Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

[uberhund]

For those trying to decide which side to join, here, evidently, are the options:

Scenario #1

• 1. The US could not meet JFK's deadline, especially after the Apollo 1 fire. Viet Nam was threatening Richard Nixon's presidency. He needed a distraction. The go-ahead for a hoax was approved. Not clear why this would help Nixon or divert attention from Viet Nam (Nixon loved the war, and hated the space program? Cronkite hated the war, but loved the space program?), but the hoax disciples are a bit squishy on this point.
  
  2. NASA sends the money to the Soviet Union to have their numerous tracking stations play along, and agree to lose the space race. Not sure why the US had the money, when the point of killing the program was to divert money to Viet Nam, or why the Soviets would agree to lose such enormous prestige at the height of the Cold War, but, the hoaxers are a bit vague on this.
  
  3. All photographs taken by probes and signals received by amateurs are fakes, because they are all part of the conspiracy. All future probe photos will be fakes also, because this hoax is really, really, well funded. Not sure how the amount of money to keep the hoax afloat could go unnoticed, but the hoaxers aren't talking.
  
  4. China and Japan are now a space faring countries, and all (including Russia) agree to keep the hoax a secret because, well, can't figure this one out (hoaxers need to provide a bit more rigor here). In any case, when China or Japan or anyone visits the moon and the lunar sites, they will bring back either stage props to further promote the lie, or, fake landings of their own since it's impossible for humans to go to the moon in the first place.

Scenario #2

• Apollo went down exactly as witnessed.

So. Those two scenarios are your choices. I know which one Occam would have picked.

 

[cosmored]

Jarrah's right. Both fine dust and large-grained sand could have been used where appropriate. If we didn't see the bootprints in the fine dust being made, we don't know if there were dust clouds which were consistent with atmosphere or not. Therefore, the footprints can't be used as proof of anything.

Could have been used? Sorry, but it is up to Jarrah to prove they were used. Saying that NASA "might" have done something is not evidence for a hoax, he has to prove they did it.

There's a ton of evidence that they faked the footage in a studio (see page 16, 13th post from the top). Photos of footprints that were made in fine dust doesn't prove they went to the moon as that was fakable in a studio. You seem to somehow consider those photos of footprints to be proof that they went to the moon.

I think it's time for you to get your story straight. A few anomalies that have been explained do not count as hoax evidence.

Be specific about which ones have been explained. Hoax-believers have made a few mistakes which have since been corrected. There's a mountain of other stuff though.

Constellation may be cancelled but ESA, JAXA, RoscoCosmos, and China all have their moon plans in as soon as 10 years. Not to mention the rovers and orbiters already at the moon studying its surface and taking pictures of the Apollo landing sites.

Your post on page 16 does nothing but point out a few anomalies that have been explained away for decades. I want to know more about this international conspiracy hooey you made up.

All of those photos of the alleged landing sites were fakable and they don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away. Governments saying they're planning to go to the moon don't mean anything until they actually go.

cosmored wrote:On page 45 Archer17 said the flag moved because of static electricity. I gave a rebuttal. Now you pro-Apollo people are supposed to give a counter-rebuttal. Do you agree with Archer17? Do you think he's wrong?


Your "rebuttal" was just a reaffirmation of your previous linked-to hokum. There's no "case closed" here. Air current causation is not consistent with what is shown in the youtube links. In other words the notion you, by proxy, hang your hat on has major problems. I'm not a HB-debunker by trade but I'm sure the overall behavior and appearance of the flag has been brought up before by others much more savvy than myself on this particular topic.

I need more than flag-nits posted on youtube to relegate the history of our space program to the BS bin. While this particular 'nit' is worthy of discussion IMO and has more than one possible explanation - in addition to yours by proxy we have some who claim the flag was touched or vibrations by the astronauts as they hopped around could have moved it - I still believe the most likely explanation is electrostatic. You responded to me cosmored, but haven't successfully refuted what I posted...not by a long shot. I'd like to see you drop your lame linkathon crutch and, in your own words, explain the transient nature of your air currents when applied to the various videos in total. It doesn't fit.

