New article on Apollo fakery

[graflok]

An interesting read:

http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

[hugolast]

cool, thanks

[mephibosheth]

The argument on the depth of field or lack thereof is the most compelling to me. Of course it's ludicrous to think these astronauts in bulky environment suits were bouncing around the lunar landscape taking absolutely perfect photgraphs.

8)

[ytch]

Sounds reasonable,
and makes some good points.

[jamesc]

http://jayweidner.com/images/image022.png



And you will see, before this article is finished, that this same fingerprint, this same evidence, is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and video footage.

It is this fingerprint that reveals, not only that NASA faked the Apollo missions but also HOW they faked them.

Let's examine a few NASA Apollo images now.



This is a still from Apollo 17. This is also a great example of the Front Screen Projection process.



Again I have photo-shopped a line indicating the back of the set. One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the rover, which is hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus from the lunar rover to the mountains in the background, there is a strange change in the landscape of the ground right behind my lines. This is because the photo of the mountains being used on the Front Projection system has a slightly different ground texture than the set. As we go on we will see that this fingerprint is also consistent throughout the Apollo images.




http://jayweidner.com/images/image020.png



This Front Screen Projection process that he is explaining would have been fully understood or sussed out by a man like Kuberick, no doubt about it.He also makes very good points on as to WHY Kuberick would do this.

[purdx]

Those pictures just stick out like a sore thumb. Really good article, well spotted

[phantom]

Did we really land Men on the Moon?

Click the image below.

http://1.gvt0.com/ThumbnailServer2?app=vss&contentid=a00f96dd691f5d21&offsetms=275000&itag=w160&hl=es&sigh=dxs0v3vUM9wPf6kBF-td0ZdJYpo (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2265515730495966561)

[jamesc]

For comment from you guys.

First Easy Proof the Moon Landing was a Hoax.

Humans, weighing some 70 kgs, leave deep footprints.

The lunar lander weighing 6,531 kgs (supposedly 14,696 kgs when fully fueled) doesn't leave any visible footprint.

QED (End of Proof)

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/uploads/2009/06/nasa-as11-40-5917.jpg

The footpads did not only have to support the static weight of the lander without sinking into the dust, but they had to bring the lander to a halt after its "descent to the moon".

The impact force is many times the weight of the lander. Yet the lander hardly sinks into the dust. In fact, the footpad appears to be on a little mound of dirt and to have not left a footprint at all.

And, courtesy of the U.S. national hoax association,... NASA,... we bring you

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5917.jpg

the original NASA photo itself.

From hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5917.jpg

Second Easy Proof the Moon Landing was a Hoax:

There is no dust/debris on the lander footpad.

QED (End of 2nd Proof)

Initially, I thought that the dust could never gather on the footpads. I figured that the fact that the moon has no atmosphere meant that the rocks and dust would be blown directly away from the lander and would thus never end up on the footpad.

However, this is wrong for two reasons:

1) The dust and rocks on the moon are very light (they weigh one seventh what they would on Earth). This means that the actors (astronauts) would have kicked up large amounts of dust and small rocks, and some of this would have certainly ended up on the footpads.

2) There was, a short lived, but real, local atmosphere produced by the rocket exhaust gases.

The point is that the exhaust gases are being produced at such a rate that they cannot all readily escape horizontally and are thus forced up, and above, the lander. This also adds to the probablity that some of the rocks and dust ends up on the footpads.

The fact that no rocks or dust ended up on the footpad, is just more evidence that the whole thing was faked.

Third Easy Proof the Moon Landing was a Hoax:

The dust under (and around) the lander has not been blown away by the rocket engine.

QED (End of 3rd Proof)

To see what a jet engine (at idle, since the plane does not move) does to a car that gets in caught in its exhaust, watch the animated GIF or video found at:

http://guardian.ifastnet.com/pentagon/small/jet-blast.htm

I reckon that would move a bit of dust.

Well spotted, never thought to look into the total lack off lander pad prints in the moon surface.:eek:As you say surely the weight of the lander and also the impact on the moons surface would generate enough force to leave lander pad imprints on the moons surface.Its looking like this could possibly be a very elaborate and very intelligent hoax or cover up to hide the real landings and what the Apollo astronauts really discovered on the moon and also what technology they used to get there and back.Could the possibility of the moon mirror reflectors having either been put there by one of the unmanned moon probes in 67 or genuinely put there by the astronauts on the real landings be the smoking gun here??The mirrors got there some how, no doubt about it but when did they??:cool:

[disorder2k8]

I read somewhere (a long time ago, so sorry not being able to remember where)
that this semi-faked theory was very accurate.

The story I read was from the point of a TV network producer, he stated that essentially what we saw on TV was on a set, and was pretty much 'Plan B' but only because the trajectory from the receiver to the moon was in the wrong place (Earths relative position compared to the moon, the moon was on the other side and wouldnt be around for about 6 hours) and they needed the story/shots to go out at a certain time which they had picked. when this time was getting closer and they realised they wernt going to get a signal they went ahead and did the fake one.


As with the no pad prints thing, Eh? Whats the pole underneath then.. maybe its propping up the pads so they dont sink ! Like you know, spreading out the weight. That theory confuses me, not because i'm stupid, but because it doesnt make any sense. The pole is making the print and the pads are sitting on the pole !?

Also the only difference between the two images is its brightness.

[disorder2k8]

I made my own analysis of the presented Apollo image and found cross shaped water marks in the top half of the image.

The top is also blurred, and has grey shadows while the foreground has black shadows.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa63/Disorder2k7/image020new-1.png