Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[philipacentaur]

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."

[yesferatu]

Others can look at the fakery all day and instead of offering theories as to why it would be faked, they belllow "they went goddammit!!" Well probably. But can I have theories for the fakery. Can't fit fakery and "they went" into your cranium? Not my dilemma.

That's what I'm talking about. Fakery is your assumption, so let's hear your theory to account for it.

Go up a few sentences and it was right there:
<<maybe most of their video and photos were "corrupted" with anomalous images in the background they could not release. How the hell do I know? It's just a working theory.

I think there is more than "laughably thin" examples which we have not even gone into.
I think some of the purported and documented audio somewhat suggests there were things happening that did not fit the mundane lunar science of the mission. And that it was too unsettling for public digestion.

Then 5% of the time I read/see/hear something that tends to make me think it was entirely faked.

But I try to stick with my working theory.

[rothbardian]

DE asked-- "How would you explain the tracklessness in a soundstudio with a bunch of sand in it?"

They probably had to smooth over the sand in order to remove the tire tracks from the tow truck or fork lift. Just kidding. I think.

Sure, that's a good question. They're all good questions. Without further enlightenment, it sure seems pretty crazy to have that vehicle sitting there with no tracks. From what I know, these rovers were rolled out of a pod attached to the side of the LEM. I've seen the photos of it before.

jingofever--

You come up with some pretty interesting sites. I've been filing them away. But...that one you linked which attempts to address the 'intersecting shadows' doesn't quite do it for me. Take a look at that astronaut's shadow. It doesn't compare to the examples that site tries to provide. As a layman, I'm thinking either the photo was faked by 'moon hoax' proponents or...that not all is kosher with the NASA photo department....which of course is proof-positive the Illuminati are taking over the world. (Kidding again.)

[orz]

Orz--

You make this statement

No I didn't.

---

The thing that interests me is that at no point in the hoax theories does anyone explain how any of these "anomalies" are supposed to have occurred as part of fakery. If the landing was shot in a studio why would the shadows go in the supposedly "wrong" directions pointed out, any more than if actually on the moon?

Why would crosshairs "go behind" various things if they were simply added afterwards?

etc.

(of course the "answer" is that all these things are clues sneaked in by "whistle blowers". Now if you'll excuse me i've got walls to bang my head against.)

Still photos taken straight off the television screen of one of the early moon landings...

Obvious fakes. Everyone knows that TV screens are rectangular, but some of these are clearly parrallelograms.

[OpLan]

Both Trackless Rovers are part of panorama collages.


On this one at least you can see tracks leading up to its resting place.(Originally from here)

The other one I found in Keith Laneys article on Apollo 17.



The original is huge,but again,you can see tracks leading up to the rover:heres the link.

Keith thinks the real anomaly in that second panorama is the lack of detail in the mountain on the left.

Let's look again courtesy of another wonderful NASA produced pan mosaic taken at the landing site. The higher resolution on this one is fabulous regardless of being made of separate frames and that South Massif (Left) has been somewhat blurred to simulate seamlessness. Notice that they missed North Massif with the editing tools and therefore the lineations are abundantly clear. Also noteworthy is the small hill known as Bear Mountain which lies at the left side of South Massif's base. The orthogonally geometric lineations on it, North Massif and nearly every other massif in the encircling range are an oddity still not adequately explained, and a part of another subject we will have a look at later

If you don't think Apollo was real,you won't be asking questions about the south massif,Nansen,or Project Chapel Bell.

*edit*
trimmed the fat jpeg.

[nomo]

Apollo 15 Astronaut Dropping a Feather and a Hammer on the Surface of the Moon.

[Shoogie]

There was a video released by Kay Griggs the wife of a high military man about a year ago which showed footage from a press conference with the astronauts after their trip in 1969.

The footage was interesting because of the astronauts' behavior. They were visibly nervous when the press questioned them and gave sheepish answers and hung their heads when responding to the most innocuous questions. I showed the footage to someone who didn't believe anything was fishy about the moon landing and even she had to admit they acted very weird. Like they were reciting a script reluctantly.

Maybe the moon landing wasn't faked, but there was something more going on with that trip than the public ever found out about. Something BIG they seem to have covered up. Here's a link to the kay griggs video.

