How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

MrStuffins · 25-08-2010 04:18PM

This argument is ridiculous!

the Moon Landings were real. And even if you were able to travel through time, bring the CTers back to 1969 and actually BRING THEM TO THE MOON on the Apollo 11 mission, they still wouldn't see this as enough evidence!

Or perhaps NASA implanted the memories in their head, Total Recall style?

Tea 1000 · 25-08-2010 05:07PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

This argument is ridiculous!

the Moon Landings were real. And even if you were able to travel through time, bring the CTers back to 1969 and actually BRING THEM TO THE MOON on the Apollo 11 mission, they still wouldn't see this as enough evidence!

Or perhaps NASA implanted the memories in their head, Total Recall style?

However hard it is to believe that NASA made it to the moon, I find it even harder to believe that they managed to keep the 400,000-odd employees silent on the matter for over 40 years.
It's actually harder to fake than to go there!

Those people on the Air NewZealand 747 who looked out the window at the module re-entering must have been in on it too.

gbee · 25-08-2010 05:16PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

However hard it is to believe that NASA made it to the moon, .

It's been touched on already, NASA was so compartmentalised that no one knew the full picture.

Few are disputing that NASA's goal was in fact to put a man on the Moon, and that they did set off to go there, and that they were returned to Earth from orbit, what's debatable is the actual journey to the Moon and the actual landings.

I think they went to the Moon, but I've become a sceptic on the actual landing in 1969.

namloc1980 · 25-08-2010 05:24PM

bytey wrote: »

although I believe some missions may have landed

there is NO evidence - outside of what nasa tells you - that man landed on the moon

NONE

the record is faked , whether they landed or not
its still all faked / manipulated

the question we should be asking , and i say this every time another pointless 'did we land on the moon " thread starts ( which is getting OLD at this stage )

is whatever occured on the moon - why are the records faked ?

Just because some guy on youtube tells you it was faked doesn't actually mean it was. Youtube Warriors like Moonfaker (with a name like that we can see he has an agenda) and others like him present made up and ignorant 'facts' and play up to people's lack of understanding about the missions. Or can you prove us all wrong and prove the records are faked?

25-08-2010 07:45PM

gbee wrote: »

It's been touched on already, NASA was so compartmentalised that no one knew the full picture.

Well ignoring the fact that this little factoid seems to be totally made up by the deniers, what exactly is stopping current NASA employees from finding out and spilling the beans?
Or the thousands of people who'd have to be involved in the stuff I listed earlier? They'd all have to be in on it.
Or what about the thousands of extra people needed to fake everything? How come none of them have come forward?

gbee wrote: »

Few are disputing that NASA's goal was in fact to put a man on the Moon, and that they did set off to go there, and that they were returned to Earth from orbit, what's debatable is the actual journey to the Moon and the actual landings.

It's only debatable if you ignore facts, not learn anything about the science involved and listen to cranks on the internet.

gbee wrote: »

I think they went to the Moon, but I've become a sceptic on the actual landing in 1969.

Why? If it's possible for them to go to the moon, why exactly do you doubt they could in 1969?

Mahatma coat · 26-08-2010 12:44AM

thecommander wrote: »

Funny, I watched it in an IMAX theatre in Kennedy Space Centre in Florida, run by NASA. Must have been my imagination.

Couldnt possibly be that NASA are less than forthright with the Truth

Eh

I have the DVD at home somewhere Thats where I saw it

gbee · 26-08-2010 10:05AM

King Mob wrote: »

How come none of them have come forward?

Why? If it's possible for them to go to the moon, why exactly do you doubt they could in 1969?

A few key accidents and deaths which are on record only add to the conspiracy.

Because I know NASA had a contingency plan and film footage to use in the event of failure. I am 100% convinced that we've been shown some parts of this film as real footage. This is regardless of whether the actual landing was real or not.

When one ties in other CTs, a pattern emerges which is clearly showing the US internal agencies cover-up almost routinely, even if unnecessary. It makes me convinced that they would have had a vested interest in either the success or failure of the NASA 1969 mission, they've interfered in all aspects of American society, NASA can be no exception.

What remains, in my mind is that fake moon landings were prepared for and filmed in London, whether with NASA's knowledge or compliance or secretly and independently by the inter services agencies is unclear.