You avoided addessing the evidence that the flag moved away from the astronaut and then toward him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

If the charge had repelled the flag, it would have moved away from the astronaut and then back to its original place with just a little swaying. The force at which it moved back toward the astronaut is inconsistent with just moving back to its original position and moving a little. The force at which it moved back toward the astronaut is much to strong for that; it's consistent with air moving toward him to fill the void caused by his passing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hesLihNFw6A

If static electricity had attracted the flag, it wouldn't have moves slightly away from the astronaut before it moved toward him. The flag moving slightly away from him first is consistent with its being pushed by the pressure wave caused by his approach.

Also, at the beginning of the clip when the astronaut is much closer to the flag, the flag is not attracted to the astronaut at all. In no other footage have I seen a flag being attracted to an astronaut the way it would if there were static electricity. The movement is totally consistent with the atmosphere explanation.

If vibrations from the ground had moved it, the pole and the rod would have noticably moved. Also, the movement of the flag is inconsistent with the rod having made it move. The top of the flag would have moved. If the rod had moved from side to side, there would have been a ripple going from the top of the flag to the bottom. If the rod had moved up and down, the whole flag would have moved up and down. The movement is consistent with the atmosphere explanation.

cosmored wrote:This video shows that it started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
You people have the attitude that you've debunked this but that's all it is–an attitude. You haven't come close to debunking this. This piece of evidence proves the hoax by itself.



So I've watched the vid (above) several times now. I'm not sure what it is but it looks odd to me. The lower 3 stripes (red and white) show some apparent lateral shift but the 4th (from the bottom) red stripe doesn't. It seems (at first glance) as the white stripe immediately below it "moves" and the red stripe, attached to it, doesn't. So I need to do a little more careful examination to make a conclusion (and may need to get a first copy of the video to do so).

I just watched it again and I see the flag move from the bottom all the way up to the rod.

4) The flag is not made of nylon as NASA says, it's some heavier material

Maybe thickly knit nylon–who knows?

6) The "dirt" being kicked up is something like sand and so falls (now slowed down) like moon "dust" would in 1/6 G even though it was really in the above environment (atmosphere and 1G)

I assume you mean that it falls without making a dust cloud because it was large-grained. It falls the way it would in slow-motion. Some very precise measurements and calculations would have to me made in order to determine whether the length and speed of the trajectory were consistent with moon gravity.

Lastly do you concede that the later motion may have been from the astronaut actually brushing against the flag as Killians vid illustrates

Jarrah's videos prove Killian wrong. The flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it. Also, there's no exact spot where the flag moves away from the astronaut the way it would if it were touched. It moves uniformly.

Also how slowed down is the video ?

They used a 67% slow-motion combined with wire supports to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW31fOWzY-E

They used 50% during Apollo 11(see the partial summary of hoax evidence on page 16).

So what's your claim for the initial movement above ? Was this supposedly some gust of wind from some stage equipment or is this supposed to be due to the astronauts movement pushing air in front of him ?

It's the pressure wave caused by the moving astronaut.

 

[oocanto]

Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

Hi, guys.
I am not a conspirator, and I do not want to live in a cloud of lies. I want the truth. Do not you think that there is too much debris in that video? It is so obvious for me that the guys are in a pool (bubbles + so-under-water-audio) that all the explanations just turns more and more suspicious at the topic. Respect to that of Apollo 11 was not a hoax because too much peope was involved, I ask you a simple question: what about the rumor of HIV (many, many people sik by a human experiment)? We (all of us) just have to live with this global problem and nobody knows exactly what was its origin. However, we just accept that its origin is "unknown" and continues watching tv. Lies can be expanded across all the planet and can be here, just between us, without any problem. At the side of HIV, the chinese bubbles and even the moon hoax is an innocent joke. I hope the raise of the truth. Because that will occur because of us.

 

[BurgerB75]

How do we know that all of the youtube videos that the hoaxers use are not reproductions of the original footage made in their parents basement? Can they prove they are the actual videos and not fakes?

 

[uberhund]

I agree with BurgerB.

