If Moon Landing Proved Fake - You're Reaction...??

it cant be faked!!! mythbusters made exact copies of the moon movies right here on earth!!!! which proves that the original movies must of been made on the moon!!!! for some reason!!!!!

Incorrect. In a thread here back in perhaps 2006 or earlier the actual bid specification from 1964 and NASA budget line-item for the video delay system used during Apollo was posted.

This was the system that produced the "beep" every time there was motion into the video frame and was to be used if 'something' happened to the astronauts while on the moon. We had no digital video back then so analog delay was necessary to block the video feed if an astronaut died.

Hhhmmm... I guess I have lurked here for quite some time.

I'm trying to search for that thread now, maybe someone that has better recall of it may have better search results if you'll help please.

Why would all those people have to be in on it? Say for example Apollo 11 only orbited the Moon but did not actually land. How would the dozens of factory workers who made some parts for the rocket know that?

With all do respect we are still flying planes designed that long ago. Case in point the B-52 and U2

Of course they faked it. Use your brains.

There was never a minute, were I believed this fairytale and I never will.

My reaction? "Finally".

how about "flying to the moon"?

Color television killed the man in the moon.

The USA already had a satellite ready to launch when the Russians were launching Sputnik.

But unlike Sputnik which only had a radio that went "beep beep", the American's satellite actually had a camera built for spying.

Because of the Gary Powers U2 incident, the USA did not want to be caught having a camera in space above the Soviet Union.

So, they let the Russians launch Sputnik first, and let them fly it over the USA, without complaining, thus establishing the precedent that it is OK to fly a satellite above anther country.

Then, with the excuse that "the Russians sent their satellite above our country so we can send ours above them", the USA launched the satellite with the spy camera above the Soviet Union.

Getting extra funding from taxes of millions of citizens who were duped into thinking that USA was behind in the Space Race and needed the cash to catch up was a bonus.

Why Don't you just go just Lurk some more and keep your thoughts to yourself and take your moniker of Ted Danson with you. Ted was a horrible actor and sided with whoopi who has been selling out America!

Well 2 pages and still haven't heard what I was looking for which is how the diehard NASA fanboys on here would react if they discovered the landings were faked.

On a personal level I feel it's possible we went but the footage was faked I also believe there is some type of presence on the moon which is clearly evident in the Lunar Orbiter archive. I have been a contributor to the Lunar Anomaly group on FB for 5 years now and I can tell you without doubt t the moon is not just rocks and dust.

Also if it were faked then the illuminati would most likely be behind the deception which would explain why there is an eye of horus clearly visible on a rock in one of the official photos. I posted that a while back and of course got shunned here...

Whatever they seem to have landed on whether it the moon or a studio... I am totally convinced that the narrative as it sits is misdescribed... So if it hit the news tomorrow that we never went or it was not like what we were told/shown I would just shake my head and say to myself...yep !

Yes, there is something fishy about it. Parts were real, and parts were fake. How much was faked, and for what reason, is the question.

But, let us say for the sake of example that they went to the Moon in Apollo 11 and discovered something alien.

Continuing this example, let us say that next month they announce that they never went.

So then people will then say "we knew it all along, the photos look fake", blah blah. And in this example, the photos were really faked.

But the reason they were faked in this example is not because they didn't go, but because they wanted to hide the evidence of aliens. So they have still not revealed the truth; they just changed the story.

The point is, how will you ever know what the truth was? If they lied about something the first time, how do you know they will tell the entire truth the next time?

computers are cheaper but faster processing doesn't get more mass to orbit. Rockets are still largely the same and still expensive

No, he did not ever claim three feet of shielding required.
That is a hoaxie lie. similar to the hoaxie lie that the Russians claimed the same thing. There is no evidence of either. Van Allen did say early on that shielding would be necessary (but never said 3 feet) and as they learned more about the belts, and their composition and location, they designed a trajectory and shielding appropriate for that trajectory.

If someone lies about something, there has to be a reason for it. So, what reason would there be for lying about going to the moon?

And IF they're lying about that, why lie about the moon landing? If I were to lie about making it into outer space, might as well make it the biggest and most unbelievable lie that could possibly be made. Why not lie about landing on the sun? Or maybe they could lie about making it to a far, far galaxy where they interacted with an alien species.

Really now, if I were to make up a lie, I'd want it to be something really spectacular. Landing on the moon, something that we can see on a clear night with the naked eye, just doesn't seem glamorous enough for me.

So, that tells ME they're not lying, that it's not fake.

What makes you believe otherwise?

Look at the lunar surface photographic record, the whole thing is fake. How do I know? The entire backdrop and lunar surface is in greyscale, black and white. The only color evident is in the artificial objects.
We know this is not how the lunar surface would really look, and that there would be several colors visible in many shades .

This is the best evidence to date that has never been debunked or even taken a shot at.

They will attack me , however.

that surely is the elephant in the room... I would say that the biggest reason would be to feed into the narrative that were a small fish in the large pond , rather than the only pond and we are limited.. its kind of like everything God has satan has his counterfeit, its a lot easier to convince people of aliens with the vastness of space than it is within a closed system...

