How many believe the moon landing was...

[ClonedSIM]

First can you show me where I have exhibited any fear or hatred of the Government ?

And I quote:
For anyone who studies up on our governments operations at the time into such things as propaganda, they'll see just how incredibly this whole scenario would fit the mold of a Government authorized propaganda device.

In My case I understand enough about Radiation and Physics to feel safe in assuming that the whole Moon thing was a dog and pony show put on for the benefit of the Ruskies and other such nations like China.

I'm sure the scientist at N.A.S.A. also are counting on mans ability to conquer such problems here in the 21st century and thus validate their supposed journey.

These things can be easily cleared up by N.A.S.A. all they would need to do is release the data they claimed to use, for shielding the Astronauts from such Gama radiation levels. So reasonable people outside their organization can confirm their calculations.

Each of the above statements are clear examples where you exhibit mistrust and dislike of NASA and their US Government backers.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kentucky Kache]

The science advisor that I mentioned is Brian O'leary. He was an astronaut in the 60's, and then served as science advisor for NASA during the Apollo moon missions. Here is his quote taken from video.

"It's possible that NASA could have covered it up, just in order to cut corners and to be the first to allegedly go to the moon".

Paul Lazarus, producer of Capricorn one, had this to say (from same video).

"I believe, had they wanted to, that NASA could indeed have pulled off the greatest hoax of all time...never sent anyone to the moon, and recreated (or we created) it in a television studio. And I believe it could have been done at that time. Technology was in place".

BTW, Paul Lazarus' budget was $4.8 million. NASA's budget was $40 BILLION.

Another man who believes the moon landing to be fake is Bill Casing, an engineer at Rocketdyne during the Apollo mission. Rocketdyne is the company that designed the Apollo rockets.

 

[ClonedSIM]

I am sure that it was real and no it wasn't made in no Hollywood basement !

But my only question about the whole thing is...



Why and what is the purpose ? It has been 40 years and we still can't use the moon, for anything other than what God has intended it to be used for ! I geuss it is all for just braggin' rights !

The purpose was beating Russia. If Russia had beaten us there (they were ahead of us), then they, and not us, would have become the superpower. We were determined to not let JFK's words fail, because that would be America failing.

How do you know for sure that it wasn't all filmed in a studio? Have you seen the "C" rock? They say it was a hair. Only if Bigfoot lives on the moon.
BTW, "C" is also on the ground next to the rock. That is how they do props in movie studios.

The hair was on the film, not on the surface.......

I have a feeling you already know this, but refuse to accept it.....

You're right, they do say the hair was on the lens or film. What they DON'T say is why there is also a "C" next to the rock. They don't say much about the fact that studios use props with numbers or letters to identify them. Studios put a corresponding number or letter on the ground next to where the prop will be set. Someone simply forgot to take care of business with the props.
Regardless of how brilliant a criminal mind, or how well he plans, there is some little something, due to human error, that will tell on him. I learned that from watching Colombo.

One thing I've learned about the movie industry is that when props are given their stage marking, that marking is typically set on the side of the prop intended to be unseen by the camera, so there's no mistaking what side should face the camera. If this was a prop built for this filming, then why did they build the entire rock, instead of just a single side of it intended for filming? If this is a natural rock that was chosen for the film, why is that C perfectly smooth, rather than rough and bumpy, the way you would expect a drawing on an uneven surface to be?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Evening my firend bull: Assuming for the moment that the first landing was not actually accomplished as you suggest, how did they manage to cover the subsequent trips? Each trip would be increasing exponentially the chance of discovering any irregularities or faked operations.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I don't want to speak for someone else, but what I've already said about that is the simplest, most probable reason I can think of. The first "landing" fooled the world, including the Russians. They had no reason to look for evidence against something that they had seen with their own eyes, and understood by sound scientific theory. And even if they did suspect something, to try to debunk it would have made them look like a bunch of loons. Just look at this thread. But I'm a big boy...I can take it. People get angry at those who don't believe exactly like they do. Those who dare go against the established view are backward, uneducated conspiracy theorists, who know nothing of reality and scientific facts. No one wants to be looked at like that, including the Russians.

