Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[rothbardian]

I saw the comments about moon landings over at the Bruce Willis thread and I had some thoughts but didn't want to completely hijack that thread away from the Willis subject. I think it is very interesting what these Hollywood insiders may know.

Anyway, I may have a somewhat unusual view on this on this because...I do believe there were actual moon landings (at least one or two of them anyway), but I also certainly see a lot of anomalies in photos of the moon landings.

Here are a few. Maybe somebody has some explanations. But with all the cover-up regarding the multitudinous UFO encounters during the moon landings, there's no telling how much lying, fudging, twisting, and photo alteration is going on. Here is an interesting article about that, by the way--
http://www.firedocs.com/anomalous/NASA-moon-photos-saccheri-leonard.html

Excerpts: "...book entitled "Somebody Else Is on the Moon", written by a former NASA scientist, George H. Leonard. Leonard had been working in the photo intelligence division of NASA. His job had been to interpret moon pictures taken by the unmanned space probes we were sending there during the early and mid-sixties."

"To this day, I can remember these views: A boulder that seemed to have been rolled uphill, leaving its tracks in the side of the hill; obvious machinery on the surface, showing bolted sections; three dilapidated "bridges" crossing a chasm that reminded me of the Grand Canyon; pipe fittings that looked like four-way Ts (or Xs) that could be seen in every photo, some with their ends turned up or down as they hung over the edge of a crater; three surprising pyramids that prompted me later to closely study the Egyptian Giza pyramid complex; apparent pipelines criss-crossing the surface, running to and from craters; a UFO rising from the surface and photographed directly above a crater; and perhaps the most memorable, the unmistakable figure of a rectangular structure placed squarely in the biggest crater pictured- the structure looked either very old or under construction, but the crater had to be miles wide..."

And another article--
http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4737

Excerpts: "The whole east wall was covered with photos of UFOs. As we finished up, the officer of that room came back in and found us there. He actually pulled his sidearm and pointed it at us before demanding to know why we had entered that room."

"Jim and I then paid close attention to what was on the screen. There was an object above the spot where the Astronauts were supposed to be in Hadley's Rille, just hovering. I am totally positive as to it being an object; it was round, it had a shiny side with a shadow side, with the shadow side matching the shadows on the moon..."

Here are some of these photos--

Diverging shadows-- Moon photo AS14-68-9486


Trackless lunar rover (photo #AS 15-88-11901)
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11901.jpg

Another trackless rover--
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17-20443det.jpg

A small crater appears in one photo....and seemingly disappears in another identical photo(?).
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11454.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11428.jpg

[Occult Means Hidden]

Original moon landing footage film accidently "lost" by NASA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060814-124925-9491r.htm


oops.

[philipacentaur]

Lost Moon landing tapes discovered

[orz]

oops

[orz]

A small crater appears in one photo....and seemingly disappears in another identical photo(?).

That's the first time I've seen a two totally different photos described as "identical." So what's the "anomaly" here? Clearly they're 2 different photos taken a short distance from each other.

WHY AM I EVEN BOTHERING?

[OpLan]

The SSTV tapes are still missing.

[jingofever]

The recovered tapes are not the original footage. The article says the tapes recorded some dust experiments. Non-parallel shadows.

[orz]

Hmm yeah seems you're right... those are some OTHER tapes they lost!?

But guess what?

Moon Hoax is still pretty much total rubbish!

[rothbardian]

Hey OMH--my old nemesis from the gospel/resurrection debates! The alliances around here, swing back and forth pretty crazily sometimes. Guess that's a sign of a healthy discussion board.

Orz--

Didn't mean to cause you so much pain. Sit down and rest for a while or something. Meanwhile...maybe you have a point here-- You're saying these are two different photos? They appear to be very similar..although taken a t different times maybe(?).

Not all the purported anomalies have panned out for me--The alleged "dome" supposedly visible in the background of some moon photos turned out (for me) to be a camera glitch. In others photos you could see it clearly.

Meanwhile, you should read that article and that post I linked to. It's pretty compelling stuff.

[orz]

Sorry. It's not so much pain as a combination of exasperation and fascination with how strange people's thought processes can become when they decide to let themselves be convinced of something.

Meanwhile...maybe you have a point here-- You're saying these are two different photos? They appear to be very similar..although taken a t different times maybe(?).

Well maybe just moments after each other... one could easily be taken a few steps from the next... the same distant mountain in the background, but different foreground. What's so strange about that?

Meanwhile, you should read that article and that post I linked to. It's pretty compelling stuff.

Well it's an interesting story, competently written. Of course it's compelling. Doesn't mean it's true. If I could get that book they mention and find those photos for myself I might be convinced. Until then it's just an anacdote, interesting but not real evidence of anything.

I'm certainly open to the idea of weird alien stuff on the moon, would be amazing, but I haven't seen any particular piece of moon hoax/anomaly 'evidence' that makes much sense, let alone convincingly supports the existance of such.

[yesferatu]

I wonder why there is an orthodoxy of "they definitely landed" when so many anomalies and discrepancies exist. You would think a "I dunno...maybe, maybe not" would be the only "orthodoxy" at this point.

More than likely they made it...more than likely they hoaxed somne photos and film.

Putting those two together is a bigger deal really then if they fabricated it entirely. It begs the questtion "what is on some of the video and perhaps some audio....why have we never gone back....why the strange life of Armstrong since his return, and his seemingly coded references to something he is perhaps under sworn secrecy not to divulge.

