Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'Stanley Kubrick', moon landings faked


seeder

Recommended Posts

You don't intimidate me, but please keep trying if it makes you feel manly. I know to have your views questioned hurts your feelings, but the Internet isn't a safe place where you can shelter with your opinions. It isn't university after all.

I read all the replies too Bozo.

I even watched the videos. They all attempt to redirect, distract and otherwise avoid the real subject.

No one attempted to explain how the astronaut "popped" to his feet after falling down without using his arms or legs to propel him. He was pulled up via a cable from above which was attached to his back pack--- just the way they "rehearsed" walking in low gravity in their simulations.

Actually I wasn't trying to intimidate you and I don't really care if you were or weren't.

I also don't see how posting a screen cap showing the last time you were online - available to anyone - and commenting that you are once again avoiding answering the questions put to you is supposed to be intimidating....

Maybe that's it? You think I was trying to be intimidating by showing you for the self-aggrandizing, disingenuous, gish-galloping CT you are going out of your way to prove that you are...?

:huh:

Cz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proving someone wrong is now "intimidation"...

Hardly surprising.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points that do cause people to wonder and with wonder comes speculation and suspicion. There are just too many unlikely coincidences surrounding the whole thing.

Fair enough. I realise others have answered, but I can't resist...

1. It is curious that we just stopped going back-- I mean if it was all so easy... why not do it again? It's been almost 50 years. It was so easy that we orbited the moon for the first time in history, then returned only six months later to land on the moon... the technical challenges were seemingly insignificant with 1960's technology...

The reason NASA stopped going was because Congress cut NASA's budget. Remember Nixon was trying to pay for the Vietnam War and a bunch of social welfare programs. There simply wasn't enough money to go around, so they had to make cuts somewhere. Given that taxpayers had been complaining since Apollo 11 (and probably before) about the cost of Apollo (roughly US$200 billion in today's money), it was obvious to the politicians that cutting NASA's funding wasn't going to cost many votes. As for the technical challenges, they were solved by throwing a lot of money at them. As the saying goes, "Fast, safe, cheap: choose any two." Thanks to Kennedy's challenge, NASA had to choose the first two. So when the money was cut, so was NASA's ambitious post-Apollo program.

Then we took a "car" to the moon and like the Grizwalds, we toured about. It was just simple... think it and do it..... almost like making a movie.

Yeah, well the big difference between Apollo and the Griswalds was that Chevy Chase wasn't an astronaut.

2. It's curious that the Russians were not able to do it. And that they let that just hang out there. I mean if it was so easy for the US, the Russians would have done it too. But you say-- the Russians just were not as good as the US... and I would agree.... not as good as Hollywood. It isn't that they didn't have a good space program-- they were beating us there.... what they didn't have was as good of a movie-making industry. That's where we were technologically superior. Why didn't they ever go? Because they know we didn't either. As recent as this past summer there were Russian journalists and government officials calling the US lunar landings into question.

Right, a few points here:

1. The Soviets were attempting to land men on the Moon. Here's their version of the Lunar Module: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_%28spacecraft%29#Testing It didn't get to fly with people on board as the Soviets couldn't make their Moon rocket, the N1, work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_%28rocket%29

2. In the context of the Cold War, with two superpowers contending against each other, coming second was the same as coming last. So rather than send cosmonauts to the Moon on missions which would look pale shadows of the Apollo missions, once the Soviets had lost the race to land men on the Moon they concentrated instead on unmanned sample retriever missions. These missions, they correctly pointed out, were much cheaper and obviously safer. But they returned much less material than the Apollo missions and the samples were effectively collected blind, with no geological context, so they were scientifically less useful. There's no doubt about the reality of these sample retriever missions. But where they lied is when they said they'd never intended to land men on the Moon.

3. The Soviets had no reason to doubt the reality of Apollo. If the Americans had faked Apollo the Soviets would have been onto it, and it would have been the biggest propaganda coup of the Cold War. Note also there were people in NASA passing information to the Soviets.

