The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

I also recommend checking out Clavius Moon Base, though the best debunking for me was, funnily enough, browsing NASA's own extensive records of the missions available online, including pretty much every mission photograph in high resolution.

People who believe these missions (or some subset of them?) were hoaxed are living in a bubble of their own creation. They're not living in the real world. I dare say they are probably a little mentally ill, though maybe not severely enough that they can't function outside of an institution. They're just somewhere on that spectrum..

 

MythBusters was an attempt at damage-control by the government. They tried to obfuscate the hoax proof. The people who did MythBusters knew the missions were faked.

Here's some stuff about MythBusters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ajIVmGiQE

Clavius is also an attempt at damage-control by the government. Here's some stuff about the Clavius site.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8940846&postcount=5

The people who post on the Clavius forum are professional sophists who know the moon missions were faked.

The webmaster of the Clavius site (Jay Windley) is a professional sophist who knows the moon missions were faked.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

See above links for some info about Jay Windley.

Some of the links in post #1 of this thread are dead and I can't edit the post so here's a link to an updated list.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

 

Here's one more I forgot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M

 

scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c



massive fail,once again,you've given opinion,not fact.

 

I tried to make a post on this page.
http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

This is the post.

A note came up that said the post would have to be approved by a moderator before it could appear. Two days later it still hasn't appeared. If there were no censorship on sites like that, the pro-Apollo posters would get eaten for lunch. With their censorship they can make it look like the pro-Apollo posters are winning the debate.

 

Why in the world would a privately owned site want to have NO censorship? Think about it. That is a family friendly site. Without some kind of censorship you would have absolute chaos. It would be worse than GLP. No, what you mean is you don't want them to censor YOU. Why don't you say what you really mean instead of dancing around the subject and playing games?

For the record, you set yourself up to fail. Posted on a mythbusters fan site insulting the mythbusters as your very first post is the mark of a troll. It has nothing to do with censorship if your post doesn't show up and everything to do with the forum moderation cutting off a troll before he starts. Your little "test"was doomed to fail from the start. Nothing like stacking the deck in your favor, right? A truly objective test would be to be an established member of the forum having posted on a variety of topics and then trying to post your little rigged test. But that wouldn't get the result you want would it? Plus, I doubt you CAN post on a variety of topics. You're really just a one-trick pony aren't you? I'm going to make a "psychic" prediction and say you STILL won't get this. Prove me wrong.

 

You know what would be funny?

30-40 years from now when Richard Branson is offering space tourism on the Moon....and kidnap a guy like "Scott" and take him to the Sea of Tranquility, stand him front of Armstrong's flag and say

"Think this is a studio in the desert? Fine.....take your helmet off."

 

He'd insist it had been set up there after the fact specifically to maintain the hoax.

 

http://letsrollforums.com/apollo-moon-hoax-wagging-t28489.html

 

Thanks for the humor break! Dave McGowan's stuff is hilarious! Amazing how he proves with every sentence that he knows absolutely nothing about orbital mechanics, multi-stage rockets, thermodynamics, physics, photography, etc. and refuses to even try to learn. Even more hilarious that people fall for his crap.

 

No problem. I couldn't even make it through the first one before I was like "TL;DR". Thought I'd share though. Glad you got some lolz out of it.

 

Sorry if I sounded too sarcastic there.

 

There's some hoax proof that's too clear to obfuscate such as the way the flag moves without being touched when the astronaut trots by it. There's also the way Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon. Both of those anomalies can be seen at the top of this page.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

 

spurious 'anomolies' scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c

 

Oh, you're fine. I didn't take it as it was directed towards me. I believe these things should be ridiculed.

 

I'm curious - prior to having it all explained here in this thread, did you find the "evidence" about non-parallel shadows, not being able see stars, and all that other stuff remotely compelling? Obviously you know now that whoever is making these claims is either lying or incompetent because they are just plain wrong. But why would you trust the other stuff they claim, even if it seems reasonable to you?

(edit) I just watched that first clip of the flag. Are you seriously claiming that there's something off about the motion of the flag, something that could only be explained by the presence of an atmosphere? I'm kind of at a loss for words - there's nothing unusual in that clip at all.

 

First of all let me say that I have no doubt that the Moon landings were genuine, and that I fail to see what anyone would gain by attempting fakery on such a gigantic-and costly-scale. Now, having said that, I'm intrigued by the obvious anomalies I have noted-for example the cross-hair registration marks on photographs taken on the Moon which are partially obscured by the subject, when they clearly should appear on top. Also shadows appearing to fall in two directions, the flag waving in the 'breeze' etc. I'm sure there must be a rational explanation. Perhaps someone could clear this up for me?