That's my view. I'm interested to hear the views of others, for or against.

So, if I'm understanding your thoughts here, the conspiracy theories only began long after the initial landing? Any ideas on what might have prompted this line of thought to begin? The 70's..... 'shrooms and weed, perhaps?? They are known causes of undue paranoia, after all....

You'll see noted in red where you began the attacks by refering to drugs as the cause of my Paranoia.

I was responding to Kentucky Kache in this post, and I was asking a question, not making a reference.

 

[PBK]

READ & HEED!

Anyone who is unable to participate in this discussion in a civil and respectful manner, or who refuses to observe forum terms of use, is advised to withdraw from it—now.

I do not intend to continue editing irresponsible posts when far easier— albeit more drastic and permanent— corrective measures are readily available.

If you refuse to put an end to this problem, rest assured that I am more than willing to do so.

This is not a suggestion or request. It is your final notice to obey the rules or pay the price.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

One thing I've learned about the movie industry is that when props are given their stage marking, that marking is typically set on the side of the prop intended to be unseen by the camera, so there's no mistaking what side should face the camera. If this was a prop built for this filming, then why did they build the entire rock, instead of just a single side of it intended for filming? If this is a natural rock that was chosen for the film, why is that C perfectly smooth, rather than rough and bumpy, the way you would expect a drawing on an uneven surface to be?

I'm guessing this was done by people who were not professional movie makers. If you wanted this to remain a secret, you wouldn't let Hollywood in on it. I have no problem thinking that those who did this work had some knowledge of movie making, at least a crash course, but not enough to keep from making a few rookie mistakes.

Why would they make a prop rock that they couldn't walk around while filming? After all, they did walk around while filming, so they wouldn't have wanted a rock that looked like a rock only on one side.

We can't see the "C" close up without distortion (but good enough to tell it's a C), so I don't know that it is perfectly smooth. If it is smooth, why couldn't they make a smooth letter on a rough surface?

 

[Dimeman]

How many believe the moon landing was real? What are your biggest reasons?

How many believe the moon landing was faked? What are your biggest reasons?

The photos from the astronauts who were on the moon are as real as the whole mission.
You forget, Photoshop didn't exist in 1969 or the early 1970's when they released all the photos and re-played the film of the mission.
The film strip cameras had an extra lens so any radiation would not affect the film. The extra lens had the small crosses as a sort of reference to shoot the picture. In some of the pictures the crosses were at an angle.....they cropped and rotated the picture so the object in the picture would look "level".
The video was taken in a completely different atmosphere as earth...it wasn't completely zero gravity and it wasn't earth gravity and the moon has totally different ground matter compared to the earth and is smaller.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

How many believe the moon landing was real? What are your biggest reasons?

How many believe the moon landing was faked? What are your biggest reasons?

The photos from the astronauts who were on the moon are as real as the whole mission.
You forget, Photoshop didn't exist in 1969 or the early 1970's when they released all the photos and re-played the film of the mission.
The film strip cameras had an extra lens so any radiation would not affect the film. The extra lens had the small crosses as a sort of reference to shoot the picture. In some of the pictures the crosses were at an angle.....they cropped and rotated the picture so the object in the picture would look "level".
The video was taken in a completely different atmosphere as earth...it wasn't completely zero gravity and it wasn't earth gravity and the moon has totally different ground matter compared to the earth and is smaller.

Dimeman, thank you for helping to keep us on track.
It's my opinion that, while photoshop didn't exist in the 1969, video and photo editing did. But, your explanation makes sense.

 

[Dimeman]

How many believe the moon landing was real? What are your biggest reasons?

How many believe the moon landing was faked? What are your biggest reasons?

