Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[lupercal]

I am all about debunking my own pet theories

Dear brother 8bit, you are all about returning like a rubber band to the Official Conspiracy Theory as defined by MSNBC. That's every conspiracy that's ever been. Whatever the teevee man says, we can count on you to eventually "realize" has to be true. That's why we love you so.

Anyway my dad just locked up by personal e-mail account with his second 10-mb RW xmas card of the day so gotta go. More later.

[KUAN]

.








OK then, let's talk about UFO's - at least that's something we can all agree on....

[8bitagent]

I am all about debunking my own pet theories

Dear brother 8bit, you are all about returning like a rubber band to the Official Conspiracy Theory as defined by MSNBC. That's every conspiracy that's ever been. Whatever the teevee man says, we can count on you to eventually "realize" has to be true. That's why we love you so.

Anyway my dad just locked up by personal e-mail account with his second 10-mb RW xmas card of the day so gotta go. More later.

I find MSNBC the least offensive of the networks, but I mean c'mon. Chuck Todd vehemently claimed before the Nov 6th election that people claiming there was voter fraud in the 2000 or 2004 election is on par with "birtherism".
I've seen Chris Matthews pop a vein and get extra spittle on the camera when talking about "those 9/11 conspiracy theorists". And while Maddow will have great journalists like Jeremy Scahill or friends of Bradley Manning, she'll turn around and do a full hour of blind praise for Obama and have miraculous amnesia toward past episodes critical of this administration.

I have no dog in the moonlanding thing, I just find it interesting how it's probably the safest of the 'question events' ideas. As now days even questioning the JFK assassination is taboo and laughed at, a complete 180 from the early 1990's. I do agree with some that NASA was willing to put lives at much greater risk back then, so the "a real moonlanding would have been too dangerous" argument to me doesn't ring true. These guys were in essence, potential kamikaze pilots. And yeah, I had read as well about people who witnessed the atmospheric re-entry of the astronauts. It's like the birth certificate thing. I'm not discounting the idea of a president having his birth faked...but when the Hawaiian newspapers had even the announcement of his birth placed at the time; it seems like it'd take a time machine to fake all of that.

[lupercal]

It's pretty intense when you realize how far they went to hoax this thing. I mean, the money spent to blast large space travel related debris and modulars onto the surface of the moon
to make it look like mankind has been there...diabolical! https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&out ... 20&bih=934

I'm guessing they had Buzz and company in some sort of chemical induced(part of MK Ultra!) proto virtual reality altered state to make them *think* they were in outer space.
I don't have a theory as to how they faked you know, the OTHER moon landings, but I'll do more research. But indeed, this is a very vast operation

This is the photo you're calling evidence of a mighty avalanche of scientific research and resources, so vast as to render any idea of fakery unthinkable?



In 43 years the best all those brilliant NASA scientists living comfortably off the public weal can produce to prove that their paradigm-shifting scientific triumph actually occurred is a slightly less grainy touch-up of a grainy black and white photo showing nothing in particular?

Really?

[BrandonD]

I'm just saying, how can one account for the footage in In The Shadow of the Moon? Have the Hoaxer crowd even seen the documentary? Also I am all about debunking my own pet theories and differentiate between food for thought(syncs for instance) and direct evidence of a link or crime. And what of all the physical manmade debris left on the moon, as of today? Was that all sent there with no human footprint?
It's funny how all of the moon landing astronauts feel more comfortable talking about seeing "UFOs" than letting on about Stanley Kubrick filming the missions in an air hanger.

It's a tall order to claim all six moon landings were faked, and even more strange the hoaxer crowd only focuses on Apollo 11.

To me it's like the "flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon" crowd. There's countless cases of evidence pointing toward conspiracies, staged events and coverups yet the focus seems to be on long debunked
red herrings. (I've felt Loose Change was one of the worst things to happen for parapolitics)

All I'm claiming is that the first moon landing photos were taken with multiple artificial light sources, in my opinion. This artificial lighting was not just randomly placed, but appears to have been specifically placed to improve the visual quality of the photos. A significant point, IMO.

There was no artificial lighting on the moon, so it seems likely that the photos were taken in a studio.

It's just like 9/11 and Kennedy and all the big ones, the questions are gonna arise, "But how could they get away with something like this?" etc, etc

I don't know those things, I'm just looking at the evidence in front of my face and pointing out what I see. I'm not trying to speculate beyond that.

[8bitagent]

I'm just saying, how can one account for the footage in In The Shadow of the Moon? Have the Hoaxer crowd even seen the documentary? Also I am all about debunking my own pet theories and differentiate between food for thought(syncs for instance) and direct evidence of a link or crime. And what of all the physical manmade debris left on the moon, as of today? Was that all sent there with no human footprint?
It's funny how all of the moon landing astronauts feel more comfortable talking about seeing "UFOs" than letting on about Stanley Kubrick filming the missions in an air hanger.

