[COLOR=red]

That was a pretty kewl video clip, but was it more of a mikey taking excercise than actually proof that we didnt go to the moon.. still brillant though

the link is not working for me--is it satire?

Sun - it's the clip that supposedly shows Armstrong 1st stepping on the Moon and a bank of lights swings down and hits him. I had heard that there was someone who admitted he made it. It's not on the NASA site so I don't know if it's verifiable.

For a REALLY funny satire check this clip out - make sure you have sound
Moon Satire

I think so. But good satire. If the fake of the fake was actually real and not a fake it would beat your shady "proof" with no problem at all.
From what I read about it the video was first shown on moontruth.com which was now removed the last time I checked. Later the claimed it was a hoax and even explained how it was faked. Does anyone know the explanation? Did they just edit it into real footage or did they film people in a real set?

I've heard it was done to show how easy the moon landings can be faked - a la Capricorn One. But you can tell it wasn't done to pretend to be fully genuine - you can see the guy behind the landcape (his face is glowing) before the lights come down, then someone rushes out of there after the lights comedown. And why would they even HAVE anybody behind there? There's no useful purpose to it, and it would jeopardize the authenticity of the filming.

Plus, the footage doesn't match up to the NASA website clips - too well lit, shadows different, plus he jumps off the ladder, instead of stepping down. Armstrong's voice is not the same as the NASA footage. As well, nobody has claimed it to be genuinely from the NASA archives.

Bottom line - yes, it would be better proof of a hoax than the frames I have posted - but I looked into the authenticity of the moontruth clip some time ago, which is why I didn't post it. I am only looking at footage NASA is claiming on their site as "genuine".

That one with the film set made me laugh.

Even if it isn't real, still funny!

Although who can tell?...

So you really think NASA messed up, and put these pictures of "arms" on their website? Yes or No?

They dont look like arms or anything else you suggested

source

I would have to say anything pictures is part of the lander, if you want to know specifically what it is, then try emailing the producer - his email is located off this page

or you can always post you question here (Bad Astronomy) If you want a true answer, and not just people "seeing" things that look like things

also, do you claim Russia is in on the "hoax" as they had capability to track the lander to the moon and back... and what about the 100's or 1000's of amateur astronomers that did the same... are they all in on this hoax?

YES-its very easy to understand how they missed it-the images in question are all caught within a 8sec window and actually are caught on film for only brief moments within this sequence

like you most people let their emotions cloud their perception-the images are brief yet clear as day-gold reflective foil seems to be the best answer that can be mustered up yet it falls far short of explaining the "arm" and the "blue" shirt which are clearly visible

how exactly are you suggesting this tracking was performed? id love to know-"visually"? -when are you people going to realize that "all" the govternments of the world are at war with their populations and every war has been manipulated and financed by the same elite that "create" this "false" version of reality?--WHEN?

Well, if that were true (which it isn't) then I'm sure NASA would have caught on by now and removed the video files. Why would they even bother releasing these files if it was all a hoax? Why take the chance?


Emotions have nothing to do with it. If your up to it here's a little reading for you, it will explain why you think you see arms and chairs and stuff. When I look at the face in the link I see Colonel Saunders, it doesn't mean it's really him.


Umm, I never said visually. The Russians would have tracked the audio and video feeds. If they weren't coming from the Moon, don't you think they would have said something? Or are they in cahoots with NASA?

So the only "proof" you need is some 8 second clip that shows what you believe to be an arm? What about all the proof that we did indeed go? Try proving this site wrong? (Moon Base Clavius) I'd like to see you try.

Do you seriously think this looks like an arm?

I dont know about you, but I don't have 2 elbows, my skin is not a bright white, and my arm is not the same width the entire length

Two elbows? I think what you're refering to is a light reflection. It isn't part of the "forearm".

OK I'm converted. This is obviously evidence that NASA never sent anybody to the moon.

Like all scientists the folks at NASA are mindless buffoons who filmed an incompetent attempt at faking a moon landing. The cameraman tripped over himself, filmed his own arm along with several other people that were revealed when a curtain held up with blue tack fell down. Instead of erasing the tape they put it back in the collection, wrote a transcript of it along with a description of what was happening in the video and then posted it on their website under the title "TV Troubles".

I'm surprised they haven't sent it into You've Been Framed or TV Bloopers for a laugh (or by mistake).

And shoulders that belong to man made of lego.

I see it, I really see it. Wow at last, finally proof of what I have publicly said all along. People will really see what they want to see regardless of the condition and quality of the images they are looking at. All I can see in these images and stills are a bunch of poorly focused and blurry stuff.
I see that some folks overdosed on their paranoid pills today.

Do they have an e-mail address? They really do need to be told of these many slip ups.

This is so dumb.

Read this thread,and you will find your answer... That is the biggest problem with HB'ers, they say they want answers, but never read the posts with the answers...

I can tell you now, this was no slip up, becasue there is nothing out of the ordinary with these pictures

Yes I totally agree, NASA must really be the most incompetent agency in all of govt! They really must be told that nobody is buying their cheap attempts at this so called "Moon Landing"

Anyway I really think this is very subjective and ultimately you're just going to wind up seeing what you want to see.