3. Such an unfortunate coincidence---- In 2009, Nasa itself admitted that it had erased the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money, according to Reuters. That sound so much like NASA-- such concern for the public purse, but don't worry.... They say the "restored" versions they have now compiled are even "better" than the original footage. Of that I have no doubt.

The tapes had to be reused because they were needed for later (non-Apollo) missions and there was by then no other supplier of those particular tapes. The alternatives were these: transfer the data from the Apollo 11 tapes to other media and reuse the tapes for these later missions, or preserve the original tapes and lose the data from the later missions. As there was no point sending those later missions if there was no way of recording the data, NASA did the logical thing.

In any case, no data has been lost. It's simply recorded on second-generation media.

4. Some of the landscapes in photo evidence are supposedly miles apart, yet have identical landscapes, even identical rocks in the foreground or background.

As others have explained, this is from the Apollo 16 publicity video "Nothing So Hidden" (yes, I get the irony) which mistakenly uses footage from a geology stop on the first moonwalk to represent an event on the second moonwalk. The video was made by an external company, and the fault is theirs, not NASA's. The entire TV feed from Apollo 16 is available for you to watch if you want, so it's not as though there are any secrets.

5. There are no stars evident in any of the pictures and no good reason why not.

No good reason? What about the dynamic range of film? Stars are faint and the Sun is bright. Plus, there are photos showing stars - from Apollo 16's UV camera (so there!).

6. Where are the moon rocks they brought back?

Here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/ Well, here are pictures of the samples, plus lists of the scientific articles written about each of them. It's kept a lot of geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, physicists, and a few other types of scientists from around the world pretty happy for a long time.

Incidentally, http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm is a link to the page where you can request samples of Moon rock. Knock yourself out.

Why haven't the astronauts talked much about their amazing experiences on the moon?

Is this number 7?

Short answer, they do talk about it. Most of them haven't shut up about it.

Google the names of the surviving moonwalking astronauts and you'll be able to find out how busy their diaries are (remembering they're all in their 80s). Perhaps you might like to go to one of their appearances and listen to them speak.

Oh-- and these are just a few thoughts that haven't been answered to my satisfaction--- not that I'm asking for you "experts" to do what NASA has not.

Well, I hope the answers we've provided will be some assistance.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick suggestion - may I remind potential respondents that one of the 'best' ways for a troll to derail an argument is to keep changing the subject, and NEVER nominate your best evidence. That's what Jack is doing, and if you allow him to jump to another topic before the previous one is PROPERLY examined, it helps him in that process so that nothing gets properly looked at, nothing gets conceded, and Jack doesn't admit a single error..

Because there are a lot of people eager to respond and it is very large and sometimes complex topic, it plays right into the troll's hands.

You will note that despite being asked quite politely (*initially* :D), Jack has completely ignored the request from me and others to nominate what he thinks is the KILLER evidence. That way he can continue this game pretty much forever by dodging and weaving, Gish Galloping from topic to topic, never to be called to account for the trolling, never have to show any knowledge whatsoever and endlessly parroting tinfoil website bullpoo.

Personally, I think this sort of behavior damages this forum's usefulness... but that's just me.

WHEN and IF he grows a se gains some courage and nominates his best, I'll participate further. But this is now just a trainwreck..

But what about the soil samples? There were supposed to be 400kg of rock brought back. That's almost 900 lbs of rock.... and where is it all? In a "where"-house? The moon is dull and gray and yet those lucky astronauts landed right near what might be the only patch of orange soil on the surface-- "proof" of past volcanic activity? Maybe it oxidized back when the moon had an atmosphere? Both Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 found orange soil in different locations.... the moon must be loaded with the stuff. Or if it's unusual.... those astronauts must be lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your misunderstanding of physics doesn't mean you are right. Indeed, it shows the opposite.