Because of the way NASA was getting its information, it would be easy enough to intercept either their transmissions or broadcasts.

gbee · 26-08-2010 10:10AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Couldnt possibly be that NASA are less than forthright with the Truth Eh I have the DVD at home somewhere Thats where I saw it

NASA did a lot of filming, too much of it was amateurish, read up on the film director, Stanley Kubrick. He stage managed much of the launchings and interspersed live footage with film inserts ~ this is in the DVD, it should be fairly obvious and we are not talking about that being 'fake' it's theatre/documentary.

But read up on Stanley Kubrick's life and why he never left England, find the interviews with his widow.

Yitzhak Rabin · 26-08-2010 10:11AM

gbee wrote: »

Because I know NASA had a contingency plan and film footage to use in the event of failure. I am 100% convinced that we've been shown some parts of this film as real footage. This is regardless of whether the actual landing was real or not.

How do you know this?

26-08-2010 12:11PM

gbee wrote: »

A few key accidents and deaths which are on record only add to the conspiracy.

Which ones?

gbee wrote: »

Because I know NASA had a contingency plan and film footage to use in the event of failure.

Evidence for this?
You realise the difference between actually knowing something and making it up right?

gbee wrote: »

I am 100% convinced that we've been shown some parts of this film as real footage. This is regardless of whether the actual landing was real or not.

Ok which parts? And how do you know?

gbee wrote: »

When one ties in other CTs, a pattern emerges which is clearly showing the US internal agencies cover-up almost routinely, even if unnecessary. It makes me convinced that they would have had a vested interest in either the success or failure of the NASA 1969 mission, they've interfered in all aspects of American society, NASA can be no exception.

And I'm such if you tie in any other fictional nonsense you can get any other patterns you like.

gbee wrote: »

What remains, in my mind is that fake moon landings were prepared for and filmed in London, whether with NASA's knowledge or compliance or secretly and independently by the inter services agencies is unclear.

But you realise and in your mind does not equal reality right?

gbee wrote: »

Because of the way NASA was getting its information, it would be easy enough to intercept either their transmissions or broadcasts.

Again how do you know this?

And assuming all your unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims are true why exactly did they need to use fake footage at all?

alastair · 26-08-2010 12:21PM

gbee wrote: »

NASA did a lot of filming, too much of it was amateurish, read up on the film director, Sam Pekinpah. He stage managed much of the launchings and interspersed live footage with film inserts ~ this is in the DVD, it should be fairly obvious and we are not talking about that being 'fake' it's theatre/documentary.

But read up on Sam's life and why he never left England, find the interviews with his widow.

Peckinpah never made any movie for NASA (he'd be about the last director you'd associate with a NASA film!)- and he lived mostly in the US and Mexico and only lived in England while he was making Straw Dogs.

It 'seems' like you might be referring to Stanley Kubrick, but who knows?

Tordelback · 26-08-2010 12:43PM

Approximately 50kg of moonrock has been identified from meteorites on the Earth's surface, in total, ever. However, about 400kg of moonrock was brought back from the combined Apollo missions, and maybe 50Kg of that has been analysed by various labs around the world. In addition NASA distributed some 200 samples to governments around the world. I've touched the one on display in the Kennedy Space Centre. Our own remaining lump is on display on the National Museum if you want a look (our other chunk is currently lost in a landfill in Finglas, despite being worth about €1 million).

Obviously the CTer will ask "how do you know any of it is real?". The answer would be why would you fake such a vast amount, and make it available for analysis, when so little of it is present on Earth? To restate: as much Apollo moonrock has been made available for study as has ever been recovered by any other means.

Further, the Soviets acquired their own samples with their Luna robots, and these match the analysis of the Apollo lumps, just as their farside pictures match the Apollo photos. Face it folks, we went to the moon and lived to tell the take.

gbee · 26-08-2010 12:46PM

alastair wrote: »

It 'seems' like you might be referring to Stanley Kubrick, but who knows?

Yup, you'd think I'd know my directors. It is of course Stanley. My bad.

gbee · 26-08-2010 12:56PM

King Mob wrote: »

Which ones??

Anyone who has to ask so many questions would infer you have not followed nor have any interest in following the various published information that is available.