NASA is actually very clever - they found a way to make flames visible on the Moon !! You know, that place with NO atmosphere?

Right click and save link to download and play
[attachmentid=13341]

I fail to see what you are trying to prove, of course you can make a flame on the moon, it is fuelled by the tank on the craft...have you ever seen a shuttle in orbit? The rockets it uses to stabilize create a flame but space has no atmoshere. That flame makes complete sense if you knew anything about rockets.

First, from the below link about the Shuttle:
"There isn't enough oxygen in space for a match to burn. But maybe you've seen flames from the space shuttle engines -- that happens because the shuttle carries its own liquid oxygen in order for combustion to take place."

shuttlefacts

Now, explain this quote from Bad Astronomy :

"There is actually a simple reason why you cannot see the flame from the lander when it took off. The fuels they used produced no visible flame! The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent. That's why you cannot see the flame ".

bad astro

What? Can NOT see the flame? But, we see it, don't we? Or we do, and Bad Astronomy Guy can't see it?

If you really want to know, why don't you sign up and ask Phil yourself? I highly doubt you will tho...

and the Moon does have an atmosphere, it's just not very thick - http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q652.html

Reading your post again, you seem to answer your own question. You also have to keep in mind that your video is of Apollo 16, and the first moon landing was Apollo 11. There is a difference of 3 years in those 2 launches, I don't doubt there were changes made in that time to the landers rockets.

I still strongly urge you to sign up at Bad Astronomy and ask

Here's a little more info...
source

Much better post then mine hehe i was too tired to find out the scientific facts.

Well I was going to respond to the flames on the moon thing but it appears there is no need, Thanks funkprink and Nethius

Um..no, there wasn't. Only one version of the LM, with the same propulsion systems, was ever used in the Apollo program.

LM History



??? Maybe you didn't catch the contradiction I noted in the post. You are claiming that flames ARE visible, Bad Astronomy is claiming that flames ARE NOT visible.

fresh illustrations---the flesh tone in the arm and the blue shirt in the last image are clear as day
[attachmentid=13380]
[attachmentid=13375]
[attachmentid=13377]

I honestly don't see how you can look at that and say its obviously an arm..

The shape is wrong for one, the proport of the HAND to the forearm is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off...

And before you say , oh its just the angle and or lighting or some sort of film distortation causing that.. if you believe that them you must also except the fact that the "FLESH" colour is also such a distortion.

You cannot have it both ways.

With the way you have the "HAND" outlined ( fingers perpendicular to the forearm) then the item being held would also have to be perpedicular to the the forehand, and would extend to the right of the hand.

Which it doesnt.

yeah clear as day.. I think it's your imagination that make it "clear as day" cause those images could be anything, I remember looking at the floor of the bathroom when I was a kid and since it's kind of mosaic or something I could see many things on it, faces, cars, etc.. those pics are the same thing.

Your talking like we went to the moon. Why do you believe the same source that you claim has been lying to you for the last 30+ years?



No, I never said that, I haven't said either way. I'm not a rocket scientist. That's why I suggest you ask one.

I am confused as to whether you think there should or shouldn't be flames tho?

No, I am quoting NASA as the official source for the claims they make. That is, they claim they used only one version of the LM, so you therefore cannot have one LM that shows flames, and another LM that doesn't. Personally, from the scientific sources I have researched, flames should NOT be visible with the fuel they claim to have used - and this has given further credence to the likelihood it was a hoax.

To you, it may sound like I believe we went because I began studying the Apollo program only recently, and with a completely neutral opinion. In the first couple of weeks after I began my research, the information I culled had me leaning towards the belief that we DID land on the Moon.

There are always at least three sides to a story like this - we went there, we never went there, and the one I am now almost certain of - we could not go because the technology was not yet developed.

If you really look into the whole Apollo program, and compare it with what is currently going on in the various space programs, you will find that the technology is only NOW being developed towards an actual manned Mooned landing. The radiation hazards are FAR, FAR worse then they told the general public back in the 1960's. If you look at recent articles, they talk a lot about how to shield future astronauts from deadly radiation!

To show what I mean, compare these two quotes (there are many more examples than this):
Rad Study Pre-Apollo

This is from the above link to a NASA pre-Apollo study:



NOW you tell us!!

Compare to this quote from the above link:




HEY! GOOD IDEA!

Those quotes do not contradict each other at all.

Show us, where the contradiction there ? ?

OK - the first quote is from 35+ years ago..


Now, the recent quote which CONTRADICTS the importance of radiation...


The radiation hazards have ALWAYS existed, but they deceived the public during the Apollo years by saying it was no big deal. They were completely aware of the hazards since 1958 and later from data gathered by Dr. James Van Allen. Further, they had NO IDEA of how to shield from the solar flare radiation, which CANNOT be predicted and given early warning about (the flares travel at nearly the speed of light), and would kill any space travelers without massive shielding - the Apollo program had nothing nearly close enough for protection.
THAT is why the recent quote from NASA's Ed Semmes is so important - it shows NASA admitting that they CANNOT travel in space without developing the adequate shielding. Common sense should tell you that if they don't have the technology in place NOW, they certainly did NOT have it over 35 years ago!