The photos from the astronauts who were on the moon are as real as the whole mission.
You forget, Photoshop didn't exist in 1969 or the early 1970's when they released all the photos and re-played the film of the mission.
The film strip cameras had an extra lens so any radiation would not affect the film. The extra lens had the small crosses as a sort of reference to shoot the picture. In some of the pictures the crosses were at an angle.....they cropped and rotated the picture so the object in the picture would look "level".
The video was taken in a completely different atmosphere as earth...it wasn't completely zero gravity and it wasn't earth gravity and the moon has totally different ground matter compared to the earth and is smaller.

Dimeman, thank you for helping to keep us on track.
It's my opinion that, while photoshop didn't exist in the 1969, video and photo editing did. But, your explanation makes sense.

Here is something to think about.....

While it is very true that there was photo and video editing back then, most photographs that were "altered" at that time, can easily be spoted with todays technology, and so far....nobody has posted the absolute proof of such altered photgraphs or videos of the Apollo moon landing missions.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Here is something to think about.....

While it is very true that there was photo and video editing back then, most photographs that were "altered" at that time, can easily be spoted with todays technology, and so far....nobody has posted the absolute proof of such altered photgraphs or videos of the Apollo moon landing missions.

I will agree that no one has absolute proof, either for, or against, the moon landing. I contend that what we have is enough to, at least, make us consider the possibility that all is not what it seems. Someone who DOES have proof is NASA, but they ain't talkin'

 

[Dimeman]

How many believe the moon landing was real? What are your biggest reasons?

How many believe the moon landing was faked? What are your biggest reasons?

The photos from the astronauts who were on the moon are as real as the whole mission.
You forget, Photoshop didn't exist in 1969 or the early 1970's when they released all the photos and re-played the film of the mission.
The film strip cameras had an extra lens so any radiation would not affect the film. The extra lens had the small crosses as a sort of reference to shoot the picture. In some of the pictures the crosses were at an angle.....they cropped and rotated the picture so the object in the picture would look "level".
The video was taken in a completely different atmosphere as earth...it wasn't completely zero gravity and it wasn't earth gravity and the moon has totally different ground matter compared to the earth and is smaller.

Dimeman, thank you for helping to keep us on track.
It's my opinion that, while photoshop didn't exist in the 1969, video and photo editing did. But, your explanation makes sense.

Here is something to think about.....

While it is very true that there was photo and video editing back then, most photographs that were "altered" at that time, can easily be spoted with todays technology, and so far....nobody has posted the absolute proof of such altered photgraphs or videos of the Apollo moon landing missions.

Someone walking around a fake moon landing movie set taking pictures is all that would be needed. No way to detect that.

With all the advances in filming and set design nowadays you could say that the Challenger disaster and 9/11 could have been faked also... after all...there are film and photos of those instances also that could have been filmed in a studio setting or by computer graphics.. In fact...Woodstock was filmed before a live audience......

I still am a believer!!!!!

 

[ClonedSIM]

Photo manipulation has been around for as long as there has been Photography. Heck you can't even believe half the photos from the Civil war because of the things they did back then like staging bodies.

Now that is true, I've seen proof of the Civil War photo edits. But this is a different kettle of fish entirely. This scale of fakery would require something far more advanced than the readily-accessible (but not in 1969) PhotoShop.

 

[ClonedSIM]

How many believe the moon landing was real? What are your biggest reasons?

How many believe the moon landing was faked? What are your biggest reasons?

The photos from the astronauts who were on the moon are as real as the whole mission.
You forget, Photoshop didn't exist in 1969 or the early 1970's when they released all the photos and re-played the film of the mission.
The film strip cameras had an extra lens so any radiation would not affect the film. The extra lens had the small crosses as a sort of reference to shoot the picture. In some of the pictures the crosses were at an angle.....they cropped and rotated the picture so the object in the picture would look "level".
The video was taken in a completely different atmosphere as earth...it wasn't completely zero gravity and it wasn't earth gravity and the moon has totally different ground matter compared to the earth and is smaller.

Dimeman, thank you for helping to keep us on track.
It's my opinion that, while photoshop didn't exist in the 1969, video and photo editing did. But, your explanation makes sense.