As far as I'm concerned it's like religion, you read the Bible, I read the Bible, I see issues where you don't.

I've had issues with X-Ray machines and film at airports, you probably have not.

alastair · 26-08-2010 01:08PM

gbee wrote: »

Yup, you'd think I'd know my directors. It is of course Stanley. My bad.

Of course it was.

My major problem with the Kubrick faked the landing theory is that he'd have taken about ten years longer to fake it than it would have taken to do it for real.

26-08-2010 01:08PM

gbee wrote: »

Anyone who has to ask so many questions would infer you have not followed nor have any interest in following the various published information that is available.

As far as I'm concerned it's like religion, you read the Bible, I read the Bible, I see issues where you don't.

I'm pretty familar with what you're probably talking about, because you're really just parroting what the cranks are telling you.
I imagine you're referring to the astronauts of Apollo 1 among others.
I also imagine you've tons of proof that these are in fact murders.

gbee wrote: »

I've had issues with X-Ray machines and film at airports, you probably have not.

Not following you here...
Are you making the ridiculous and long debunked claim that the film couldn't survive in space?

gbee · 26-08-2010 01:19PM

alastair wrote: »

Of course it was.

My major problem with the Kubrick faked the landing is that he'd have taken about ten years longer to fake it than it would have taken to do it for real.

Now, that thought has crossed my mind too, actually. I did seem out of character to rush away and do the movie in an afternoon.

gbee · 26-08-2010 01:26PM

King Mob wrote: »

Are you making the ridiculous and long debunked claim that the film couldn't survive in space?

Oh no, film can survive in space but the missing stars are the clue, not that the film did not record any stars, but it should have looked like it did.

What should be the argument in the context of CT is that the landing took place somewhere else, because the star pattern was not right, instead we have no stars.

The picture should have looked like they were taken on another galaxy with unfamiliar 'star' patterns.

26-08-2010 01:34PM

gbee wrote: »

Oh no, film can survive in space but the missing stars are the clue, not that the film did not record any stars, but it should have looked like it did.

What should be the argument in the context of CT is that the landing took place somewhere else, because the star pattern was not right, instead we have no stars.

The picture should have looked like they were taken on another galaxy with unfamiliar 'star' patterns.

The lack of stars have been explained time and time and time again.

The explanation is very simple: the cameras where set for daylight exposure.

Now can you please explain why this explanation is impossible?

And lets assume you can explain this (which I doubt) why exactly couldn't they just use the proper star patterns?

gbee · 26-08-2010 01:50PM

King Mob wrote: »

And lets assume you can explain this (which I doubt) why exactly couldn't they just use the proper star patterns?

Well you see I was not talking about 'stars'. I used the word star because that's what's become popular.

If you look-up astro photography you'll learn how images are built up from space telescopes and how they make filters to filter out the extraneous radiation.

They do not know what is radiation and what is a star or galaxy until they can compare superimposed images. It's rather like the ICE technology for removing dust from modern CCD/CMOS sensors

We are using early film in the 1969 NASA mission, as an aside we need to thank NASA for the huge jump in quality for our colour film in the following years, but back then the emulsion was triple layered and had two seperation layers, all of which would have been exposed to radiation and the tell-tale star pattern emerge.

26-08-2010 02:05PM

gbee wrote: »

Well you see I was not talking about 'stars'. I used the word star because that's what's become popular.

So you're not talking about stars but you use the term stars with no indication you mean anything else....?
Right....

gbee wrote: »

If you look-up astro photography you'll learn how images are built up from space telescopes and how they make filters to filter out the extraneous radiation.

Space telescopes?
That a technical term?

gbee wrote: »

They do not know what is radiation and what is a star or galaxy until they can compare superimposed images. It's rather like the ICE technology for removing dust from modern CCD/CMOS sensors

We are using early film in the 1969 NASA mission, as an aside we need to thank NASA for the huge jump in quality for our colour film in the following years, but back then the emulsion was triple layered and had two seperation layers, all of which would have been exposed to radiation and the tell-tale star pattern emerge.

Ok, 1) can you back any of that up?
2) You understand the difference between visible light and other radiation right?
3) You understand that any change on the film would not show up on digital reproductions unless there's actually visible light.
4) How do you know that the film has not been exposed to radiation?