Okay, I asked about that LM launch film over at Bad Astronomy.



I feel this answers what that "flame" really is.

Also, if you read, they did not use the same LM for all missions. As they did need to be "upgraded" for every mission.

Link to full topic

turbonium, may I suggest a little Google investigation regarding your solar flares... I did a search for "Solar Flare Radiation Apollo"

Quite a few links I think you should read....

http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html A lot of Q&A's there

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikes/moon/flare.htm

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

http://24.73.239.154:8081/moonshot/apollohoax.htm

I have already looked at all these links before - they point out NO revisions to the LM. Proper revisions to any engineering doc's will have proper notation - all I can find is the Grumman LM - no rev. number, no version number, no parts list revision, etc....... I revise and draft eng. dwgs. for a living,(for over 10 years) I know what they should or should not include for authentic version upgrade,

The LM flame reasoning is, I find, dubious at best - FOIL flapping?? Sorry, but even if there WAS no flame, that makes it sound even cheesier.

Full Apollo 12 clip is now uploaded with audio - thx Sa!
Check the Misc. section of the videos.

"where, oh where, is Earth? Oh, there it is!"

Turbo that clip was perfectly timed -the fumble is right in the middle and the quicktime format allows decent control in locating the image captures-nice work!! while we're on the topic i wanted to mention a moon conspiracy show i saw recently on nat. geo.(i think) and one of the points the pro-hoax camp brought up was the "fact" that photographs(apollo) even exist much less in a flawless undamaged state-they brought up a recent imax video about the iss that was being done in orbit using the same type of film used on the apollo missions(just in orbit no where near the van allen radiation belts or beyond their protection)were being damaged by the radiation yet on apollo there was no damage

Thx, Sun. I haven't seen that show - I'll look around for it. I've also been gathering some more interesting stuff about Apollo that I will be posting soon.....

As I to all of your claims... You have already made up your mind, and I doubt any evidence would change your mind.

Check out the post Moon Puppets if you are still in denial. The Moon landing was a huge JOKE perpetrated on the public - time to wake up and smell the coffee!!

it looks more like a foot to me.

Watch closely - if this isn't an arm moving with the hand clearly holding a metal object, then I'd like to know what flesh colored grasping object with free movement they brought to the Moon! Oh, and has knuckles!
And PLEASE explain why these guys are on the Moon??


[attachmentid=13635]

[attachmentid=13634]

now for "mods" curious about why i chose this thread to post this in ..i have to say it is because all the other excellent threads on the subject of the apollo hoax have been closed for various reasons-- also the sound stage scenario fits in perfectly with turbo's discovery of the mistakes made during filming exposing ropes,arms,curtains and even a colorful sweater-- all those still in denial need to watch this short film-- it is a real eye opener
*************************************************
Dark Side of the Moon

watch it here^

Remember now, as they say on CSI: people lie; the evidence doesn't.

Dark Side of the Moon was written and directed last year by 63-year-old historical documentary film-maker William Karel for France's Point du Jour Production and Arte France (the film's original, French title was Operation Lune). It uses documentary evidence, archival footage and extensive interviews with Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick, astronaut Buzz Aldrin and former and present-day U.S. government officials and luminaries such as Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleberger, Al Haig and Donald Rumsfeld, to lay bare the lie.

And an elaborate lie it was, too, judging from the evidence. (The official CBC press release refers to the film's subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis as a navigation through fact and fiction and asks rhetorically whether "Neal Armstrong's [sic] famous walk on the moon" was another stanley Kubrick production. I can't tell if the misspelling of Neil Armstrong's name is meant to be ironic or incompetent.)

Dark Side of the Moon points out that, given the turmoil of the day - the Vietnam war, civil unrest, a newly elected president warily eyeing his prospects for a second term - the Nixon administration understood that it was more important that astronauts be seen to be walking on the moon than actually walk on the moon.

If the astronauts landed safely, but could not televise live images back to Earth because of some unforeseen technical glitch, then the entire expensive enterprise would have been a waste of time, from a public relations standpoint.

You do realize that Dark Side of the Moon is a mockumentary and not a documentary right?
http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/DarkSide.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_...n_(documentary)

Sorry sunofone this video you need to watch right to the very end, including the credits. this is a spoof.

To answer the title of the OP, Why is there a bare arm on the moon? The same reason there is a baby's face in the solar flare....and a tiger in the clouds.

I have seen all the footage and snap shots looking for this arm, and your right to me it's a reach at best to call it an arm.

I can only see a blur.

I can make out a weird face in the pixils of that photo. CONSPIRACY!

Sunofone, despite your claims to the contrary there are several active threads on the Apollo hoax and so necroposting wasn't necessary. You could also have started a new thread.

As it has been explained that you have mistaken a spoof film (it makes no pretence to be anything else) as a genuine conspiracy film I see no reason for a thread which had died nearly 2 years ago to stay open.