Hoax believers, prove to the rest of us that you did not doctor the numerous Youtube videos to support your case.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

Hi, guys.
I am not a conspirator, and I do not want to live in a cloud of lies. I want the truth. Do not you think that there is too much debris in that video? It is so obvious for me that the guys are in a pool (bubbles + so-under-water-audio) that all the explanations just turns more and more suspicious at the topic. Respect to that of Apollo 11 was not a hoax because too much peope was involved, I ask you a simple question: what about the rumor of HIV (many, many people sik by a human experiment)? We (all of us) just have to live with this global problem and nobody knows exactly what was its origin. However, we just accept that its origin is "unknown" and continues watching tv. Lies can be expanded across all the planet and can be here, just between us, without any problem. At the side of HIV, the chinese bubbles and even the moon hoax is an innocent joke. I hope the raise of the truth. Because that will occur because of us.

I'm confused by what you're saying. Of course we landed on the moon, there's no way that they could have faked all of that.

I mean the astronauts got into the rocket, lifted off into LEO, and then what? It's not like they just stayed there. They had to have gone to the moon. Even if you say they just stayed in lunar orbit and didn't actually land that rules out the van allen belts that cosmored and quantum are so fixed on.

Cosmored, clearly you didnt understand what I was asking. HOW could they have faked all of this? Do not post more youtube clips. I'm asking for a sequence of events on how all of this could possibly be faked. It's mind boggling to think that there's some sort of international conspiracy going on here. Read the book "rocket men", it will show you how much work that NASA did to get these men on the moon. It's such a shame to see that people don't even show the common respect to their country for achieving that and instead claim that it was faked. Some people are so radically anti-government, anti-america, anti-NASA that it's not even funny.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

Hi, guys.
I am not a conspirator, and I do not want to live in a cloud of lies. I want the truth. Do not you think that there is too much debris in that video? It is so obvious for me that the guys are in a pool (bubbles + so-under-water-audio) that all the explanations just turns more and more suspicious at the topic. Respect to that of Apollo 11 was not a hoax because too much peope was involved, I ask you a simple question: what about the rumor of HIV (many, many people sik by a human experiment)? We (all of us) just have to live with this global problem and nobody knows exactly what was its origin. However, we just accept that its origin is "unknown" and continues watching tv. Lies can be expanded across all the planet and can be here, just between us, without any problem. At the side of HIV, the chinese bubbles and even the moon hoax is an innocent joke. I hope the raise of the truth. Because that will occur because of us.

This has more to do with other conspiracies than space. Please do not post it in this discussion. I may split it out and give it a new title.

Stick to the subject!!

 

[cosmored]

Cosmored, clearly you didnt understand what I was asking. HOW could they have faked all of this? Do not post more youtube clips. I'm asking for a sequence of events on how all of this could possibly be faked. It's mind boggling to think that there's some sort of international conspiracy going on here. Read the book "rocket men", it will show you how much work that NASA did to get these men on the moon. It's such a shame to see that people don't even show the common respect to their country for achieving that and instead claim that it was faked. Some people are so radically anti-government, anti-america, anti-NASA that it's not even funny.

Sorry but the evidence that they faked it is too clear (see the partial summary of hoax evidence on page sixteen of this thread in the 13th post from the top).

Of course a lot of people worked on Apollo; they had to have the appearance of preparing to go to the moon. That would have to be part of a plan as big as this one. Most of the people involved were probably fooled too.
http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
----------------------------------------------------

Hoax believers, prove to the rest of us that you did not doctor the numerous Youtube videos to support your case.

Are you saying that you consider the anomalies to be real, but planted by people? Are you saying the footage provided by the government doesn't have these anomalies?

Are you saying that this clip of the flag moving without being touched has been doctored?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

It will take some time but I'm sure we can find the footage released by the government and compare it with the YouTube footage.

Do not you think that there is too much debris in that video? It is so obvious for me that the guys are in a pool (bubbles + so-under-water-audio) that all the explanations just turns more and more suspicious at the topic.