So again ignoring the giant holes and lack of support in your claims, what should we see in the photos and why couldn't they fake it?

gbee · 26-08-2010 02:15PM

Just a comment on the 'stars', the lack of a star pattern is significant. This is not the same as the film recording actual stars whilst on the Moon. The star pattern should be visible all over the image, but as we have movement in the developing stage of the layers, anywhere that there was colour the effect would be masked considerably.

The effect should show up in shadows and areas of sky and look like stars.

In the absence of these 'stars' I'd suspect either manipulation or post processing or they are fake.

Some say that they can see 'stars' showing through equipment and so forth, in this event I'd say it shows more proof as the radiation pattern, which should look like stars will effect the whole negative or transparency.

So being able to see 'stars' through heavy equipment is an indication to me that the image could be genuine.

To put it simply, the absence of 'stars' is puzzling, the presence of 'stars' shining through objects is actually to be expected.

26-08-2010 02:19PM

gbee wrote: »

Just a comment on the 'stars', the lack of a star pattern is significant. This is not the same as the film recording actual stars whilst on the Moon. The star pattern should be visible all over the image, but as we have moveable in the developing stage of the layers, anywhere that there was colour the effect would be masked considerably.

The effect should show up in shadows and areas of sky and look like stars.

In the absence of these 'stars' I'd suspect either manipulation or post processing or they are fake.

Some say that they can see 'stars' showing through equipment and so forth, in this event I'd say it show more proof as the radiation pattern, whihc should look like stars will effect the whole negative or transparency.

So being able to see 'stars' through heavy equipment is an indication to me that the image could be genuine.

To put it simply, the absence of 'stars' is puzzling, the presence of 'stars' shining through objects is actually to be expected.

Again, where are you getting this nonsense from exactly?
Are all the photos fake then?
Are all the photos from every space mission ever fake?

Because there is not a single example of the effect you're claiming.

It's almost like you're making it up entirely.

gbee · 26-08-2010 02:24PM

King Mob wrote: »

It's almost like you're making it up entirely.

Look up astro photography. Anyway, even if I was, this is the CT forum. If this has not been exposed before, I better rush and make a U-Tube video of it.

26-08-2010 02:29PM

gbee wrote: »

Look up astro photography.

I'm a huge fan of space and astronomy.
Not one single visible light picture from a space mission shows this effect you're claiming.
Not one.

gbee wrote: »

Anyway, even if I was, this is the CT forum.

So you see no problem making stuff up to support your position then?

gbee wrote: »

If this has not been exposed before, I better rush and make a U-Tube video of it.

Or you can actually back up the nonsense you're claiming? Like with an expert explaining this effect for a respected source? Or even a single picture exhibiting it?

But then you're making it up so I don't expect this anytime soon.

gbee · 26-08-2010 02:32PM

King Mob wrote: »

I'm a huge fan of space and astronomy.
Not one single visible light picture from a space mission shows this effect you're claiming..

Well, they're all fake so then. Thanks. I didn't know this.

Yitzhak Rabin · 26-08-2010 02:34PM

gbee wrote: »

Well, they're all fake so then. Thanks. I didn't know this.

For those of us with a genuine interest. Could explain why the photos should be as you described.

What is your source for making that claim?

If you don't have a source, then what is your reason for believing things like "Seeing stars through equipment, is what we should expect?"

gbee · 26-08-2010 02:42PM

yekahs wrote: »

If you don't have a source, then what is your reason for believing things like "Seeing stars through equipment, is what we should expect?"

Look, I told you in detail, go study astro photography yourself. I'm not a teacher and I'm clearly sending you the wrong messages.

Yitzhak Rabin · 26-08-2010 03:13PM

gbee wrote: »

Look, I told you in detail, go study astro photography yourself. I'm not a teacher and I'm clearly sending you the wrong messages.

Sorry, I thought that this was a public discussion forum. I forgot it was a blog where you make claims and get pissy when asked to back them up.

--Kaiser-- · 26-08-2010 03:44PM

yekahs wrote: »

Sorry, I thought that this was a public discussion forum. I forgot it was a blog where you make claims and get pissy when asked to back them up.

I've come to expect nothing less from this forum

How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

Comments