Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[8bitagent]

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

[BrandonD]

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

What I find even MORE interesting is how people who are gung-ho pro-Apollo, such as yourself, feel this irresistible desire to confront and mock such "craaaaazy" people as myself.

If there was a guy spouting totally crazy ideas, such as there is a purple castle on Jupiter, I wouldn't feel the need to respond to his comments or even acknowledge him. I'd just think "Anyone who agrees with him is a nut" and I'd just ignore him.

But that's not what the Apollo people seem to do, is it? They feel an irresistible urge to confront and "debate" or mock every single one of us "crazies" who come forth with an opinion that differs from the consensus.

If there was a guy spouting a different sort of crazy idea, like one of my relatives is a murderer, then that would be a very different story wouldn't it? Now it's personal, and I feel that I MUST respond and take this guy down.

And that's the crux of the whole thing, isn't it? Pro-Apollo people have a very strong personal and emotional attachment to the program which is why they can't allow people to have their own opinions without attacking and mocking them.

Note that I haven't mocked you, or any of the other "pro-Apollos" out there, have I? You threw the first stone my friend. Which is how it ALWAYS happens, without exception.

Anyone with a basic understanding of psychology can draw some very interesting conclusions from these things.

[Rory]

8bit - you have discussed and defended some pretty 'out-there' and seemingly 'on the fringes', stuff on your time here. And, for the most part, people didn't give you too hard a time.

Lets face it - the psychological trick whereby all discussion of conspiracy implies madness, applies just as much to you and yours as it does to anyone else.

So play nice - there will be times when you want to explore something and people won't grant you latitude.

[brainpanhandler]

8bit - you have discussed and defended some pretty 'out-there' and seemingly 'on the fringes', stuff on your time here.

Ain't that the truth.

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.

Pro-Apollo people have a very strong personal and emotional attachment to the program which is why they can't allow people to have their own opinions without attacking and mocking them.

I really doubt that's the central motivator very often at all. Honestly I think it's more a question of conspiracy cooties, low hanging fruit, and at least here there are sycophants that simply adopt whatever position Jeff has staked out (not that Jeff in any way invites that. In fact he's probably embarrassed by it).

[BrandonD]

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.

[lupercal]

Houston we have a problem . . .


hmm..

[BrandonD]

Houston we have a problem . . .


hmm..

I believe that is the photo which follows the photo I was mentioning. If you look at the previous photo, the hot spot on the boot is very apparent. And you can see the cast shadow on the entrance of the LEM in both photos. After observing this, it was a matter of reasoning - "where would a light source need to be and how close/narrow would it need to be to cast that sort of shadow or create that sort of shine effect?"

IMO opinion it is irrational to consider that something like ambient shine from the moon's surface would create the effects mentioned - it just simply would not happen.

I say just take these observations as something interesting, I'm not putting myself forward as an "expert" or anything like that.

[lupercal]

^ Brandon I was thinking it looks like a cut'n'paste from back in the days of exacto knives and rubber cement. Awfully nice job though.

[justdrew]

check it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examinatio ... hotographs

[BrandonD]

check it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examinatio ... hotographs

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.

[justdrew]

check it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examinatio ... hotographs

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...

[KUAN]

I'm reserving my judgement until I see the shape and mass of the next moon expedition. The last one was so flimsy and it's taking soooo long to get back.
It all happened in a time of deceptions - and in a world of deceptions, shouldn't one maintain a healthy scepticism?

[justdrew]

well, we/NASA/astronauts/etc 'accepted' a higher level of risk back then. Since it was all shitcan'ed a vast amount of work has to go into reinventing wheels. Domestic politics (read the psywar conducted by the republican party against the citizens of the US) has rendered any shared enterprise (other than killing people) unpossible for this country.

but if it was all faked, an enormous amount of effort would have had to have gone into it, the vast majority of the people conducting such work would also have had to be duped.

[KUAN]

Don't think anyone is suggesting nothing went up or came back - just that there was, to a greater or lesser extent, a degree of stage management..

[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)