NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

[Rhomphaia]

At least they aren't rambling about 9/11.

Anyway, I do not really see the point here.

Where are the Apollo landings going to be in fifty or 100 years? With the way I see things, a footnote in history, that's all. With that in mind, how do you guys know all this moon landing hoax stuff isn't a conspiracy by the American government to keep tooting its horn over the accomplishment and keep the event in people's minds?

[bathory]

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

LMAO. But so true.

[turbonium]

Everything is moving downward to the right.

850980[/snapback]

Look at your frames below. I have added blue arrows to show how there is a change in distance between the bottom of the black shade and the object below it. If this was only a camera moving, the relative distance between the two would not change. But it does change in each frame! By the third frame, the shade is even partially blocking our view of the top of the object. This shows movement where there should (according to you) be no movement.

Edited September 20, 2005 by turbonium

[DataCable]

I have added blue arrows to show how there is a change in distance between the bottom of the black shade and the object below it

The bottom edge in which color channel? In the 2nd frame, there are at least 4 separate edges, because that kinescope frame was expoed to at least 4 successive color fields: 2 greens (the 2nd a slightly shorter exposure than the first, which was the predominant green channel in the previous frame) and the red and blue fields between them. This is clearly evident in the broken colored lines on the "shade." Note the distance between the green lines is the same as the distance between the green "loops" you see as pulling the "shade" down.

The wishbone-shaped hilight (your "loops") is a light detail surrounded largely by darkness, so it is rather easily identified in off-register color channels. The rest of the kapton in the right half is more chaotic, so the distinction between color channels is easily lost.

[turbonium]

The bottom edge lowest in each frame. I highlighted the edges in yellow in the frames below. More to the relevant point - in the third frame, there is absolutely no space between the object and the shade. If you prefer, you can take your frames and put in where you think the edges should be - but you still won't resolve that difference in space between them, from the first frame to the third frame.

[Sunofone]

keep up the good work turbo!! im sure youve seen this page but i thought i would

remind everyone else about it here--essentially the "radiation" is the "bldg 7" of the apollo hoax

****************************************************************

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN TO PROVE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT WE ARE NOT BEING TOLD THE TRUTH  ABOUT THE NASA FILM FOOTAGE OF THE APOLLO MISSIONS. THIS WILL ASTOUND EVEN THE MOST HARDENED SCEPTIC AND CONVINCE MANY PEOPLE THAT THE WHOLE APOLLO MOON PROJECT OF THE LATE 1960's AND EARLY 70's WERE A COMPLETE HOAX. VIDEO LINKS ARE PROVIDED SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE  'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

This article was Updated on 11th September, 2005, to offer new evidence concerning NASA's current views on lunar radiation.

Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.  This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.'  It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe.

I would like to show you some astonishing evidence that shows glaring mistakes or anomalies on the 'official record' of NASA film footage and still photographs. I have included the actual official Apollo film footage on this page to illustrate and also possibly educate you, the reader, of the anomalies and to let you see with your own eyes what has become one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of Mankind. I will also explain why  the US Government has tried to keep this a secret for over 30 years.

I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation that is emitted by the Van Allen radiation belt!!! (readers may note that in the NASA section of this web site, we feature the alleged communications picked up by Ham Radio operators and also show pictures of UFOs allegedly taken during the Apollo Missions - Some readers have written saying that we are presenting two different arguments here because if Man never went to the Moon how did they capture UFOs around the Moon on film?  Let me restate that I do not claim that they never went, I believe that the footage released by NASA that is in the public domain today is not the original films! If you look at the other Apollo page, the majority of the UFO pictures are also taken in orbit - Man didn't have to land to take these pictures!)

But why would NASA and the United States bother to fake such an event and to what cause I hear you ask? Please read on and I will explain. Was man too optimistic about what we could actually do in deep space, and was President Kennedy's speech in May 1961 pressure enough to keep the hoax going?