And we cleaned out the closet and threw away every shred of data and documentation of the greatest scientific achievement in the history of mankind.

This is one of the most interesting studies on the moon surface using parallax and 3d stereoscopic methodology..

[link to www.aulis.com]

snippet:

Stereoscopic method of verifying the Apollo lunar images
by OLEG OLEYNIK

Up until now, there is a non-stop debate: "Did Americans go to the moon?" The main arguments of Apollo sceptics are as follows:

1 Technical: In the 60s it was next to impossible successfully accomplish all stages of the missions: three astronauts taking off; command and service module (CSM) translunar injection and coast; lunar orbit Insertion; Lunar Module (LM) descent and landing; lunar surface operations and carrying out prolonged EVA far from LM; lunar surface ascent, rendezvous and CSM docking; transearth injection, coast and Earth atmosphere re-entry. Even by today's standards any of these stages is a difficult task, and some of them have no resolution so far. It is believed that NASA would be unable to resolve all technical problems in just eight years without having any previous similar experience. This is confirmed by the recently canceled program returning to the moon "Constellation".

2 Motivational: A national disgrace of lagging U.S. Space Program; The competition between American and Soviet lunar programs or the Space Race of the two states, and the government's promise that an American citizen first sets foot on the Moon. Expected political and reputational dividends from successful moon missions of unprecedented complexity.

3 Consequential: ungrounded cancellation of the scheduled Apollo missions and the lack of business plans of the Moon development within 40 years. If the cost of a moon mission was about $400 million (including $185 million — cost of the Saturn V booster and $95 million — Apollo spacecraft) and the present annual NASA budget of nearly $20 billion, then why are there no any moon missions and reopening of the Apollo program? Instead an entirely new moon program Constellation (recently cancelled) is proposed. A new spacecraft Orion is being built and the moon landing in the years 2024-2027 is suggested with a total budget of more than $200 billion. Why does it take two times longer to repeat what was already accomplished 40 years ago, although for the past decades we have seen continuous improvement of technology, in some industries even exponential?

4 The human factor (a main aspect). The absence of psychological training for the astronauts landing on the Moon. Earth satellite Moon is an unearthly world. Its psychological and physical effects on the human body are unknown and have not been studied. Because the Moon is the first step of mankind from the cradle of Mother Earth into space. Astronautics has yet to solve this problem.

5 Evidential: photos are positioned as one of the most compelling evidence. "Images and videos speak for themselves". One of the first who saw absurdity in the moon images was Ralph Rene. Later, pictures were analyzed by photo experts David Percy, David Groves and researcher Mary Bennett.

Surely you can't be that naive?

Lawyers, politicians, military, and business executives lie if it is to their advantage, tell the truth if it is to their advantage, and tell half truth/half lies most of the time.

That's exactly what I'm saying. IF they're lying, why? What do they hope to gain by doing so. I see no reason for it. Hence, I've come to the conclusion that it really did happen.

Lots of reasons. Here is one scenario out of many:

Kennedy learned from Eisenhower that the Military Industrial Complex had advanced tech that they were keeping out of reach of both the common military and the public.

Kennedy proposed to go to the Moon before the end of the decade, knowing that it was not feasible with common rocket technology, hoping to force the advanced tech into the public.

With Kennedy out of the way, Johnson and Nixon proceed to cooperate with the MIC in keeping the advanced tech hidden, while at the same time creating a "cash cow" by attempting to reach the Moon with rocket technology which needed to be developed in an accelerated "price is not a concern" program.

In that way, the taxpayers are duped into funding welfare programs for the big aerospace companies, while at the same time bolstering the economy by providing jobs, purchases of raw materials, etc, as is typical with such programs.

The MIC gets to keep their tech hidden, the people feel patriotic by sponsoring the race to the Moon, the astronauts become heroes, everyone is happy, etc, etc.

and totally wrong.

from another forum

So a researcher goes off to create a new technique for visualizing parallax, applies it to one toy example, and then proceeds to use that method to "invalidate" the Apollo photographs -- and only they.

He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography). Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.

He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.

He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.

In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.

Except Kennedy only announced it after NASA told him it was possible.

On my timeline they only pulled the "landed on the moon" hoax one time; but on this timeline they lied about the moon mission at least six times. Does anyone else recall only one moon landing also?

its been proved fake to anyone wiht an ounce of gray matter and a lil time to investigate it.

my "theory" is they used the appollo program as cover to load nukes into orbit, many nukes

INB4 AstroMut

2 space programs

Trig, Geometry and physics are invented as well, there are many valid aspect to their invention. This is all very sound work based on available info, If the control improves...such as being able to return to the site or get a probe up there taking pics of the regions in question,,, till then yours is as good as this, but then we are dealing in opinions and belief, till we know for sure...and we will, then we shall agree to disagree...

I mean how is it we never tossed a spike with a 360 deg cam up there... maybe get some nice panoramas of the landing site with flags n all :)