Part I: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... kay+griggs

Part II: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... kay+griggs

[OpLan]

Random trivial thoughts..

I think its noteable that the original destination for Apollo 20 was Tycho crater.

Apollo 15 Astronaut Dropping a Feather and a Hammer on the Surface of the Moon.

I went to a lecture by David Percy once.He was pushing his "Dark Moon" book at the time.I tried to use the hammer & feather demo to refute one of his claims..he came straight back with "balsa wood hammer,lead feather"...

Did anyone catch the movie quote in that Apollo 16 documentary posted earlier in the thread?
from Apollo comms transcripts,here

169:14:12 Duke: Might be what, John? You know that might be an end of a ray right there. See that. It's almost a blockless feature.
169:14:17 Young: Yeah.

169:14:18 Duke: That might be just due to the downslope (motion of regolith off the ridge) though. Don't run into our home.

169:14:26 Young: (Chuckles) Right, Charlie.

169:14:30 Duke: Home again, home again! Jiggety jig!

Charles Dukes Wiki entry has some interesting trivia..

Six months before Apollo 16, Duke had a vivid dream that he and crewmate John Young discovered mysterious rover tracks while riding across the lunar surface. They turned to follow the tracks and eventually came upon another rover upon which sat two unmoving, spacesuited figures. Duke lifted the reflective sun visor on one suit to discover his own face. The other figure proved to be Young's double. They took suit and rover samples at Mission Control's request, and subsequent testing proved them to be over 100,000 years old.

[orz]

I went to a lecture by David Percy once.He was pushing his "Dark Moon" book at the time.I tried to use the hammer & feather demo to refute one of his claims..he came straight back with "balsa wood hammer,lead feather"...

That's hillarious.

[sandymac]

Seven pages and no one speaks to the issue of 1969 and antiquated technology.

All the way to the moon and back. Never again out of earth orbit after Apollo.

Common sense and the knowledge that they lie to us all the time are the only “facts” I need. Not to mention the connections to freemasonry (all those 33 degree masons – C. Fred Kleinknect, head of the NASA Apollo program, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong’s father and Neil, I believe, was a 32 degree mason). And then there’s the bunch of criminals who’ve been running the show all these years behind the scenes – Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Bush Sr., et al.

"We” may have “gone to the moon”, but not in a rickety “space capsule” worthy of not much more than orbiting earth and splashing down in the ocean.

The astronauts couldn’t remember if they had seen stars or not. Hmmm

Might as well believe in Flash Gordon.

[orz]

1969 and antiquated technology.

It wasn't antiquated, it was brand new.

Was technology suddenly so much more advanced in November later that year, or in 1970 (well i guess that didn't go so well), 1971, and 1972?

Are all those fake as well?

How about Skylab, was that fake? Coz they used "antiquated" Apollo equiment so it must be!


Some dopey HAY GUYS THEY DIDN'T HAVE COMPUTERS IN THE 60'S LOL gut feeeling followed by an unrelated rant about the Masons doesn't trump actual real provable science.

[slimmouse]

deleted

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Now that you mention it, that final shot - thermite?

These infotainment moon hoax discussions seem to have their own cyclic phases everywhere online; I see them pop up over and over in the same places with the predictabliity of an atomic clock.

Is there nothing new under the Sun?

[erosoplier]

Now that you mention it, that final shot - thermite?

That reminds me, why are there sparks coming out of this LM as it takes off (this thread, page 5), when I can distinctly remember seeing no sparks/flames whatsoever coming out of a LM as it lifted off in another video?

(And that reminds me, thanks jingofever for your contributions to this thread - they've saved me a lot of time and energy).

I mean, I don't find the sparks suspicious - in a vacuum I'd expect to see sparks instead of flames - but in one of the moon hoax videos I saw a lift off with no sparks at all. Did they edit out the earliest sparks-producing phase of lift off in order to make it look more fake, I wonder?

[Iroquois]

Now that you mention it, that final shot - thermite?

Personally, I felt that comment was in very poor taste. It certainly was not appropriate in a public forum where people who actually lost friends and relations when the towers collapsed, or as many believe were deliberately destroyed, may frequent.

Regardless of what one's personal opinion is on the matter, serious theories about what caused those buildings to collapse while many living people were still inside should not be the source of jokes or the subject of ridicule.