But who know? Enough anomalies to make the orthodoxy of "they definitely went" look really stupid. Unless you want to explain diverging shadows and redeem yourself from stupidity, without making yourself look even dumber, then go for it. Of course, there will be no point for point on the anomalies, just the proofs given they went.

Okay...they went. Explain why the fake shit on top of the real shit?

"Well they went."

Well why diverging shadows and dozens of other ridiculously apparent stupid fakery?

"They went".

No theories on why they need to fake certain things, even though, yes, they probably went?

"They went."

I have theories on why they faked stuff even though they probably went. The difference between the orthodoxists and those like myself willing to discuss that stuff is that while the orthodoxists COULD also have theories on that (and SHOULD unembarrassingly offer such theories as a matter of discussion), but yet will never do that, in order not to sound foolish to their faux skeptic peers they hold in higher esteem than their own intellectual self-respect.

Any of these orthodoxists who say there is NO fake shit are full of it.

Any orthodoxists of the other side who say there is not some interesting things to suggest maybe they did make it, are also full of shit.

[orz]

I wonder why there is an orthodoxy of "they definitely landed" when so many anomalies and discrepancies exist.

It's an "orthodoxy" (or to put it in more honest, less political terms "true") despite the discrepancies because the discrepancies do not logically make the mountains of actual fact and evidence magically dissapear!

Diverging shadows is just gibberish, like most of the other "anomalies". What do you even mean by it? Is there supposed to be no perspective on the moon for some reason?

I don't understand how people can go on about 'diverging shadows', 'no stars', blah blah blah with a straight face? Have you people never picked up a camera? Looked at a photograph? Opened your eyes? Are so many people really this visually illiterate?

In the case of 'diverging shadows'; have you never seen a nighttime football game?

This stuff has been debunked a million times over. Moon Hoax fans are just regurgitating boring old gibberish without thinking for themselves.

[orz]

One thing I'm sure NASA actually do is to clean up, crop, and generally sex up their photos for publicity purposes.

They're notorious for exaggerating vertical scale, in one case I read of, supposedly stretching a (computer generated?) mars landscape in such a ratio that would make a bungalow the height of Nelson's Column! Also making images more colourful than they really were etc.

[rothbardian]

Orz--

OK, so you concede they alter photos. Only...they never do it for any nefarious purposes? That's a LOT of optimism. Hats off to ya.

Maybe a lot of this stuff is explainable..although here is a photo with intersecting shadows. How would 'perspective' explain that?



I don't mind throwing out any initial observations that turn out to be nothing but...your approach, as "yesferatu" is saying...is hard to fathom. There is credible testimony of many NASA photos being altered...and not just to replace the American flag or something.

Again, I would refer you to this short video testimony from Hare (and Wolfe).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rt7mnz4J5E&mode=related&search=

There is the remarkable testimony from that post from the guy who worked at NASA. Here again are his posted comments at a discussion board. His testimony seems extremely credible:
http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4737


But then you already have a hedging position staked out, in saying that you now need to see the same photos Saccheri was looking at in the NASA archives (in the other article I linked) in order for you to know anything.

In a court of law 'credible testimony' can be viewed as strongly as photos are viewed (or even stronger). So...if and when you hear and see the testimony of Hare (for example) and were to dismiss her credibility...I would find that very dubious. Of course, that's just an opinion.

Overall, there is some weird stuff going on in the world of NASA. Freaky astronauts--killing themselves, wearing diapers, being listed as "non-terrestrial officers" on official government websites...the testimony of Gordon Cooper about UFO landings at Edwards AFB, "aliens" climbing out of the craft etc.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case357.htm

There was the otherwise inexplicable references from General Douglas MacArthur (in a speech at West Point) where he said the whole world might need to unite against forces from beyond this planet. What had he seen or heard? His executive assistant spelled out the details later on.

If Roswell was a great big "nothing-to-see-here-move-along" cover-up (see Gordon Cooper and Douglas MacArthur)...then could there be cover-ups elsewhere?

The way in which some folks here are dismissing even the possibility of nefarious cover-ups out-of-hand...is very odd.

Some of you guys don't believe corrupt government creeps are hiding...anything...anywhere? JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor? Everything you read in your fourth grade history book is the gospel truth?

[yesferatu]

Diverging shadows is just gibberish, like most of the other "anomalies". What do you even mean by it? Is there supposed to be no perspective on the moon for some reason?

In the case of 'diverging shadows'; have you never seen a nighttime football game?

I....just...can't.....NO...I will not, no yesferatu, no...let someone else be the cruel one here.

To those who haven't yet embarrassed themsleves like that, but who still want to argue point by point, I want to offer a lesson

First watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs

Now, this is interesting whether you think it is fake or real. Because the orthodox "they went" crowd will point to the decades old "flyover" film to "prove" they were (at least) in orbit very near the surface of the moon. YET...the very SAME faux skeptics will say that the video above is DEFINITELY fake. Despite the videographical "advances" they made in this fictional (???) video in this slower flyover, ability to zoom in, etc. does not negate the fact that it is a hell of a good flyover shot, and sure as fuck looks like the moon...just as much as the flyover from the original. But that will not stop the faux skeptic in using this video to prove his point about the other video in spite of the fact they both could have been faked in very similar ways! It ends up being video to prove a counter-argument, what you end up in this is just two opposing proofs....using the same proofs!! And yet the faux skeptic will never see the hypocrisy and negation of his argument. He so wants to believe.