Here is something to think about.....

While it is very true that there was photo and video editing back then, most photographs that were "altered" at that time, can easily be spoted with todays technology, and so far....nobody has posted the absolute proof of such altered photgraphs or videos of the Apollo moon landing missions.

Someone walking around a fake moon landing movie set taking pictures is all that would be needed. No way to detect that.

But isn't it convenient that no photos of this type exist? Certainly with all the cameras floating around that (those) sets, there'd be at least one kicking around showing some guy setting the prop rocks in place?

 

[Dimeman]

How many believe the moon landing was real? What are your biggest reasons?

How many believe the moon landing was faked? What are your biggest reasons?

The photos from the astronauts who were on the moon are as real as the whole mission.
You forget, Photoshop didn't exist in 1969 or the early 1970's when they released all the photos and re-played the film of the mission.
The film strip cameras had an extra lens so any radiation would not affect the film. The extra lens had the small crosses as a sort of reference to shoot the picture. In some of the pictures the crosses were at an angle.....they cropped and rotated the picture so the object in the picture would look "level".
The video was taken in a completely different atmosphere as earth...it wasn't completely zero gravity and it wasn't earth gravity and the moon has totally different ground matter compared to the earth and is smaller.

Dimeman, thank you for helping to keep us on track.
It's my opinion that, while photoshop didn't exist in the 1969, video and photo editing did. But, your explanation makes sense.

Here is something to think about.....

While it is very true that there was photo and video editing back then, most photographs that were "altered" at that time, can easily be spoted with todays technology, and so far....nobody has posted the absolute proof of such altered photgraphs or videos of the Apollo moon landing missions.

Someone walking around a fake moon landing movie set taking pictures is all that would be needed. No way to detect that.

But isn't it convenient that no photos of this type exist? Certainly with all the cameras floating around that (those) sets, there'd be at least one kicking around showing some guy setting the prop rocks in place?

If they ( and I don't beleive they did) did film it at a studio with moon sets and all that......did they film it in 1 take?? or did they have practices to see how it looked on film before hand. Most films run thru many filmed takes to get the scenes correct. And also remember this was before handheld film cameras so any good takes had to be cut out and the good takes spliced into another film.
Where is the "blooper reel"??

 

[Kentucky Kache]

[ If they ( and I don't beleive they did) did film it at a studio with moon sets and all that......did they film it in 1 take?? or did they have practices to see how it looked on film before hand. Most films run thru many filmed takes to get the scenes correct. And also remember this was before handheld film cameras so any good takes had to be cut out and the good takes spliced into another film.
Where is the "blooper reel"??

Some guy found it in a forest.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,258222.0.html

 

[ClonedSIM]

[ If they ( and I don't beleive they did) did film it at a studio with moon sets and all that......did they film it in 1 take?? or did they have practices to see how it looked on film before hand. Most films run thru many filmed takes to get the scenes correct. And also remember this was before handheld film cameras so any good takes had to be cut out and the good takes spliced into another film.
Where is the "blooper reel"??

Some guy found it in a forest.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,258222.0.html

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Michio Kaku says man walked on the moon and denounces with science the reasons conspiracy theorists are wrong.

I'm in his corner.

Who?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Michio Kaku says man walked on the moon and denounces with science the reasons conspiracy theorists are wrong.

I'm in his corner.

Who?

Dr. Michio Kaku

Oh, the science guy.
What proof does he offer?

 

[Unicorn]

Oh! ye of little faith

 

[ClonedSIM]

There is one more thought that I don't see has been mentioned.

If NASA cooked up the moon landing, did it in several takes in sound stages, studios, whatever, and obviously meant for this footage to fool a world audience, why did they make any mistakes at all?? They had time to review these tapes, right? Undoubtedly has some Hollywood-types on the payroll, making sure they did it right? If they can avoid these kind of gaffes in even the lower-budget films from the era, why did NASA seemingly make so many of them in something they had time to perfect, money to perfect and the ability to perfect?