David Percy is an award winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with Mary Bennett, of the fascinating book 'Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers' (ISBN 1-898541-10-8). The majority of the film footage on this page is taken from the film 'What Happened on the Moon?', a film that also features Percy and Bennett and one which I strongly recommend if you have an interest in the Apollo missions (details of how to purchase the video are at the bottom of this article). Percy firmly believes that the Apollo footage was either faked or not the original film that was shot on the Moon. He believes that many anomalous features that would alert the eagle eyed viewer, could have been placed in the films by whistle blowers who were deeply dissatisfied to be a part of the cover-up. He has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done. What many people did not realize at the time was that a lot of the footage was actually pre-recorded and not live at all.

_____________________________________________________________________

One of the biggest anomalies that appear on the Moon shots are the way in which shadows seem to be cast in totally different directions, even when the objects making the shadows are a mere few feet apart? A classic example can be viewed by clicking the  picture to the right. If the guy on the left was near a vertical rise of ground (as has been suggested) his shadow would show a definite 'crease' where the land begins to rise. It doesn't!

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him?

Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both. I truly believe that this footage is taken on a film set, you cannot reproduce this strange shadow phenomenon with natural light, and that includes taking into consideration two natural light sources (the Earth and Sun) as many sceptics would have you believe.

MUCH MUCH MORE!!!

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Edited September 21, 2005 by Sunofone

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

Good job copying and pasting for a change sunofone. All of the evidence you just posted has already been debunked.

[Sunofone]

Good job copying and pasting for a change sunofone. All of the evidence you just posted has already been debunked.

854456[/snapback]

nice job of informing us with reference links and details and not just spewing propaganda

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

How am I spewing propaganda? Everything you just posted HAS been debunked. I encourage you to look through the 34 pages dedicated to this thread.

[turbonium]

Hey Sun - thanks for the words. Good to see you touch back in on the moon hoax thread.

[DataCable]

One of the biggest anomalies that appear on the Moon shots are the way in which shadows seem to be cast in totally different directions, even when the objects making the shadows are a mere few feet apart?

Unavoidable in any photograph not taken directly cross-sun or from directly overhead... Like this one:

(photo: "AGN Fuel")

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him?

(emphasis mine, see below)

Like this.

Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both.

Ummm... the one casting the longer shadow is standing closer to the light source, which goes directly against the claim that the difference in shadow lengths is caused by relative distance from a nearby light source.

[MID]

nice job of informing us with reference links and details and not just spewing propaganda

It is easy to find the refutations of these rather ill-thought out points at Cosmic Conspiracies on the web. If you found that site, you can certainly find the volume of intelligent (and some, unfortunately not-so-intelligent) rebuttals / explanations that exist.

However, you don't need to go anywhere but Cosmic Conspiracies to find concise answers to these rather ill-thought out things they present. They have a forum, which has recently activated. And, some of the things on their site have been removed, and some have been re-written as a result.

They've got a lot of work to do on that mess, which is still filled with mis-interpretations, un-substantiated conclusions, complete fabrications, and taboid-esque writing.

But I think this thread doesn't have enought room to get into all of that!

Regards.

Edited September 25, 2005 by MID

[Alexander The Great]

I think your crazy to think that Apollo 12 was fake. That is the most paranoid and stupid thing I've ever heard. I mean, I'm only twevle (In 9th grade math though) and I know this whole page is absurd. People can just go to the limits.

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

You are twelve... Don't strut around the forums like you got it all figured out.

[Brillo]

You are twelve... Don't strut around the forums like you got it all figured out.

Hey 12, you ever hear of the Van Allen Belt? Look it up sometime, ok!

[MID]

I think your crazy to think that Apollo 12 was fake. That is the most paranoid and stupid thing I've ever heard. I mean, I'm only twevle (In 9th grade math though) and I know this whole page is absurd. People can just go to the limits.

Interesting. 12 years old, huh?

Oddly enough, I have recently had a discussion about this with a 13 year old "hoaxter" who was pretty smart.

I think it's very nice that you're in 9th grade math (whatever that is these days), but it is generally bad form to come out and and say "That is the most paranoid and stupid thing I've ever heard."