The Chinese spacewalk was obviously faked in a water tank. NASA's official position is that it was real. That pretty much destroys NASA's credibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=kG4Z_r38ZDE

 

[Archer17]

...You avoided addessing the evidence that the flag moved away from the astronaut and then toward him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

The only thing I'm avoiding is clicking on your endless parade of youtube links. I saw the initial video, that should be sufficient. When I watched that video it appeared to me that the flag moved forward as the astronaut passed by. Let's pretend I'm lying or can't see correctly. Does it matter? Nope. The "pressure wave" fantasy is contradicted by the video itself. More on that in a minute.

If the charge had repelled the flag, it would have moved away from the astronaut and then back to its original place with just a little swaying. The force at which it moved back toward the astronaut is inconsistent with just moving back to its original position and moving a little. The force at which it moved back toward the astronaut is much to strong for that; it's consistent with air moving toward him to fill the void caused by his passing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hesLihNFw6A

If static electricity had attracted the flag, it wouldn't have moves slightly away from the astronaut before it moved toward him. The flag moving slightly away from him first is consistent with its being pushed by the pressure wave caused by his approach.

I hope you're not too crushed when I tell you I didn't bother looking at your latest link for reasons already stated. The thing is, you and your links have no idea how an electrostatic reaction would influence the flag. Does it repel, attract, both? What's the level of the "charge?" I suffer from the same handicap but don't need to "prove" anything here. I'll concede electrostatic causation isn't certain and there are others that have different notions, but it's the most likely explanation in my opinion and it hasn't come close to being refuted by your linkathon here.

Also, at the beginning of the clip when the astronaut is much closer to the flag, the flag is not attracted to the astronaut at all. In no other footage have I seen a flag being attracted to an astronaut the way it would if there were static electricity. The movement is totally consistent with the atmosphere explanation.

Ironically this is extremely damning with regard to the "atmosphere" explanation and the reason why is right in front of you. First of all look at the flag during the entire length of whatever youtube vid floats your boat. What don't you see outside of this "smoking gun" of yours? That's right, no other "smoking guns." In fact the flag doesn't even look like it should if it was in a non-lunar environment. Despite other instances of close proximity by the astronauts do we see any flag movement indicative of a pressure wave? Why not? To sum it up, the appearance of the flag throughout the video is not consistent with what you try to qualify by endless links. Now as far as what I believe to be the most likely answer, I don't require a consistent electrostatic buildup. You however need more than what I've seen from you. Incessant HB links won't cut it... even youtube can't polish a turd.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon.

BWAHAHAHAHA. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet! Scientists are still using that thing to accurately measure the distance between Earth and the moon.

It's not like its impossible to go to the moon, so why would they have faked it? The Van Allen belts and cosmic radiation are a threat for sure, but they're only fatal if you're exposed to them for long periods of time without adequate protection. 9 and 10 day missions are not a problem at all, and this factors into the engineering layouts of future missions to Mars as outlined by Robert Zubrin.

I also want to see some hoax believer explanations for the evidence available that PROVES the moon landings. What about the artifacts in the museums? What about the laser reflector? What about the moon rocks they brought back? What about the lunar dust engrained into their suits? What about the fact that the terrain in the missions is EXACTLY the same as the terrain imaged by recon probes today? What about the pictures from the LRO that show the landing sites and even footprints? What about the other countries tracking the moon landings? What about the Surveyor 3 parts brought back by Apollo 15?

And according to you nobody ever got in the Saturn V. So what about the reentry of the capsule that was picked up in the ocean? How could the astronauts be in there if they didn't ride the Saturn V? Let me guess, Cuba granted us access to their launch facilities and kept it secret from everyone else and let us use a Titan II to get them into LEO. But that still does not explain why no Apollo spacecraft were seen in the skies at night.

You've pointed out a couple of anomalies that have been explained away, but that doesn't refute the mountain of evidence that proves the moon landings. Posting a youtube clip of an anomaly does not prove that the landings were faked. You need much more than that to convince a reasonable person to believe that they were faked.

 

[Smersh]

... Of course a lot of people worked on Apollo; they had to have the appearance of preparing to go to the moon. That would have to be part of a plan as big as this one. Most of the people involved were probably fooled too.
http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum” ...