You "accept" the idea that the other fellow pops him up effortlessly without the slightest arm movement, because that is how it was explained away to you, and you choose to believe it... despite what your eyes and common sense tell you. You choose to ignore what you see and cling instead to a weak explanation that dodges the evidence right before your eyes. You've convinced-- you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about the soil samples? There were supposed to be 400kg of rock brought back. That's almost 900 lbs of rock.... and where is it all? In a "where"-house? The moon is dull and gray and yet those lucky astronauts landed right near what might be the only patch of orange soil on the surface-- "proof" of past volcanic activity? Maybe it oxidized back when the moon had an atmosphere? Both Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 found orange soil in different locations.... the moon must be loaded with the stuff. Or if it's unusual.... those astronauts must be lucky.

Is that your "killer evidence" or are you changing the subject again? Just curious.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about the soil samples? There were supposed to be 400kg of rock brought back. That's almost 900 lbs of rock.... and where is it all? In a "where"-house? The moon is dull and gray and yet those lucky astronauts landed right near what might be the only patch of orange soil on the surface-- "proof" of past volcanic activity? Maybe it oxidized back when the moon had an atmosphere? Both Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 found orange soil in different locations.... the moon must be loaded with the stuff. Or if it's unusual.... those astronauts must be lucky.

No, not in a warehouse. Most of it is in storage at the Johnson Space Center. Some of it gets sent out to researchers all around the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You "accept" the idea that the other fellow pops him up effortlessly without the slightest arm movement, because that is how it was explained away to you, and you choose to believe it... despite what your eyes and common sense tell you. You choose to ignore what you see and cling instead to a weak explanation that dodges the evidence right before your eyes. You've convinced-- you.

No. That is what it looks like. You can SEE the fallen astronaut's left arm on the right of the other astronaut. He pushes himself up in a manner that wouldn't be impossible in normal gravity and is only easier in 1/6 gravity. YOU choose to ignore what you see and cling instead to what some hoaxie site told you.

and AGAIN, if they had wires, why would they ever fall? To expand on the wires, what about when they cross over? How are those wires managed above them without getting tangled? When they go in and out of the LM when do they attach and detach it in the continuous video?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all could just use the ignore feature. If his audience dries up, he'll vanish in a puff of logic. Hopefully.

That would be AWESOME! Then YA AMAR and I could have a nice chat about it all....

You see? That's the whole point. She strolls in here and this little club of science thugs pounces upon her... A club is the perfect name for y'all because you are such zealots you abandon dignity and swarm anyone who would DARE question what you are so convinced about and so compelled to defend. Whatever. I wouldn't have even noticed this thread if it was for 3 or 4 pages of asinine postings about "Fake." The number of postings alone, made me look.

I could not give a fat fiddler's fart about the lunar landing. The point was to demonstrate what kind of lot you have here.

YA AMAR--- point proven. You see? It isn't you. It's them.

Edited by Jack Skellington
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. She strolls in here, asks questions, gets them answered and doesn't like the answers. you stroll in here, pull a gish gallop, ignore answers and prove yourself a troll. You've proven only that you are incapable of actual discussion.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. She strolls in here, asks questions, gets them answered and doesn't like the answers. you stroll in here, pull a gish gallop, ignore answers and prove yourself a troll. You've proven only that you are incapable of actual discussion.

Actually, she said she had suspicions that the Apollo landings were a hoax and didn't like the way she was asked to provide an example.

IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been no shortage of funding-- the money has just been spent on other things.

Yes, there's a shortage of money. No matter how much there is, there's always a shortage. As I said above, Nixon was trying to pay for the Vietnam War and social welfare programs. One way to help pay for them was to cut spending elsewhere. And the best thing about cutting NASA's funding was that not many voters would complain.

...if it was as easy as the US pretends it was, there is no economic reason not to have returned, or for the Russians (or Chinese) not to have gone themselves.

As mentioned, it wasn't easiness, it was, er, expensive-ness. That's a very good economic reason to not return. And, once again, it raises the question, if it was impossible to go to the Moon, why didn't the Soviets say so at the time?

Now, even 50 years after the faked landing, Russia is still planning to land men on the moon (for real) by 2030.

Oh, wait, now you're agreeing it's not impossible? Which is it?