 

1: the crosshair registration marks don't appear on the light colored objects because the nature of developing film,to get usable pictures,they have to develop it longer and this can lead to fine lines like the crosshair 'filling in'

2:shadows fall in different directions because the sun isn't the only light source in the pictures...the lunar surface is
And the flag 'waving in the breeze' was just the wires in the flag flexing

 

to expand on that some, the crosshairs only disappear on the low res pics. They are still visible on the high res. They also only disappear on bright, sunlit, white surfaces. My favorite example of this is the crosshair that is on a flag and is only missing on the white stripes but not the red. unless of course you think the white stripes were pasted in.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one. The lunar surface is a light source but not enough for the shadows I think he's talking about. The vast majority of shadows can be explained with perspective and terrain. They should only appear parallel if looking at a flat surface from directly above. Otherwise they will appear to converge or diverge depending on where the sun is. What we don't see is multiple shadows on any one object which we would have to see if there were more than one light source.

 

True enough,I was thinking of the astronauts being illuminated in the shadow of the lunar lander

 

good point. In that case there is a lot of reflected light from the surface and from the suit of the other astronaut who was standing in the sun while taking the pictures (in most cases). In that case if one looks close you can see multiple shadows on some parts of the lander.

 

There's some very clear proof of fakery that makes the issues you're discussing moot.


At the 20:45 time mark of this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIy8ZqqK5G8

...we can see that, when the speed is doubled, the movement looks just like earth movement.

There's also the flag that moves without being touched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU

This video shows that it started moving before he got close enough to touch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

There's also this video that shows the flag movement was consistent with movement in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

At bottom of this page there's a picture of the astronaut's visor that has in it the reflection of what looks like some kind of studio light.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_9.html


You people are using this tactic.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
----------------------------
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
----------------------------

 

No reason to do that to you Scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c,et al...Your position is already ridiculous and beyond the scope of good sense.

 

you've brought this particular picture up before and were told before that the SAME EXACT thing appears in the SAME EXACT position in multiple other pictures proving it can not be a reflection. It is just a smudge on the visor. There is even a previous picture showing the astronaut touching that spot which is likely when the visor was smudged. Why do you persist with a lie?

 

Please explain exactly what you are trying to achieve, by yet again repeating claims that have already been addressed. It is of no concern to anybody whether you are smart enough to understand them, or have the inkling to respond to them. Your behaviour is extremely odd given that you have been repeating this process for something approaching 6 years now.

You just don't seem to understand what the word 'proof' means. It is not stuff that convinces you personally, but evidence that will convince experts and laymen alike. Your claim that anybody who disagrees with your quite appalling repetitious posts, is a recruited member of NASA are preposterous. The reason almost every single person online disagrees with you, is that you are hopelessly wrong, whilst you armwave away vast swathes of evidence, paying no heed or offering anything like a coherent explanation for it.

This is spam. It must be so long since you actually watched this bunkum you have the wrong time stamp. There is nothing at that time backing up your claim and when you are given footage that does not look right speeded, up you armwave it away.

He brushed it with his arm.

A video CRT blooming effect or ground vibration causing the recently affixed support pole to settle. Evidence provided to you, shows quite clearly that the pole itself shifts right, as do parts of the ground!

Your opinion, repeated to excess, carries no weight. The movement is consistent with a vacuum and reduced gravity. It will never sink in to your oddly wired conspiracy brain, that you are wrong, you simply have made up your mind and refuse point blank to entertain more obvious and simpler explanations.

You are a very dishonest person. You act as though this hasn't been exhaustively addressed conclusively!

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/apollo-12-smudge-on-visor.html

"Some kind of studio light being a Fresnel, as suggested by the image. Once again your capacity for research is below hopeless, or you just haven't got around to amending your standard cut and paste forum post.

For many reasons this contention is simply wrong:-

1. A spotlight would not show up against a dark background in a visor when it was switched off. If there was sufficient light to illuminate it, the cables and lighting rig to support it would also show up.

2. The "flaps" are known in the lighting industry as "barn doors". According to the visor, these barn doors are longer than the width of the light! That is not how these lights are made. The barn doors are used to limit light spillage, but why would you do that, when the objective would be to light as much as possible? A fresnel without barn doors would always be used, but obviously would be nowhere near bright enough for the job. Makes no sense.

3. There are no pictures in the Apollo records where a spotlight, capable of lighting only a small area, is apparent. Always we have a single shadow, crisp and dark, and a fully evenly lit terrain, so why would such a light even be suggested as necessary?

4. Should such a light be used as a fill light, there would be washed out and multiple shadows.

5. Having a light at eye level on a wide angled shot with distance perspective and a low angled Sun is simply a ludicrous suggestion.

6. The reflection suggests a fresnel light that is absolutely enormous in size. A 180 degree visor reflection would show even the largest fresnel as really small. I cite the size of the so called "superlight", not much different in apparent size as the "fresnel". Fail.

The so called "studio light" is in fact a simple mark on the visor, located at the point where Conrad would push his visor up, or pull it down. A similar mark is seen on several other of the EVA pictures. Since the picture used is the only front-on shot, the other pictures with the same mark, only show a partial of this smudge on the visor. Here is a small compilation of 3 side shots that show the "barn doors" attributed to the "studio light".



They appear in the same place on the visor, over multiple different angles, and the mark is the same shape on all pictures. Clearly, it is a smudge on the visor.


Here are the ALSJ links to examine the numerous pictures with the smudge:-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6919HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7074HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7133HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7134HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7307HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7308HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7309HR.jpg