There is no paranoia here. There are people primarily discussing someone's interpretation of what the AS-12 video shows. It's interesting at best, but without supplying something of quantitative or qualitative substance to the discussion, it's likely that you'll get responses like the prior one by "lonely..."

[MID]

Hey 12, you ever hear of the Van Allen Belt? Look it up sometime, ok!

Or, my young 12 year old...you will get replies like this one!

Simplistic replies about things that have no relevance ...

Our Brillo friend obviously has the idea that the Van Allen belts made it impossible to go to the moon, one of the most tired and refuted aruements there is in the hoaxter's repetoire.

Perhaps he should look it up!

No one had any real concern about a quick trip through the Van Allen Belts as of the latter half of the 1960s. And of course, based upon the data from multiple doisimeters carried on all Apollo flights, no one ever received a dose of radiation that was ever fractionally close to the point where effects would be felt.

hmmm...

[MID]

keep up the good work turbo!! im sure youve seen this page but i thought i would

remind everyone else about it here--essentially the "radiation" is the "bldg 7" of the apollo hoax

****************************************************************

MUCH MUCH MORE!!!

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Well,

I'd say they've (Cosmic) made a slight improvement in their initial paragraph, as pertains to Kaysing, but the fact is he was a filer of technical papers, for which he needed no technical knowledge. And, it is apparent from his claims that he had little. He had nothing to do with research at Rocketdyne.

A 1959 estimate of the odds of landing a man on the moon is about as valuable as a 1959 estimate of the effects of Van Allen radiation on people passing through it. Both are valueless in light of the science that followed that time period.

Very few people "believed" that men could go to the moon in 1959. At that time, it was science fiction to the general public.

Citing Kaysing as an "authority" is one of the most irritating things hoaxters do. Kaysing left Rocketdyne (for reasons unknown) in 1963, during the time when Rocketdyne was having combustion problems with the F-1 engine. It was two years later when the F-1 received NASAs stamp of approval and a year after that when the engine was man-rated. All of this was "post-Kaysing". He has no knowledge of what was going on in its development, has no knowledge about the basics of spaceflight (or rocket engine operational characteristics), and carries an obvious chip on his shoulder. All that is necessary is to listen to the man, or read his book. His utter lack of basic knowledge is astounding.

QUOTE:

"I would like to suggest that if man did go to the moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that man could not travel to the moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near earth arbit within the safety of the earth's magnetic field..."

This somewhat ill-written sentence or so seems to be somewhat confusing in that he thinks the footage is bogus if we actually went, and at the same time says that "evidence" suggested that we couldn't have gone. One wonders, "which is it?"

Especially given the fact that the header of this page says, "...THE WHOLE APOLLO MOON PROGRAM OF THE LATE 1960s AND EARLY 1970s WAS A COMPLETE HOAX."

They esentially state both things, which is somewhat ridiculous.

Their actual position is that the films are bogus. They actually have no idea if we really went or not. They also attempt to interject alot of UFO stuff (meaning alien spacecraft sightings) into their page, which are irrelevant to the central point. They are, after all, a UFO web page. I have suggested that they should stick to UFOs.

Note: UFOs are common in spaceflight and in aviation, and have been referred to many times by crews. However, UFO is taken to mean precicely what the acronym stands for: Unidentified Flying Object. The reference to UFOs (pronounced Yoo-Foes) has absolutely no connection with alien spacecraft.

But your right, there is "much, much more" on this page. Much, much more unsubstantiated conclusion, utter fabrication (like their alleged conversations between Apollo crews and Mission Control) and mis-interpretation of completely normal photographic effects. There are also healthy doses of tabloid journalism and Kaysing-esque conclusions arrived at.

Take it for what it is.

Regards

[scoobysnack]

I'm sure some of you have seen this before, but it was new to me, and worth showing others. It's a video of some guy trying to get the astronauts to swear to God on a Bible that they walked on the moon. Very funny.

When Astronauts Attack!

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/ast...statements.html

(caution, astronauts use fowl language)

Edited January 12, 2006 by scoobysnack

[frenat]

I'm sure some of you have seen this before, but it was new to me, and worth showing others. It's a video of some guy trying to get the astronauts to swear to God on a Bible that they walked on the moon. Very funny.

