Thread: Proof of Apollo 11 Fraud Lunar Landing

Great find O'nus. It certainly does give overwhelming evidence. The part near the end where you could see how bright the earth was did it for me.

That was an amazing video. Great find, O'nus.

It is interesting, but I have a very hard time believing the government would really make so many mistakes in such an elaborate plot to cover up the lunar landing. With so many mistakes, it would have been blown wide open long ago, imo...

...interesting

Thats a silly reason. They didn't get caught right away so it must be true? What kind of reasoning is that?

Does anyone here have a case to make that the moon landing was not a fraud given the evidence in the film?

Its interesting that on the youtube comment page not one person it would seem had anything other then praise for the film and they all seemed to come to the same conclusion the film did. Not one person refuted the video interesting. I wonder if anybody here can?

Alric, I did not say right away, but im sure people have been researching this possibility for a long time now, and you (not explicit you, but people for this video) mean to tell me with so many evident mistakes it hasnt been blown wide open yet?

dragon, here are some refutes to common arguing points, some of which are in this video they are not mine they are from jalexxi, but he is correct


15. "Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered.

Proves nothing.

14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.

Yes. That's why they put so much effort in making it succeed.

13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones:

1. First manmade satellite in earth orbit…
2. First man in space…
3. First man to orbit the earth…
4. First woman in space…
5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft…
6. The first space walk…
7. The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing…

This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

Again, that's why they made that huge effort.

12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone. See streaming video: "Buzz says, "Buzz Off!"

I've actually seen an interview with Buzz Aldrin on the subject.

11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

With Prop ID "C"


After: "C" Removed

To stop all conspiracy theories maybe. I've never heard of this, don't know the truth behind this. I do know they claim the C was dust/hair/anything on the film. It would make sense that they tried to perfect the photos. Besides, the government is not stupid. They won't erase that C if it really was anything and thereby focus the attention on it.

10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over. See streaming video: "Flag blowing in the wind."

There's no air to stop the flag. Once it starts waving because astronauts move it, it takes a long time for the Moon's gravity to make it stop again. That's the waving. You also can see quite clearly that there is no air; when astronauts move by the flag, the flag remains perfectly still, but if there was wind, the changed aerodynamics should make the flag respond.

9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind - see # 10!)

There's definite scorchmarks on the ground in the photos. Also, the enige was not on full thrust as it landed, it slowed down before it touched the ground.

8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.
http://www.moonmovie.com/photographic_analysis.ram
See our streaming video: "Photographic Analysis" for some eye opening examples.

Wrong. Sloping of the ground can make shadow seem to converge or diverge. You can test this yourself.

7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.
http://www.moonmovie.com/radiation_belt.ram
See streaming video: "Radiation Belts."

The Van Allen belt has enough radiation to kill you... if you remain there for about a year. It's a non-barrier.

6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous.

Professionals design spacecraft to be functional. Not to be understood by amateurs.

5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.

I don't know whether this is Celcius or Fahrenheit... But light can be reflected. That's why astronaut suits are white, to reflect the light of the sun. Heat shielding is not that big of a deal, since you only have to reflect incoming light; there's no air around that heats you up.

4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is absurd.

I've already commented on the designs. And I'll say two more things, maneuvering thrusters, and fuel. The fuel for the engine can drastically lower the center of gravity, and is not included in the designs. Maneuvering thrusters would have had much more impact then on Earth, due to lack of atmosphere and a lower gravity.

3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?

How can Collins not awnser the question about seeing stars? He would have heard from his fellow astronauts, would he not? I'd be inquisitive how the moon looks like if I was stuck in a command module all the time.

2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in "quality control" in such a short period of time.

As this article points out, there was immense pressure on the US. It's not unfair to assume they had near-limitless funding, and a lot can happen in two years. Certainly fixing a single problem.

1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in our documentary, proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. You won't see this anywhere else!

I've got some unedited, secret footage of this guy swimming around in money and calling the people who buy his documentary suckers. It proves he's a total sham.

Furthermore, I'd like to make another comment. The Russians were on top of the US's every move. They were bitter rivals. They had the resources of an entire country. They saw everything we saw. If they would have had ANY doubts whatsoever that the moonlanding was fake, they would have let the whole world know. But they remained silent. What does that tell you?

One piece of equipment left behind on the Apollo missions is still in operation. A mirror. Laser pulses are being sent to it still, and data is being collected. How did it get on the moon? By magic?


hope you enjoyed it!

Thanks, O'nus.

But now it is time for me to give my opinion of the issue raised. tkdyo, great job. This thread seems almost identical to the 9/11 conspiracy threads. It's a bunch of shaky circumstantial talk. A lot of conclusion leaping is involved in it. The documentary maker was far more assertive than his evidence was convincing. I can't prove that the moon landing was real any more than I can prove that the Vietnam War was real, but I am still not convinced that it was not.