It's a tall order to claim all six moon landings were faked, and even more strange the hoaxer crowd only focuses on Apollo 11.

To me it's like the "flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon" crowd. There's countless cases of evidence pointing toward conspiracies, staged events and coverups yet the focus seems to be on long debunked
red herrings. (I've felt Loose Change was one of the worst things to happen for parapolitics)

All I'm claiming is that the first moon landing photos were taken with multiple artificial light sources, in my opinion. This artificial lighting was not just randomly placed, but appears to have been specifically placed to improve the visual quality of the photos. A significant point, IMO.

There was no artificial lighting on the moon, so it seems likely that the photos were taken in a studio.

It's just like 9/11 and Kennedy and all the big ones, the questions are gonna arise, "But how could they get away with something like this?" etc, etc

I don't know those things, I'm just looking at the evidence in front of my face and pointing out what I see. I'm not trying to speculate beyond that.

Hmm, well I suppose that's different. Kind of a double up. The photos do seem a bit, perfect. I want to think I'm a good read, and it feels like when Buzz, Neil and company speak of their involvement and experiences
they light up in a way I find would be difficult if they weren't really there. There was insane pressure to "get a man on the moon" and beat the Soviets to it. It almost seems to be some sort of ritual or rite of passage, as it seemed really important for the PTB to really get on the moon. As to the veracity of some of those photos, you could be totally right.

[BrandonD]

Hmm, well I suppose that's different. Kind of a double up. The photos do seem a bit, perfect. I want to think I'm a good read, and it feels like when Buzz, Neil and company speak of their involvement and experiences
they light up in a way I find would be difficult if they weren't really there. There was insane pressure to "get a man on the moon" and beat the Soviets to it. It almost seems to be some sort of ritual or rite of passage, as it seemed really important for the PTB to really get on the moon. As to the veracity of some of those photos, you could be totally right.

Yea there could be a ton of reasons why high quality studio photos were taken and used, and I don't know which reason is more plausible than the others. Maybe they were just an insurance policy or a plan B. I do think that the UFO phenomenon reflects something that is real, so perhaps it is something related to that. Then again, perhaps it isn't.

There is SO much information that we don't know, there is like a huge backstory that the average man is just not privy to.

BTW, love the Twin Peaks quote in your signature

[8bitagent]

Hmm, well I suppose that's different. Kind of a double up. The photos do seem a bit, perfect. I want to think I'm a good read, and it feels like when Buzz, Neil and company speak of their involvement and experiences
they light up in a way I find would be difficult if they weren't really there. There was insane pressure to "get a man on the moon" and beat the Soviets to it. It almost seems to be some sort of ritual or rite of passage, as it seemed really important for the PTB to really get on the moon. As to the veracity of some of those photos, you could be totally right.

Yea there could be a ton of reasons why high quality studio photos were taken and used, and I don't know which reason is more plausible than the others. Maybe they were just an insurance policy or a plan B. I do think that the UFO phenomenon reflects something that is real, so perhaps it is something related to that. Then again, perhaps it isn't.

There is SO much information that we don't know, there is like a huge backstory that the average man is just not privy to.

BTW, love the Twin Peaks quote in your signature

Thanks. That was one of the first things that drew me to Jeff's blog, was the clever usage of Twin Peaks/David Lynchian references.

Yeah I apologize for the tone. I guess the moon landing is just one of those things where I never was able to wrap my head around the idea of the breadth of the mission being faked, however the idea of degrees of fake-ness is I admit intriguing. It's such an innocent para-political topic, and there is no many of them. Things like Franklin, 9/11, JFK, etc are about horrific things yet for some reason more light hearted theories strike me as misplaced. My own bias perhaps. However I do want to distinguish between the line between questioning events and questioning the full story.

For instance, a man could walk into a bank, blow it up and leave. The media would say it was one guy acting by himself. There will be two conspiracy camps. Those that say we cant trust the grainy security footage,
that it may have been doctored. Then those who agree with the official story physically, that a man walked into a bank and it blew up. But will wonder who else was in on it.
I think we can all agree there's something VERY fishy about the 7/7 London bombing CTV stills. I tend to believe the four men were on the four trains/buses, yet understand there's a grey area of belief as to the level of
truthfulness in what we know.

Perhaps the strangest moon theories are those that believe there are non natural formations on the surface and that NASA has tried to airbrush them out or block footage of alleged UFO or orb activity.
David Icke has a theory the moon is an old alien satellite. And many occult/new age/astrologer beliefs hold the moon in an esoteric regard. So right there, the idea of the moon holding some sort of
arcane theme is another angle.

But you know, deep down I just want to believe that as fucked up as America has been in blasting to smithereens millions of Japanese/Vietnamese/Iraqis...that somehow, in this singular moment,
we really did land a guy on the moon. If anything for that little kid in all of us.