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/ast...statements.html

That is Bart Sibrel. He is known for getting interviews under false pretenses, then shoving bibles at astronauts demanding they swear on it that they went to the moon. These astronauts are very aware of his practices. It is a no win situation. If they swear on it then he calls them liars and sinners and of course doesn't show anybody those tapes. If they don't, they are still called liars. If they try to get away, they have their path blocked by a rude man shoving them and calling them liars.

[Lilly]

.... If they try to get away, they have their path blocked by a rude man shoving them and calling them liars.

And sometimes they happen to shove the wrong astronaut! (The link above would not play for me...so I posted this one, I suspect it showed the same scene?)

Way to go Buzz! Clocking a 200 lb 'weenie', and as a 'senior citizen' no less!

Edited January 12, 2006 by Lilly

[RamboIII]

Well, I'm back to the Apollo moon hoax topic, as I promised, after receiving the new Apollo 12 dvd. And, it is, to put it simply, one gigantic cover-up job!! The folks at NASA and/or Spacecraft Films (who work closely with NASA) have taken their little editing tools to the original Apollo 12 footage!! If you've followed my previous threads on this, you know I've posted frames from the NASA website that appear to show a bare arm moving about while holding a metal rod, and other people pulling down a black shade or panel.

So I expected much clearer footage on the dvd, as it was transferred directly from the master tapes, according to the makers of the dvd. Uh Uh, DIDN'T HAPPEN! As a matter of fact, the footage has actually been purposely ruined through extreme pixelating of the critical part of the film, and also inserting lettering that covers the bottom part of the film!!

Here is a comparison of frame stills between the original NASA video as I recorded from their site, and the new (and manipulated) dvd version!! The dvd stills have the lettering on the bottom, the original video stills do not...

[attachmentid=15728][attachmentid=15729] [attachmentid=15731][attachmentid=15730]

The Arm has been DELIBERATELY over-pixelated to the point of creating a "double-knuckle" effect on the hand. And the people behind the black shade have been obliterated from view with mega-pixelation and superimposed lettering!

My suspicions have been confirmed. NASA is very aware of the anomalies in their video, and have manipulated the evidence which proves Apollo was a GIGANTIC HOAX!!

What kind of an american are you?? :angry2: You should be disgraced to believe that we did not land on the moon. There is tons of evidence saying we did and there is a website that i shall find out the name of later that shows how all theories saying we did not land are false.

[RamboIII]

just read this page and you will understand everything, even how the shadows are going in different directions ( it is caused by light reflecting off the moon dust which will form a cloud like object when the sooil is disturbed, whiich is not very often...)

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[MID]

just read this page and you will understand everything, even how the shadows are going in different directions ( it is caused by light reflecting off the moon dust which will form a cloud like object when the sooil is disturbed, whiich is not very often...)

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Well...let's step back a moment.

The Apollo situation is complex enough without people making statements that don't exactly ring true.

Bad Astronomy has some pretty decent articles and comments, but there have been a few things they could've explained better.

Shadows going in different directions, for instance...I'm not sure where you got your information regarding lunar dust...but:

The situation you speak of has absolutely nothing to do with light reflecting off of moon dust "which will form a cloud like object when the soil is disturbed".

Moon dust (let's call it lunar surface soil) does not form clouds, or cloud like objects at all in a vacuum...which the moon happens to have (virtually). It cannot, since dust clouds require some atmospheric constituent (like air) which will suspend and circulate particles.

The supposed phenomenon of shadows in different directions was caused by a couple of common effects, readily observed on earth photos. Primary was the fact that many of the photos showing these non-parallel shadows were assembled panoramae, which had better show non-parallel shadows (if not, temporal reality has changed beyond recognition), and angular photographs taken of shadows projecting on curved surfaces is another one.

These can all be observed on Earth photos as well.

But I agree with you, Apollo of course happened, just as we said it did. There is not one photographic representation in the thousands of Apollo lunar surface pictures that represents anything but natural 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional situations (i.e., natural photographic representations).

Regards.