As for the American flag on the moon, it was not a regular flag made of cloth. Notice how the flag stays horizontal and most of the time still. It is made to be uneven at different levels to present the illusion of movement resutlting from the slightest stimulus. The holding of it while walking was enough to make it look like it was waving. Do you really think NASA would pull off something that outrageous and happen to overlook the fact that there is video footage of a flag blowing in the wind?

I predict that a lot of skaterboy mallrats with self-appointed degrees in lunar physics are going to erupt with some agressive talk in this thread. I have relatives who work for NASA, and I am very tempted to email them a link to this thread just so they can watch a bunch of amateur lunar physics super-experts try to sound like they know stuff. I would be shocked if they get interested enough to even comment in this thread. I can assure you that there are tons of people out there who would be going off about this with proof and not just fuzzy bits of one eyebrow raising circumstantial evidence if the moon landing was really a fake.

By the way, I have a thread about a provable government conspiracy in this forum. That real conspiracy involves major questions about Trent Lott's involvement, and he is a U.S. Senator.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I predict that a lot of skaterboy mallrats with self-appointed degrees in lunar physics are going to erupt with some agressive talk in this thread. I have relatives who work for NASA, and I am very tempted to email them a link to this thread just so they can watch a bunch of amateur lunar physics super-experts try to sound like they know stuff. I would be shocked if they get interested enough to even comment in this thread. I can assure you that there are tons of people out there who would be going off about this with proof and not just fuzzy bits of one eyebrow raising circumstantial evidence if the moon landing was really a fake.

Man...no offense, but you're jumping the gun a bit on the condescending rhetoric aren't you, UM?

I know how you feel about stuff like this, and that's fair enough, but do you actually have anything about the content of the video, itself, to comment on?

Umm... usually with the whole 'fake Apollo' landings thing... I've always find everyone misses out a key piece of evidence. There's a laser reflector on the moon which was installed by one of the Apollo missions, maybe not 11 but I think one of the later ones, but I'm fuzzy on the details... due to the way the mirrors have to be installed in order to get the reflector to be able to send back laser pulses straight back from where they came, it required assembly on the moon, something that could only be achieved during the Apollo missions. An astronomer with access to a powerful enough laser as well, will be able to observe the pulses bouncing back around a second after being emitted (as it takes about a second or so for light to reach the surface of the moon from the Earth and come back), as long as you can point the laser accurately enough to the moon.

Correct me if I'm wrong on a couple of details, but as far as this conspiracy goes, it always fails to explain the presence of that laser reflector on the moon.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Man...no offense, but you're jumping the gun a bit on the condescending rhetoric aren't you, UM?

That's pretty condescending, Oneironaut. No offense. I was making a prediction and not talking about what has already happened, and you know that was warranted considering what has happened in such threads in the past.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I know how you feel about stuff like this, and that's fair enough, but do you actually have anything about the content of the video, itself, to comment on?

Yes. It's in the post you commented on.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's pretty condescending, Oneironaut. No offense.

Though you know it was warranted, given what you'd said in your post that had just passed.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes. It's in the post you commented on.

Ah. How quickly I'd forgotten. Thanks for the reminder.

(Why do I even try? )

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Though you know it was warranted, given what you'd said in your post that had just passed.

No, but a counterargument might have been worth something.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ah. How quickly I'd forgotten. Thanks for the reminder.

(Why do I even try? )

You tried?


To those of you who like government conspiracies:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=51059

lol @ universal mind's deux shameless self promotion

That was interesting. Especially how the narrator was telling you how to interpret the images. Really, there is nothing clear enough in that footage to determine if they really were in low earth orbit or not. Anything that seems 'conclusive' is merely because of the narrator's prompting.

Besides, if they were in low Earth orbit, it would have been ridiculously easy for the Soviets to spot them and blow the lid on the whole thing. No one has been able to explain the Soviet's inaction and until that is satisfactorily explained, I doubt anything will convince me of an Apollo hoax.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Umm... usually with the whole 'fake Apollo' landings thing... I've always find everyone misses out a key piece of evidence. There's a laser reflector on the moon which was installed by one of the Apollo missions, maybe not 11 but I think one of the later ones, but I'm fuzzy on the details... due to the way the mirrors have to be installed in order to get the reflector to be able to send back laser pulses straight back from where they came, it required assembly on the moon, something that could only be achieved during the Apollo missions. An astronomer with access to a powerful enough laser as well, will be able to observe the pulses bouncing back around a second after being emitted (as it takes about a second or so for light to reach the surface of the moon from the Earth and come back), as long as you can point the laser accurately enough to the moon.

Correct me if I'm wrong on a couple of details, but as far as this conspiracy goes, it always fails to explain the presence of that laser reflector on the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_l...ing_experiment

Didn`t see the video yet...