Cosmored, you have already raised all those points and I already answered them all but instead of answering or countering what I posted you have just repeated your original argument without offering any kind of reason why you think what I wrote was wrong. In fact, not just repeated your original argument, but COPY/PASTED it, by the looks of it. ("Pan's claim etc etc ..." see above and below.)

So to save you having to search back, I just did that and it's on page 35. Here's a quote of part of my post in answer to those points you raised back then, but have since ignored:

... Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof ...

One engineer in one factory might not be proof, but some engineers who work with higher-up engineers attend management meetings sometimes and somebody would have had to tell his boss to make the part and his boss's boss and so on. People talk in both large and small corporations, and talk to other large and small corporations who are also involved, either as customers or suppliers of those corporations. Mulitiply that by all the engineer's around the world and each one's boss and his/her boss's boss and also who are talking to other corporations and that adds up to an awful lot of people who might get wind of NASA ordering parts that are never going to be used. NASA would also have to give the same story to every one of their suppliers about why they need the parts and would have to organise it so that everyone in NASA who communicates with the suppliers tells the same lie. It's all a recipe for having a lot of holes in the procedure isn't it?

... and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other ...

What, every engineer would brag if he or she knew they didn't make it to the moon? Human beings are not all clones of each other and every one of us is different. Quite a few of those people, knowing that NASA wasn't going to the moon, wouldn't brag but would feel they ought to expose the hoax.

... Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon ...

And what about all the other many millions of components, large and small, that would have to have been built to service the hoax? Are they all stashed in Langley as well? They'd need an incredibly large storeroom wouldn't they? Or there would need to be lots of smaller storerooms located around the world for all these parts to be stored, and people who can be trusted to to watch over each and every one to make sure word doesn't get out they are storing thousands of unused parts, large and small, for the Apollo project that didn't actually happen. And what happens when the trusted managers of these storerooms retire or die? Who takes over from them?

... Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum” ...

200 people at the centre to organise a hoax on that scale still seems like a lot of people at the very core who would all have to keep quiet, and those people would constantly have to be in communication with probably ten times that number of people at the next stage down the 'pecking order,' not all of whom even work for NASA, and making sure they give the same story as their 199 colleagues in case people further down would get suspicious ...

So now Cosmored, instead of waiting for several more pages to pass by and then repeating, or even copy/pasting, all those arguments for at least the third time, will you please tell us all in your own words why you think I'm wrong? Thanks.

 

[cosmored]

How do we know that all of the youtube videos that the hoaxers use are not reproductions of the original footage made in their parents basement? Can they prove they are the actual videos and not fakes?

Somebody sent me this but I wasn't able to watch in on the computer I was using.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1485317.rm

Tell me if it's the same footage that's in the YouTube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

One engineer in one factory might not be proof, but some engineers who work with higher-up engineers attend management meetings sometimes and somebody would have had to tell his boss to make the part and his boss's boss and so on. People talk in both large and small corporations, and talk to other large and small corporations who are also involved, either as customers or suppliers of those corporations. Mulitiply that by all the engineer's around the world and each one's boss and his/her boss's boss and also who are talking to other corporations and that adds up to an awful lot of people who might get wind of NASA ordering parts that are never going to be used. NASA would also have to give the same story to every one of their suppliers about why they need the parts and would have to organise it so that everyone in NASA who communicates with the suppliers tells the same lie. It's all a recipe for having a lot of holes in the procedure isn't it?

This doesn't make the hoax evidence go away (see page 16, 13th post from top). We aren't in a position to know exactly what happened but evidenctly the people who knew went along with the plan. The evidence of a hoax closes the whole case.

What, every engineer would brag if he or she knew they didn't make it to the moon? Human beings are not all clones of each other and every one of us is different. Quite a few of those people, knowing that NASA wasn't going to the moon, wouldn't brag but would feel they ought to expose the hoax.

Lots of them probably did talk about it to thier friends but, as long as the mainstream doesn't discuss it, it's not a problem.