The ISS will be mothballed in only 5 years time and the Russians will concentrate on manned missions to the moon, Mars and beyond. If the Russians could have got there sooner, they would have. If the Americans really could land men there for all the world to watch and bring them back again-- they would have.

So why didn't the Soviets reveal this and humiliate the Americans? I think it's reasonable to say that if the Soviets had proven back in the early to mid 1970s that NASA had faked Apollo, it would have dealt such a blow to American prestige that the Soviets would have won the Cold War.

The lunar landings never happened in the 60's and 70's and were technically impossible. To stage a landing on a production stage was technically difficult, but exponentially easier. Gullible people ate it up in those days, what's amazing is that folks today can't accept the idea that they were duped by their own government.

What, exactly, was technically impossible? Remember, you've already accepted the reality of Russians walking on the Moon in the near future.

Plus, how exactly do you fake footage like this from Apollo 16?

The astronauts move from 50-odd metres away until they actually pass behind the camera. As it's all done in one take, how do they simulate both the lower gravity and the effect of the vacuum on the soil they kick up across such a large space? Also note that the camera pans around so they show a lot more land than they need to.
It will be funny when Russia puts men on the moon and they walk around normally instead of bouncing about like little puppets on strings.

Yep, real funny.

NASA made mistakes.... photos that were duplicated, some showing landscapes with the lander in view, others the same landscape with no lander in view-- an impossibility.

No, it's not impossible. It's a distant background - like ten kilometres away. If you move 100 metres laterally that background will change only slightly while the foreground can change considerably.

You can test this for yourself by finding any large flat area with a distant hill or mountain range. Take a photo of the range with some fixed feature in the foreground. Move 100 metres to the side and take another photo; you'll have essentially the same background and a different foreground. I've done exactly that here in Canberra, where a road running past our airport is parallel to a range of hills a few kilometres away. There are some farm houses along the road, so it's easy to create photos with seemingly identical backgrounds and different foregrounds.

Rocks with "set stage lettering" on them, doctored photos with the crosshairs appearing behind images instead of over-layed as in all other photos. These mistakes the believers dismiss as anomalies or errors in editing--- why edit? Why hide original film and make it disappear before it can be scrutinized? This is the smell test. But NASA becomes the keykeeper and they release only what they themselves approve. If the evidence was solid, there is no need to shelter it.

Um, no editing of photos beyond standard development tricks that any professional photographer could identify. As others have pointed out, the "C" rock doesn't have a C on it in other photos on the same reel - it's a scanner artifact. The crosshairs only disappear behind bright white objects (like the stripes of the US flag) and are a phenomenon well known to professional photographers. Why not ask them?

I would respect you guys more if you would just man up and say you have faith in NASA. That despite not having seen the evidence yourselves, you just "believe" everything that NASA chooses to show you and everything they tell you. That I could respect. I don't believe them.

And you know what, just because I believe Apollo actually happened doesn't mean I believe NASA is up there with the angels. NASA is full of human beings, with all their failings. There are the people who told porkies to Congress about how frequently NASA would be able to launch Space Shuttle missions. There were the people who overruled the engineers at Morton-Thiokol and pushed for the Space Shuttle "Challenger" to be launched in unprecedented conditions. There were the people who ignored the danger of loose insulation until it doomed the Space Shuttle "Columbia". But yes, they made Apollo work.

I don't have faith in our government to be honest with us, not now, and certainly not back then with the geopolitical reality that was.

Just because some person at one agency lied does not mean all government agencies lie all the time. Look at each case on its merits.

Y'all can worship at the church of NASA-- I will not. I don't believe their falsified climate data either-- they serve an agenda now, and they did in the 60's as well.

And as I mentioned before, Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt agrees with you on that issue. Are you willing to agree with him on the reality of Apollo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several video "clips" of astronauts falling down, and popping back up without aid or using their arms or legs to right themselves.

Puppet on a string....

1. The suit was stiff, given it was pressurised to about 3.5 psi above ambient. So when you bent a limb you were fighting the suit's tendency to straighten up. To stand up you only had to get your weight over a bent knee and the suit did a lot of the work of standing you up as it straightened out.