[Ben D]

..that somehow, in this singular moment, we really did land a guy on the moon. If anything for that little kid in all of us.

It was an evolutionary step forward for the maturing human race, a step that will ultimately lead to terrestrial man moving out into the solar system and beyond. Allow the kids to imagine what they want, the mature are doing their bit, however humble,..and the kids will mature in time...all is as it should be in that context.

[BrandonD]

Allow the kids to imagine what they want, the mature are doing their bit, however humble,..and the kids will mature in time...all is as it should be in that context.

My thoughts exactly.

[vanlose kid]

check it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Apparent_.22hot_spots.22_in_some_photographs

As I said, I've already been exposed to all the arguments and explanations. If they are sufficient to convince you, then that is fine w/ me.

well, I can't say I'm 100% convinced, maybe 99%. This doc raised a lot of issues and that's where my 1% doubt really has come from...

that was good. thx just drew.

something i noticed around 2:26:43:





*

[vanlose kid]

The evidence of multiple localized light sources is the most compelling evidence, IMO.

I would be interested in seeing at least one photo you consider exemplifies this.

Sure no problem, and BTW I appreciate you guys encouraging civil dialogue on here even if you don't agree w/ me.

The main photo that first caught my eye was from the series where Aldrin is descending the LEM. In particular photo #AS11-40-5866

This is the photo that I was referencing when I mentioned the additional localized light source approx 10 feet up and to the left of the camera casting a hard shadow on the LEM (on the left side of the exit door). There is also a localized light source to the right of the camera creating a photographic "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot. There should not be a light source in either of these areas. Add to this observation the fact that there is already an incredible amount of ambient light in an area of total shadow (look at other photos of the shadow area of the LEM, it is quite dark), and something seems quite odd about the whole thing.

Having a bit of a background in photography, if *I* were to make a professional photo that imitated the moon landing but looked more "Spielbergian" and cinematic, that is just where I would put the lighting. Just an observation.

FWIW, when I first discovered this stuff I went into forums and discussed it ad nauseam. I know every alternate idea and theory and explanation under the sun at this point. So for me either the photos appear artificial to you or they don't, and I'm ok either way.

File:Apollo AS11-40-5866.jpg

mentioned in the doc justdrew linked to, too.

*

[brainpanhandler]

A larger version of that photo is available at this link drew provided:

check it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Apparent_.22hot_spots.22_in_some_photographs

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 0-5866.jpg

I don't find the argument very compelling. For one thing if there was a spotlight trained on Aldrin I would expect that the super shiny copper foil stuff with all the folds should have at least a few glaring hot spots. It doesn't.

[Gashweir]

The moon topic that has had me puzzled for the longest time, which is only tangentially related to the moon landing hoax idea (excuse me if people consider this off-topic), is transient lunar phenomena. Lunar observers and astronomers have been seeing inexplicable shapes and lights on the moon for many hundreds of years and I haven't heard plausible explanations for everything people have reported seeing. Wikipedia has a fairly reasonable summary of some of the better known events, along with a statement that seems to pretty well encapsulate why science has seemingly been loath to look too closely at the topic:

Claims of short-lived lunar phenomena go back at least 1,000 years, with some having been observed independently by multiple witnesses or reputable scientists. Nevertheless, the majority of transient lunar phenomenon reports are irreproducible and do not possess adequate control experiments that could be used to distinguish among alternative hypotheses to explain their origins. Thus, few reports concerning these phenomena are ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and the lunar scientific community rarely discusses these observations.

More on topic, I have been very curious about a few of the pieces of evidence held up by moon landing hoax proponents, but I freely admit that I lack the technical expertise to evaluate the claims. For one) Why is there no blast crater and no airborne dust in evidence in pictures of the landing site, and two) How did they manage to fit the all the fuel and equipment on the lunar lander needed to leave the moon and return to the orbiter? It just seems way too tiny to fit the gear, the men, and the fuel. However, as I said, I lack the technical expertise to have certainty one way or the other. In the balance though I believe men did reach the moon, and if there is any lunar coverup/conspiracy it's purpose is to conceal some of the things we found there.

The "moon rocks turning out to be petrified wood" thing is just funny.

Tangentially off-topic again, my grandfather was colleagues Luis Alvarez at Livermore Labs, and consulted with the Manhattan project team, but was not an official member. He also worked in England on setting up their radar installations during WW2, and helped develop chaff. He was also offered work with the OSS as part of a team trying to collect Nazi technology at the end of WW2. I remeber going into his study as a kid and being awed by the small moon rock (if that is really what it was), tiny cube of uranium (ditto), and his homemade electromagnetic pistol. He died when I was pretty young, and as a result I never got to ask him any of the hundreds of questions I would now like to ask about those interesting times, and the projects he worked on.

[barracuda]

airborne