The press wouldn't report it if someone were to come forward.
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993 ... n-span.gif
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_t ... media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media ... omsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media ... watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propa ... _page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media ... ntrol.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herma ... m_One.html

In this video a scientist talks about how information in scientific journals is controlled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)

There was probably incentive to keep quite too.
Somewhere around the 30 minute mark this scientist talks about science fraud and about being harrased for having blown the whistle.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9248030643

Look what happened to these guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk

And what about all the other many millions of components, large and small, that would have to have been built to service the hoax? Are they all stashed in Langley as well? They'd need an incredibly large storeroom wouldn't they? Or there would need to be lots of smaller storerooms located around the world for all these parts to be stored, and people who can be trusted to to watch over each and every one to make sure word doesn't get out they are storing thousands of unused parts, large and small, for the Apollo project that didn't actually happen. And what happens when the trusted managers of these storerooms retire or die? Who takes over from them?

This wouldn't have been an impossible problem and this doesn't make the hoax evidence go away.

200 people at the centre to organise a hoax on that scale still seems like a lot of people at the very core who would all have to keep quiet, and those people would constantly have to be in communication with probably ten times that number of people at the next stage down the 'pecking order,' not all of whom even work for NASA, and making sure they give the same story as their 199 colleagues in case people further down would get suspicious ...

As I said before, there were probably lots of people who knew but, as long as the press ignores the issue, it's not a problem.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

This wouldn't have been an impossible problem and this doesn't make the hoax evidence go away.

See, that's the problem. Your "evidence" isn't evidence at all, just a few anomalies which have good scientific explanations. If you are claiming that one part was faked, you are claiming ALL of it was faked. In that case, you haven't even a molehill of evidence, where as we have a mountain to prove that they were real. You just claim our evidence is faked so your system is closed.

 

[Smersh]

Looks like what we got is mostly yet another link-a-thon ... :?

 

[cosmored]

Your "evidence" isn't evidence at all, just a few anomalies which have good scientific explanations.

I've never seen any Apollo-believers explain this satisfactorily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... orses&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... Alive&aq=f

The flag moves at the exact moment at which it's consistent with the atmosphere explanation.

This video shows that it can't be static electricity as it move away from the astronaut just before it moves toward him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

In no other footage does a flag move in a way that's consistent with static electricity.

He didn't touch the flag as Jarrah's video shows.

If he'd kicked dust on it, the dust would have been visible.

If he'd kicked a rock into it, there would have been an impression where the rock hit it. The flag moves the way if would if a wall of air hit it.

If it had been ground vibration, the pole and rod would have moved. The flag also doesn't move in a way that's consistent with the rod having caused it to move.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot more stuff besides the flag.


There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid= ... 5081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 40 second mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 587487066#

(The above video "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" keeps going on and off-line. If the above link is dead, click here)
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=a+ ... unny+thin#

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Here it is doubled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW31fOWzY-E

...combined with wire supports in the later missions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no blast crater under the lander.
http://thoughtworld.files.wordpress.com ... cture1.jpg

That is discussed in this five part video series.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... rater&aq=f
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028 ... m-par.aspx
(4:10 time mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.

At the 00:08 time mark in this clip watch what happens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=e ... ejsnPThmd4

The astronaut with the jacket pulls her arm up and down twice. The corner flops up and down. This is clearly zero-G as the corner has no tendency to go downward. There is no up or down.

In the clip that shows Collins the jacket corner has a clear tendency to go downward.

This guy starts to run fast on the treadmill at around the 00:14 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

The guy on the far left at the start of this video is wearing a jacket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0cxuSxOBUA

Watch the corners of his jacket. Both his and those of the guy in the first video behave exactly the way Collins' jacket corner behaves.

Watch this woman's hair at the 00:40 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fUGSVPOGn8

It also behaves exactly the same way that Collins' jacket corner behaves. It has a clear tendency to go down.

This woman is jogging in zero-G. Here hair flops up and down but there's clearly no gravity; her hair has no tendency to go downward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbfX2vQaVew

Here she is when she's not running.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdMuRkwgWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2evMR9PvCk&NR=1

There's no tendency to go downward just as there's no tendency for this astronaut's jacket corners to go downward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=e ... ejsnPThmd4

When Collins is running or just standing, his jacket corner has a clear tendency to go downward.