2. The Moon's gravity is one-sixth that of the Earth's. Even with a spacesuit and backpack weighing as much as yourself, your muscles are only working to lift a weight effectively equal to one-third of your Earthly weight. That makes your legs very efficient at lifting. Why not set up a rig to counteract two-thirds of your own weight and see how easy it is to stand up?

3. Seriously, the astronaut on the ground grabs the right hand of the standing astronaut with his own left hand. Yes, it isn't obvious, but it's reasonably clear that's where his arm is going.

4. Be careful of your choice of allies. Do you realise that YouTube clip is created by someone who thinks NASA has sent astronauts to the Moon?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Ms Lilly... please respond specifically to the photographic trickery NASA used, referenced in this clip in it's entirety.

Why was this done? Pretty please? I promise to be polite if you please respond in kind and not in some passive aggressive manner.

If that's supposed to be footage of the Earth from Low Earth Orbit, why doesn't the cloud picture change? Compare it to any footage of the Earth taken from LEO and you'll see the view of the Earth constantly changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So NASA was technically able to get to the moon, but not able to fake going to the moon. Surely if they were capable of the one, the other would have been much easier, no?

How do you fake footage of astronauts moving in a low gravity vacuum for continuous takes of 30+ minutes with views stretching out kilometres in all directions?

You can fake the low gravity on a Vomit Comet - for about 30 seconds at a time - but not the vacuum.

You can create a vacuum in a vacuum chamber that's about 20 metres across - but not the low gravity.

You can create 30 minute continuous takes and views stretching kilometres in all directions somewhere out in the desert, but not the vacuum or the low gravity.

There's no way on Earth you can put all those four elements together in one go.

So no, faking this on Earth is much harder than doing it for real on the Moon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about the soil samples? There were supposed to be 400kg of rock brought back. That's almost 900 lbs of rock.... and where is it all?

Please pay attention. I've already told you. It's here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/

In a "where"-house?

*Golf applause*

Very nice.

Most of it is at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. And, again, as I mentioned before, here's a link to the page where you can request samples: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm

The moon is dull and gray and yet those lucky astronauts landed right near what might be the only patch of orange soil on the surface-- "proof" of past volcanic activity? Maybe it oxidized back when the moon had an atmosphere? Both Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 found orange soil in different locations.... the moon must be loaded with the stuff. Or if it's unusual.... those astronauts must be lucky.

Sorry, which Apollo 11 sample contained orange soil? Do you have the sample number?

Anyway, as geologists soon worked out, Moon rocks get blasted and bounced all over the place thanks to literally billions of years of meteoric impacts. Thus the mare Apollo 11 samples included tiny amounts of highland material. The orange soil found on Apollo 17 may have been concentrated at the point the astronauts found it, but it wouldn't be surprising if there were tiny amounts of orange dust all over the Moon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

giphy.gif

I just have to ask: what is it with you and gorillas - and now, apparently pandas???

:-P

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to ask: what is it with you and gorillas - and now, apparently pandas???

:-P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Gorilla + Panda = Bigfoot. Add in Unexplained Mysteries.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to ask: what is it with you and gorillas - and now, apparently pandas???

:-P

Cheers,

Badeskov

When I do my anthropological work I study gorilla.

Pandas are just adorable and I had that gif already or i would have tried to find one of a gorilla eating popcorn.

Gorilla + Panda = Bigfoot. Add in Unexplained Mysteries.

Gorilla + panda = most adorable and mist badass animal ever.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorilla + panda = most adorable and mist badass animal ever.

True, but not as majestic as a 'Ship of the Desert'.

*Queue 'Lawrence of Arabia' theme.*

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not give a fat fiddler's fart about the lunar landing. The point was to demonstrate what kind of lot you have here.

So... you're admitting that you've been just trolling this topic for no other reason....

YA AMAR--- point proven. You see? It isn't you. It's them.

than to impress a girl.........

:rolleyes:

Cz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but not as majestic as a 'Ship of the Desert'.

*Queue 'Lawrence of Arabia' theme.*

You mean **** of the desert?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.