Thanks for that link... so yeah, multiple missions, including Apollo 11, placed down laser retroreflectors....

So yeah... there's the definitive proof.

It was an interesting view, but the narrator sure did cram her interpretation down the viewer's throught. It is right for a reporter to question or offer a possible conclusion/interpretation, but unless it is completely clear, please don't try to present the case as conclusive.

So far as the windowed view of Earth goes, who says they were trying to decieve? Looks like maybe they just had a hard time getting a good image, so they turned off the lighting, shuttered the other window, and got the best image they could. Unless someone can demonstrate clearly the expected size of the image vs. the actual size using some simple math, it's just not very convincing.

I couple of things I was curious, or observant to.

1. 1669 - We had the ability to actually go all the way to the moon, land on it, come back and ..ohh so smooth.
almost 40 years later we cannot launch an astronaut to a space station just outside our atmosphere at a consistent rate with out grave mistakes.

2.Taking that into account, look at the advances in technology since then. How rapidly this field has grown.
To this day know one has ever gone to the moon besides us and only once, 40 years ago.

3. The race for space was a HUGE war of superpowers superiority. USSR vs. USA.
Russia does not even acknowledge that we even went to the moon.

4. We now have telescopes that can see other galaxies. Why can't we get a picture of a flag?

Those are all just things that I feel make somewhat of an argument.
I have listened to another guy on NPR about this too. He had a compelling argument.

I don't know if I have a true opinion on this. I do know when people want to see something. They are so fixated on ONE thing that to them it seems obvious. There is no more looking outside the box.
Compelling arguments always do surface from people who believe "it" to be true.
OK not always.

Originally Posted by Howie

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]I couple of things I was curious, or observant to.

1. 1669 - We had the ability to actually go all the way to the moon, land on it, come back and ..ohh so smooth.
almost 40 years later we cannot launch an astronaut to a space station just outside our atmosphere at a consistent rate with out grave mistakes.

I wouldn't call the Apollo missions "smooth" at all. There were ten Apollo missions before the lunar landing. Apollo one resulted in the death of three astronauts. Apollo 13 was a near disaster, and almost cost the lives of three more. Apollo 18 had problems as well.

Compared to this, I think we do pretty darn well these days in terms of humans launched and returned safely.

2.Taking that into account, look at the advances in technology since then. How rapidly this field has grown.
To this day know one has ever gone to the moon besides us and only once, 40 years ago.

Only once? No, we landed six times, and orbited the moon on two other occasions. Why do people only remember 1969?

3. The race for space was a HUGE war of superpowers superiority. USSR vs. USA.
Russia does not even acknowledge that we even went to the moon.

Nor would we have acknowledged if they had beat us.

4. We now have telescopes that can see other galaxies. Why can't we get a picture of a flag?

We still don't have the necessary resolution. Here is a very simple explanation from wikipedia (source):

Another component of the moon hoax theory is based on the argument that professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.

To see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based telescope would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on Earth is only about 10 meters across. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects on the Moon as small as 60 meters across.

Thanks for clearing a lot of that up skysaw.

Oh and thanks -
I don't know if I have a true opinion on this. I do know when people want to see something. They are so fixated on ONE thing that to them it seems obvious. There is no more looking outside the box.
Compelling arguments always do surface from people who believe "it" to be true.
OK not always.

Here is another link with regards to the resolution http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/f...ection-22.html

Also some more skepticism. http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Rudolf75-81.html#ftn1

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunda...re_161103.html

But I think the most compelling argument is the picture below

Howie (and all skeptics), would you mind commenting on the laser rangefinders? Everyone`s ignored it.

Oh and also, during the space race, NASA was willing to take bigger risks (both human and financial) to ensure that they would be the first to arrive on the Moon. Since americans have already "made their point", there really is no reason for them to have anymore manned missions there. Also regarding safety records, out of 12 maned Apollo missions, 2 ended in catastrophic failure. Out of 120 space shuttle missions, 2 also ended in catastrophic failure. I would say the record improved dramatically...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, but a counterargument might have been worth something.

Well, I simply thought it was bad form, automatically dismissing the views of a bunch of people who haven't even opined, yet, simply because of their backgrounds (or lack thereof) without even hearing what it was they had to say about it. Non-professionals do, often, have the ability to make very valid points about many different subjects. I'm just the type that at least like to give them their chance, without writing them off before they even get a chance to speak, and I guess I was just disappointed that you wouldn't be willing to do the same. But we're already detracting from what this thread is about, so forget I even said anything, so I we don't go off on some unnecessary tangent any further than we need to.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You tried?

To try to gain some sort of perspective by getting your honest opinion about the content in the video? Yeah. I thought that would have been apparent when I asked for it.

I don't really care whether this was staged back then...

We are probably able now do make a moonlanding, so whatever...
I don't care...

But WHY???
Why would they stage such a thing?
That's really the only thing I'd like to know...