This is the astronaut who was running in zero-G on earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0YK-wG35WM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s3FnfXj ... re=channel

That footage of Collins jogging in place was supposed to be halfway to the moon but it was obviously taken in strong gravity.

 

[Smersh]

Cosmored, here's a quote from a post made by uberhund that I would like you to consider very carefully please. The post is already one page back and is in danger of disappearing out of sight just like all the other answers we've given in this thread that have been ignored, or glossed over with a whole series of links:

For those trying to decide which side to join, here, evidently, are the options:

Scenario #1

• 1. The US could not meet JFK's deadline, especially after the Apollo 1 fire. Viet Nam was threatening Richard Nixon's presidency. He needed a distraction. The go-ahead for a hoax was approved. Not clear why this would help Nixon or divert attention from Viet Nam (Nixon loved the war, and hated the space program? Cronkite hated the war, but loved the space program?), but the hoax disciples are a bit squishy on this point.
  
  2. NASA sends the money to the Soviet Union to have their numerous tracking stations play along, and agree to lose the space race. Not sure why the US had the money, when the point of killing the program was to divert money to Viet Nam, or why the Soviets would agree to lose such enormous prestige at the height of the Cold War, but, the hoaxers are a bit vague on this.
  
  3. All photographs taken by probes and signals received by amateurs are fakes, because they are all part of the conspiracy. All future probe photos will be fakes also, because this hoax is really, really, well funded. Not sure how the amount of money to keep the hoax afloat could go unnoticed, but the hoaxers aren't talking.
  
  4. China and Japan are now a space faring countries, and all (including Russia) agree to keep the hoax a secret because, well, can't figure this one out (hoaxers need to provide a bit more rigor here). In any case, when China or Japan or anyone visits the moon and the lunar sites, they will bring back either stage props to further promote the lie, or, fake landings of their own since it's impossible for humans to go to the moon in the first place.

Scenario #2

• Apollo went down exactly as witnessed.

So. Those two scenarios are your choices. I know which one Occam would have picked.

So Cosmored, I'd be grateful if you could you give us your response to that in your own words please, if you don't mind.

Thanks.

 

[uberhund]

Instead of putting you on the spot, cosmored, is there someone you work with on the boards here that would be more comfortable defending the hoax believer's position? It's not fair to make you defend such a large subject by yourself.

You've done a great job finding links to the thoughts of others, but I think the thread would benefit more from hearing responses directly from those that directly analyze and form the opinions to which you've linked.

 

[Archer17]

...The flag moves at the exact moment at which it's consistent with the atmosphere explanation.

As I pointed out, the flag doesn't move enough to satisfy the 'atmosphere' explanation. End of story, no links required.

I'm done with this nonsense. As I and others have pointed out you don't actually discuss things here cosmored, it's like trying to engage in a conversation with an automated HB troll-bot. If you actually start participating yourself I'll be back but right now this is a waste of my time.

 

[MeteorWayne]

****Moderator Hat On***

cosmosred,
It is not longer acceptble for you to post and repost and repost the same links again and again and again, and ignore the responses of the other posters. You engange in almost no conversation with the community, and none without posting the same links that others have responded to. And posting them again, and again, and again.

This is somehwhere in the zone between trolling and spamming.

If that' s all you intend to do, I'd suggest you take your tired act somewhere else before the moderators are forced to take some kind of action.
MeteorWayne
Moderator Hat Off **********

User Meteor Wayne speaking:

No one is going to look through dozens of youtube videos you put in each post. Everybody has better things to do than spend hours doing that. It makes your post intractable, and when anyone repsonds to one thing, you just shift to one of the others. So here's my suggestion (It is a suggestion so far, anyway...)

Put ONE youtube video in a post. Then we (the community and you) will discuss that ONE. When the horse has been beaten dead, then, and ONLY then, post another, since apparently you have no original thoughts. Then we'll discuss that one to death, then move on to the next.

