Thread: Proof of Apollo 11 Fraud Lunar Landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI

What do you think...?

~

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?

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.

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...

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...

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

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...

Deterrance.

Let us not forget the wars at the time.

Nuclear weapons and computers are brother and sister.

However, I would not suggest debating about the truth of it or not; none of us are truly involved in the matter. I just think it is interesting to scrutinize the data.

~

Theres one thing that bothers me; this mirror argument. I've heard about the mirror on the moon plenty of times and since I've never doubted the lunar landing, its been good enough for me but this video is awfully convincing and it makes me wonder; has anyone here actually seen this mirror, or bounced laser beams off of it? Everyone I've ever heard talk about it hasn't actually seen it for themselves. If NASA is lying, they could just as easily be lying about the mirror. Has anyone seen it or at least know someone else who has seen it for themselves?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Theres one thing that bothers me; this mirror argument. I've heard about the mirror on the moon plenty of times and since I've never doubted the lunar landing, its been good enough for me but this video is awfully convincing and it makes me wonder; has anyone here actually seen this mirror, or bounced laser beams off of it? Everyone I've ever heard talk about it hasn't actually seen it for themselves. If NASA is lying, they could just as easily be lying about the mirror. Has anyone seen it or at least know someone else who has seen it for themselves?

You would need a pretty powerful laser and a way to analyze the telemetry. All I can do is get sources but any conspiracy theorists would conveniently claim that they are fake.

As for the video, I didn't see any conclusive evidence whatsoever, the narrator just claims stuff the whole time.

That video makes me laugh. Especially the comments. But you know the funniest part? I could make people believe grass is blue with the right 'evidence' and witty wording.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You would need a pretty powerful laser and a way to analyze the telemetry. All I can do is get sources but any conspiracy theorists would conveniently claim that they are fake.

As for the video, I didn't see any conclusive evidence whatsoever, the narrator just claims stuff the whole time.

Personally, I think the shot of Neil Armstrong in between the camera and the window with the Earth completely filling the window is pretty convincing. What do you think?

Nasa needed $$ to start up ! how do u think they could have done it without making the whole population believe they landed on moon? ahahaha.... i was watching soem clips which were shown world wide, people holdingtheyr hands with tears all around the world.

Not knowing that in 40 years people would have discovered that its fake. Gosh, how dare they ruin our pride just for the sake of $$.

Originally Posted by Howie

1. 1669 - We had the ability to actually go all the way to the moon.

Shit. Those Tudors must have been quite the scientists.

I was thinking something quite similar when I read that

NASA: What, and you're perfect?

lolol

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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?

Like many of the propaganda videos on Youtube, when you try to post a comment, you get a message that says, "comment pending approval". They only post comments that agree with them. That is why it looks so one-sided. I don't think they would do that if they didn't believe what they said could be torn apart by the actual experts.

I just watched the video again, trying very hard to catch that narrator's point about the Earth image. Like I said earlier, it was pretty much all assertion. She said that if the camera had been completely enveloping the window, the Earth image would have looked different. Where in the world does she get that assertion? She also said that an arm got in the way a few times. How does she know it was an arm? And what did Neil Armstrong say to refute the possiblity that an arm could get in the way? He just said that the window was "completely filled up with a T.V. camera". Couldn't it be that without the camera actually touching the glass? Couldn't he have been talking about the image in the camera and not the physical location of the camera? And why would being 130,000 miles from Earth mean the camera would have to be touching the window to get the image they had? Cameras zoom in and zoom out, don't they? It looks to me like a bunch of strange assertion not backed by anything.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Shit. Those Tudors must have been quite the scientists.

Actually, it would have been the Stewarts, if my history is correct... the Tudor dynasty ended in 1603 with the death of Queen Elizabeth I... just an FYI

Originally Posted by Mystic7

NASA: What, and you're perfect?

lolol

LOL this one's better: http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/billboards71b.htm