure how many more several billion dollar gambles people are willing to make though =)

Like health care reform?

i like how they dont mention that they have no scientific need to actually waste billions of dollars into going into space.

they didnt make it first, whats the point in making it second?  Do they have some sort of experiment to do?  Is there the cure for hunger up there?  Alternative fuel source?

Who in their right mind would spend billions of dollars to go to an atmospheric wasteland thats ALREADY been explored/experimented on? They have all that they need already in forms of space trave/orbit, who would go to the moon?

EDIT: the site spends a lot of time mentioning soviets never going on the moon, and the fact that there is no point in doing so is never mentioned.

if humans go to the Moon a second time, it should be internationally.
I think they should send bipedal robots up there for construction, mining, exploration. As for the resources, there's supposedly lots of helium-3.

As for those "amazing rocks". How do we know those are actually rocks and not cardboard cutouts.

Quote from: d00gz on March 02, 2010, 09:32:42 AM

Quote from: Gigamonsta on December 29, 2009, 07:49:21 PM

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Read em and weap. It is a sad thing, and maybe difficult to accept for some, but yes NASA has faked the moonm landings. so please read this and learn my friends. learn the TRUTH.

Holy S**t!!

Some guy called Dave wrote it on his website, this means it must be true!

Get lost.

lol u couldnt refute it! arent u an engineer? so y cant u refute it if ur so smart? cmon lets see what u got in refuting it! whats nxt? gonna criticize my grammar lol~!

I am an engineer, yes. I'm not going to refute it, because i never read it all. Some guy hosted it on his own website and you believe it. So in that case, if i create a website with loads of RE theory on it, and email you the link, will you believe everything i've written?

No.

Because you believe what you want to, which is why anything you post cannot be taken seriously. You do not look at things objectively. In other words. YOU FAIL

Quote from: brathearon on March 05, 2010, 08:25:54 AM

im not sure how many more several billion dollar gambles people are willing to make though =)

Like health care reform?

exactly =D.  So many gambles that hit close to home already, nobody is going to be willing to just land on the moon just for the fun of it.