I'd strongly suggest you take this suggestion to heart. :evil:

Wayne

 

[vladdrac]

Yeah! Even I think guy's walked on the moon. Has Manny posted an opinion? :lol:

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Jarrah's videos prove Killian wrong. The flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it. Also, there's no exact spot where the flag moves away from the astronaut the way it would if it were touched. It moves uniformly.

and

It's the pressure wave caused by the moving astronaut.

No JW's videos don't. What JW purports to show is that the flag starts motion before the astronaut was close enough to touch it. By the same token, if you believe this early "motion" then your pressure wave theory also falls flat. Look at JW's own video "Flags are Alive, Pt1". At about the 8:50 mark he runs past a flag in his studio. Note that it doesn't start moving until he's right next to it, indeed past the part of the flag that starts to move. Also note how it ripples and doesn't "swing" like the Apollo flag ... and how long it takes to stop. If you propose a "heavy" flag to stretch out the time the flag continues to move after the astronaut passes, then you'll need even a stronger "pressure wave" to put it in motion. Moreover it's the vacuum/turbulence that moves the flag, as JWs video demonstrates.

As for the astronaut not physically contacting the flag, JW's "Flags are Waving, Pt2" video demonstrates that such contact may have occured, it's just the JW makes the claim that this contact doesn't matter as there was motion before thre was any such contact. I dispute that there was this early motion but I've yet to prove it out (either way) at this time. Without this early motion then JW's vid (Pt2) actually supports the contact theory.

I believe you've seen other Apollo 15 flag waving debunk videos where a purported blooming effects the picture, making it appear the a flag "moves" even when the astronaut is very far away. What's your view on this theory ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bld6PWsyIU0

They used a 67% slow-motion combined with wire supports to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17.

They used 50% during Apollo 11(see the partial summary of hoax evidence on page 16).

So how long do you contend that the Apollo 15 flag moved after the astronaut passd by ? I roughly estimate about 22 secs which means, by your theory, that the actual flag motion lasted just short of 15 secs (15 secs played back at 67% speed stretches out to 22 secs). Yet the flag in JWs vid (Pt1) stops in about 3 secs, certainly by 5 secs (to be very generous). You really think that some heavier material could stretch that out by 3X ? How about you (or some other hoaxster) put out a Youtube vid demonstrating such a thing is even possible here on Earth in an atmosphere and 1G.

I assume you mean that it falls without making a dust cloud because it was large-grained. It falls the way it would in slow-motion. Some very precise measurements and calculations would have to me made in order to determine whether the length and speed of the trajectory were consistent with moon gravity.

You might get the timing about correct (EDIT: by slowing down the video speed) but you'll never get the trajectory correct. Lets forget about the timing (since you claim it can be faked), all you need to do is analyze the height vs the lateral displacement. Kick some coarse sand (or anything that allows you to properly neglect air resistance) and give it some initial angle off the horizontal and whatever initial velocity you want and the height (above ground) vs the distance travelled (laterally) will be very different for objects on the Moon and those same objects (and initial conditions) on the Earth. It's simple ballistics. Can we agree on the physics ?

Can I take it from your response above that such an analysis, if done properly and w/o fakery, would be conclusive proof ... one way or another ?


EDIT : fixed some grammar and spelling

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

cosmored, if this was really all done in an atmospher under 1 G, then why does the flag stay up and stay rigid? Wouldn't the flag be bunched up and pointing to the ground?

 

[adrenalynn]

cosmored, if this was really all done in an atmospher under 1 G, then why does the flag stay up and stay rigid? Wouldn't the flag be bunched up and pointing to the ground?

Starch?

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

cosmored, if this was really all done in an atmospher under 1 G, then why does the flag stay up and stay rigid? Wouldn't the flag be bunched up and pointing to the ground?

I'm not sure what you're trying to point out Yuri. Even on the Moon, with 1/6G and no atmosphere, a flag on a single pole would "bunch up". Just takes a little longer for gravity to work. The Moon flags had a horizontal rod to hang off so they'd appear as if blowing in the wind (not bunched up) ... if that's what you meant.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

What I meant was, whent there's no wind and your in an atmosphere the flag won't be nice and rolled out like it is in the moon landing pictures. It would be pointing to the ground and all bunched up, but as we can see in the pictures the flag stays exactly the same at different times.