Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[BrandonD]

A few things that don't make sense to me regarding the supposed hoax:

Assuming they faked the landings, why did they continue doing it for years? It would only increase the chance of someone screwing up and exposing the whole thing.

And if it's so obviously fake, why wasn't the Soviet Union all over it with evidence and charts showing exactly why it was fake? It would be a huge win for them.

Moon rocks: Both the US and the Soviet Union retrieved samples from the Moon. If the US samples were faked they shouldn't match up with the samples from the Soviet Union and someone would have noticed. And if the Soviet samples were faked too, how did they manage to fake two sets of samples and have them agree on all the details? And why are the old "fake" samples not completely different from newer samples? If they never went there they couldn't know the composition of the rocks well enough to fake them accurately.

Pictures of the Apollo landing site from new orbiters. Are those faked too?

And what about the reflectors placed on the Moon by astronauts that anyone with a powerful laser can check?

If you are genuinely interested in the subject then you should look into it, because every one of your questions has been thoroughly addressed.

[tapitsbo]

Where should I start looking BrandonD?

[Nordic]

The camera is located underneath the flag pointed toward the ladder. You can see what is either a ridiculously huge lens or else a protective port for the lens enclosed inside.

That answers that question. It's always bugged me that this camera placement appeared to be on a spindly leg of the module but now I can see that area is packed with a bunch of gear.

I'm still on the fence. The more I look into it the more I see some glaring issues but I'm not 100% convinced yet that it was a hoax.

[tapitsbo]

Am I the only one noting the glaring resemblance to an ankh/the female reproductive organs re: the lander?

[DrEvil]

Nordic wrote...

Also, since I was a kid- where was the camera that recorded Armstrong's first steps onto the lunar surface?

Forget about everything else Dr. Evil, can you address the issue of how the camera got to the spot to film Armstrong?

All the 'yeah but what about' arguments supporting an 'actual' going to the moon deserve less consideration if a simple thing like a camera placement question cannot be addressed.

The official story is that the camera was in the lunar module, and that Buzz Aldrin pulled a cord that "deployed" the camera and set it operating.

These sort of things do not seem improbable to the proponents of the official story. There is a will to believe in my opinion that makes this a difficult subject to discuss. It is like 9/11 or JFK, there are lots of emotions and personal identities invested in the subject.

OK, so riddle me this: Assuming the landing was faked, don't you think they would have taken care to not use "impossible" camera angles?

[DrEvil]

Where should I start looking BrandonD?

Yeah - links please.

[tapitsbo]

Interesting how both sides of the moon hoax debate can serve as talking points for both sides of the culture war tbh.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

OK, so riddle me this: Assuming the landing was faked, don't you think they would have taken care to not use "impossible" camera angles?

Given that the whole mission was impossible from the get-go, I don't think it really mattered that the camera angle was also impossible. After the Oswald/magic bullet debacle, they knew the public would believe anything they tell them as long as it was on TV.

[NaturalMystik]

OK, so riddle me this: Assuming the landing was faked, don't you think they would have taken care to not use "impossible" camera angles?

I've been thinking about this lately and was trying to imagine what might be a low budget production rush job. A project lands on your plate, you have a ton of video and photo footage to edit/splice/whatever... Timelines are probably tight, and you are trying to tell a story with a limited amount of content, and there are no re-shoots. So, you use what you have. Sometimes when you get into the zone you might accidentally use a photo from pile B forgetting that it breaks some obscure rule in the fine print. As much as I think a hoax like this would have had to have been very tightly controlled and intelligently planned, I think there is a certain amount of hubris and ego in the perpetrators... as in, "looks good to me, who the eff would ever study shadow angles, they'll buy this, print it!".

If if was faked, they may have just tried to get as much footage as possible while filming, and throw away what doesn't make sense in the editing room. But human error is always a monkey wrench, maybe their in house physicist was on a sick day and couldn't make the edit.

[PufPuf93]

Moon rocks --- partial or total hoax --- or maybe something else like real moon rocks switched out for faux.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... -fake.html

'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake

A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.

Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.


Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity.


"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."


The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.


J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.


"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.

Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s.

The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.

Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.

"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.

[BrandonD]

Where should I start looking BrandonD?

For fraud regarding the photographs, I posted a link earlier in the thread referencing what I consider to be a thoroughly scientific parallax study. This one comes to mind quickly because I someone pointed me to this study in the past year, the rest I've not read in a long time.

I will find more, but that is a good start. Out of all the elements of this mystery, I consider fakery of the iconic Apollo photographs to be the element with the strongest supporting evidence.

This leads one to immediately wonder: if the photos were faked, why were they faked?

If I were forced to make a bet, it would be that the entire thing was staged. Among other reasons, this is one of the simplest and most Occam-esque answer to the question above. It requires no ancient alien moon bases and things like that.

But I'm sure that someone like Richard Dolan would surmise that, alongside this hollywood space program being staged for the purposes of social manipulation, we were also operating a legitimate and covert space program, involving astronauts with names we've never heard of and who we wouldn't miss if they died horribly during the missions.

I honestly don't know the answer. The analytical side of my brain works like a probability demonstration I once saw at Nasa, of all places. Balls dropped down from the top of this glass container and collected in channels below, arranging themselves in a fairly accurate bell curve. So channel A currently has the highest stack of balls and therefore seems the most likely, but I still refrain from making a "conclusion" because I don't have personal first-hand evidence. I think there are many possibilities and unknown variables in the world, maybe channel B will seem more likely when presented with new info.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

Re Kubrick & the Moon Landings:

A little throwaway paragraph from page 286 of Vincent LoBrutto's biography I thought was interesting:

"[In early 1966] The senior NASA administrator for the Apollo project, George Mueller, and astronaut chief Deke Slayton came to visit the 2001 set. Mueller looked around and dubbed Kubrick's space project 'NASA East.' 'You must have been conned by a used-capsule salesman,' the laconic Slayton joked to Kubrick."

[SonicG]

For All Mankind is a great collection of footage although it is put together to create the narrative of a single moon landing.
Call me dumb, but I find the flyover, space walk, rover driving footage very credible...

[82_28]

I find it credible as being real as well. I find it credible it was a hoax too. Since we weren't there, we'll actually never know. I am prepared to believe either and accept both simultaneously. The dichotomy is definitely interesting no matter which way you look at it, as it does exist. Since we are talking about it. . .

[semper occultus]

.......we at least need to mention the staging of the global televised panopoly of the moon landing or "landing" as a mass psychodrama / ritual of extraordinary psychic power - whether genuine or not.....( and they don't use the real blood and flesh of an incarnated god at Communion apparently )

......the profane can but speculate as to what arcane workings were being performed by the olympian level occult initiates to channel and mould this energy to unknown purpose....